Slashdot Mirror

American Heritage
Homicide
http://www.answers.com/homicide

1. The killing of one person by another.
2. A person who kills another person.

Murder
http://www.answers.com/murder

1.The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice.

Merriam-Webster
Homicide
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/homicide
1 : a person who kills another
2 : a killing of one human being by another

Murder
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/murder
1.The crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought

I need to practice my spelling, you need a better dictionary. I'd rather be in my position than in yours.

American Heritage
Homicide
http://www.answers.com/homicide

1. The killing of one person by another.
2. A person who kills another person.

Murder
http://www.answers.com/murder

1.The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice.

Merriam-Webster
Homicide
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/homicide
1 : a person who kills another
2 : a killing of one human being by another

Murder
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/murder
1.The crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought

I need to practice my spelling, you need a better dictionary. I'd rather be in my position than in yours.

Patent protection is not necessary to have an "effective" copy prevention mechanism. So we'll just discount that one off the bat.

No; however, it is one way to "require a process with the authority of the copyright owner to gain access to the work." Which is my point; in the context of the DMCA, "effective" does not mean what the dictionary says it does; it only means what the Law says it does. (Welcome to the Wonderland of Law.) Patent and trade secret would seem to be two ways for protection to qualify.

If you believe an alternate interpretation is more appropriate, please elaborate on your understanding of the DMCA's definition of "effective" in 17 USC 1201.

Why didn't the CCA go for the kill? They would have had a much stronger case than trade secret protection.

My guess is that lawyers are a cautious bunch. They do not want an explicit ruling saying CSS does not qualify as an "effective" tool, which would be an obvious defense if they attempted a direct DMCA charge. Ergo, they tried for the lower risk maneuver of trying trade secret law first.

On the other hand, CSS did at one point qualify as a trade secret. However, due to reverse engineering, it has since lost its secrecy — as the judge eventually ruled. If they had won the case on a trade secrets basis, they could have gotten court orders so that anyone who used, uploaded, or downloaded the DeCSS code via US network computers (and possibly other jurisdictions) to cease&desist, and possibly even gotten them to forfeit the computer they used to do it.

Trade secrets law allowed for a possibly bigger win, and would not make a loss completely final. This is also probably why they dropped the case when they did; with that ruling, appeals would risk some other judge adding "CSS is ineffective" to the ruling -- which (in the dictionary sense) is pretty much what they were told by the cryptographic experts they consulted when they were developing the standards.

As it stands right now, the CSS system has not been declared ineffective. So anyone who dares to violate it does so at their own risk.

Correct. However, I(AmNotALawyer) argue that such a case looks very possible, as the DVD-CCA's position has been badly weakened, and that the DVD-CCA risk that if they have to bring a case. And, given the nature of the modern business world, and the nature of corporations to try anything for a profit that they can at least argue is legal (until it's explicitly ruled otherwise)... I suspect it's only a short matter of time before someone tries.

Just say "Irregardless? That's not even a real word.

usage Irregardless originated in dialectal American speech in the early 20th century. Its fairly widespread use in speech called it to the attention of usage commentators as early as 1927. The most frequently repeated remark about it is that "there is no such word." There is such a word, however. It is still used primarily in speech, although it can be found from time to time in edited prose. Its reputation has not risen over the years, and it is still a long way from general acceptance. Use regardless instead.

None. Here's what M-W says about kazillion.
(After linking to the root entry...)
Obviously you're joking, but we don't want young minds confused by the homophones: "Google" (a big company) and "googol" (a large number: one followed by 100 zeroes.)

Further, in advance of the next question, No, homophones are not headsets for gays. 8)

None. Here's what M-W says about kazillion.
(After linking to the root entry...)
Obviously you're joking, but we don't want young minds confused by the homophones: "Google" (a big company) and "googol" (a large number: one followed by 100 zeroes.)

Further, in advance of the next question, No, homophones are not headsets for gays. 8)

http://m-w.com/dictionary/business

Can anyone give me a valid reason why games like this should even be produced?

Do we really need this kind of reckless abandon in our games?

with the great majority of people suffering more and more mental illnesses for whatever reason, do you want someone already on the edge to have this material?

It is because this kind of mislabeling, claiming anything that aims to scare people to be "terrorism", that is so easy for governments all over the world to take away everyone's rights with the excuse of combating it.

Check the etymology of the world, to understand that terrorism must both be systematic and, as the root of the word implies, terrifying.

Here's webster's definition:

the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion.

Of course, if you prefer to use the White House's definition, you'll get

?activities that involve violent? or life-threatening acts? that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State and? appear to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and? (C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States? [or]? (C) occur primarily outside the territorial jurisdiction of the United States?"

Of course, the United Kingdom's definition is also quite useful in arguments, since subsection (1)(b) states

the use or threat is designed to influence the government or to intimidate the public or a section of the public, and

Of course, one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter, as the saying goes. I don't have Iran's definition of terrorism to hand, but I think it's safe to assume that it would be very handy in certain types of debates too :)

You're the one making value judgements about monopolies here. Sometimes limited monopolies serve a purpose. This may or may not be one of those times. That's a good question to debate. What's not up for debate is the fact that copyright constitutes a monopoly on a given product. Yes Apples are commodities, copies of Nine Inch Nails "Year Zero" are a commodity too. Exclusive control to produce and distribute them is granted to Reznor['s label].

Why don't you read this guide from the Georgia board of regents? Here's a few good bits: "Since copyright is the grant of a limited monopoly in recorded knowledge...", "the copyright statute regulates the copyright monopoly it grants in order to maintain an appropriate balance between the rights of copyright holders and the rights of users;" "To summarize, copyright law means that: (1) copyright is a monopoly that provides authors the right to sell copies of their work; (2) the monopoly is regulated in the public interest"

This is from an institution trying to give its professors sound legal advice to keep them out of trouble. Not open source hippies. The fact is, copyright is a government granted monopoly. It is most definately not a natural right.

likewise, i wouldn't expect the chinese to post the pics, but people like you and me, individuals who would probably *not* face worse fates....

Definition of rebellion :

1 : opposition to one in authority or dominance
2 a : open, armed, and usually unsuccessful defiance of or resistance to an established government b : an instance of such defiance or resistance

I don't think I can rebel against something that is not "in authority or dominance" over me. I may, however, be able to sabotage or subvert it.

likewise, i wouldn't expect the chinese to post the pics, but people like you and me, individuals who would probably *not* face worse fates....

Definition of rebellion :

1 : opposition to one in authority or dominance
2 a : open, armed, and usually unsuccessful defiance of or resistance to an established government b : an instance of such defiance or resistance

I don't think I can rebel against something that is not "in authority or dominance" over me. I may, however, be able to sabotage or subvert it.

likewise, i wouldn't expect the chinese to post the pics, but people like you and me, individuals who would probably *not* face worse fates....

Definition of rebellion :

1 : opposition to one in authority or dominance
2 a : open, armed, and usually unsuccessful defiance of or resistance to an established government b : an instance of such defiance or resistance

I don't think I can rebel against something that is not "in authority or dominance" over me. I may, however, be able to sabotage or subvert it.

Freedom of speech in a civilized world...wow!! what constitutes a civilized world??

Ahh, the academic's ace of using subjective contexts to arbitrarily define things. What, indeed, constitutes a civilized world? Why, any place where the fundamental human rights and dignity can be preserved and upheld - you know, democracy, liberty, equality, freedom of speech and things like that. Generally speaking, any place where (broadly) the basic human rights can be upheld, such as -

• Security rights that prohibit crimes such as murder/"enforced" involuntary suicide, massacre, torture and rape
• Liberty rights that protect freedoms in areas such as belief and religion, association, assembling and movement
• Political rights that protect the liberty to participate in politics by expressing themselves, protesting, participating in a republic
• Due process rights that protect against abuses of the legal system such as imprisonment without trial, secret trials and excessive punishments
• Equality rights that guarantee equal citizenship, equality before the law and nondiscrimination
• Welfare rights (also known as economic rights) that require the provision of, e.g., education, paid holidays, and protections against severe poverty and starvation
• Group rights that provide protection for groups against ethnic genocide and for the ownership by countries of their national territories and resources

Or if you want a particularly rigorous definition, look up the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. As of today's international laws and agreements (many of which that India is a signatory to, if I may remind you), any place where these rights exist and are upheld are defined as "civilized" and any place where they are trampled upon is generally agreed to be not-quite civilized.

America or may be u have Denmark in ur mind for their anti-muslim cartoons.

Well, to be fair, these two countries do have a fairly good record of human rights practices than large parts of the world, India included. And one of those rights is the freedom of speech, which is what the cartoons depict. Anything wrong in that?

Freedom is speech should only be practiced if it doesn't hurt anyone.

Actually, no. The idea of freedom of speech is that you should be able to speak freely, but the consequences will be yours to face (i.e. it maybe unwise, but discrimination because you speak your mind would be unacceptable). It's a subtle difference.

Just think of a situation...someone comes to u in ur office and uses slangs against u....what will u do? Will u say that "hey it's ok...it is the freedom of speech what he is practicing"?? And if u say so, u r different from most of the people...and it is those very same most of the people who determine the consequences of freedom of speech.

Hold on. Uses *slangs*? Do you even know what a slang is? I think you probably meant slander. And by definition, slander (or libel) lets the victim seek retaliation because it's intentional defamation. For instance, I can say that you speak *like* a pig, and that would be a subjective opinion. However, I cannot that you had sex with a pig, because it is defamatory and I would need evidence to show that you indeed did have sex with a pig. It is a subtle difference. Similarly, you are more than welcome to walk into my office and say that I smell like a baboon and cuss like a sailor, however you may *NOT* say that I had sex with a baboon and cussed my boss (unless you had evidence to show that I did either, of course).

If Thackeray speaks anything anti-muslim, he is also wrong because it hurts many others. I would say, be practical.

Not a very good example, that. I'd hardly call Stalin a humanist.

Depends on which sense of the word "humanist" you want to use. One definition of 'humanism' contains two difference senses that might be relevant for the word:

2 : HUMANITARIANISM
3 : a doctrine, attitude, or way of life centered on human interests or values; especially : a philosophy that usually rejects supernaturalism and stresses an individual's dignity and worth and capacity for self-realization through reason

Stalin definitely wasn't #2, but he could have been considered #3. I don't know that he "stresse[d] an individual's dignity" so much, but I think he did have a "way of life centered on human [ ... ] values", and I think he did reject the supernatural. Granted, the human values his life was centered on were not necessarily ones we all share, but he did set in motion a long campaign theoretically aimed at allowing the entire nation to achieve a kind of "self-realization".

Or to put it all a little more succinctly, "humanist" can simply mean "human-oriented", as compared to "supernatural-oriented". It can just mean putting humanity first rather than something else.

Actually, that line is presented first, in Genesis 1:27, and is then elaborated upon.

KJV isn't to blame for your misunderstanding here. Even in modern English, "together" means more than just "at the same time". http://m-w.com/dictionary/together

Male and female, man and wife, were designed to be a unit (Genesis 2:24).

Re. the vegetarianism: although meat was not eaten pre-flood, Genesis 3:21 does mention animal clothing.

A "hypothesis" that cannot be proved wrong also cannot be proved correct, and therefore isn't a hypothesis. See Merriam-Webster, definition 2.

"2^32 unique addresses ought to be enough for anybody."

Pv6 supports a 128-bit addressing scheme, which lets it support an order-of-magnitude more devices that are directly connected to the Internet than its predecessor, IPv4.

: a range of magnitude extending from some value to ten times that value

Note to authors: If you don't understand what words mean, don't use them.

Main Entry: -ous
Function: adjective suffix
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French -us, -ous, from Latin -osus
1 : full of : abounding in : having : possessing the qualities of

Of course he knew . . it was a joke

I'm sorry, I'm as left-leaning as the next guy, but "liberty" is not the root of "liberal", etymologically or politically. It is the root of "libertarian", which is why libertarians are ideologically conservative. The word liberal in English has nothing to do with liberty, per se. Rather, it comes from the Latin for "generous" (admittedly a word which is itself related to "free", but that meaning is a generation removed from the modern word) and its definition and usage reflect that.

Traditionally, a "conservative" governmental philosophy, as used in the U.S. and most English-speaking countries, is one in which minimizing ("conserving") governmental involvement is central. On the other hand, a "liberal" philosophy is one advocating more governmental involvement (i.e. "is liberal with the scope of government"). This is why, for instance, conservatives are supposed to like tax cuts, and liberals are supposed to like entitlements and wide government programs.

One of the most troubling developments recently in the U.S. is that "conservative" and "liberal" in the political arena are now mapped almost directly to "conservative"/"traditionalist" and "liberal"/"progressive" in the religious arena when in fact the two are independent concerns. One can be fiscally conservative and socially/religiously progressive or vice versa. For an example, see the Bush White house. The current administration is stalwartly socially and religiously traditionalist, but likes to spend money like it's going out of style. Unfortunately, Karl Rove and the RNC have been so busy trying to build a power base, they don't really seem to care what agenda or ideology that power is used to support, and are trading these days on so-called "values" at the expense of the Republicans' ideological tradition.

The interesting thing, though, is that it's making people who have traditionally viewed themselves as liberal see what happens when government is big and the people making the decisions disagree with you. I suspect this will have the effect of creating a stronger progressive conservative political presence in the U.S..

The United States was not at war until December. From the perspective of the United States, the war was "looming".

Looming does not necessarily mean something doesn't exist yet. It just means it is on the horizon. Forgive me for not using the OED, but they don't seem to have an ad-supported online presence, and it'd be silly for everyone reading this to have to subscribe.

How many British do you suppose would have said the threat of war was "looming" in 1937 and 1938? Well, Japan had already invaded Manchuria in 1931 and Germany had already sponsored the Spanish Civil War in 1936. Japan invaded China in 1937. Germany annexed Czechoslovakia in 1938. So the conventional, "the war started in 1939" might sound a little Poland-centric to those countries.

So when, exactly, do you propose that the war definitively was not "looming" for any particular country? 1931?

BTW, the US, despite trying in vain to remain neutral, was doing swift business with those countries resisting Axis advances before it entered the war.

I should think that sitting and reposing are two distinct physical states, happy or sad. The rest of your vivid but rambling post is interesting, not for its content, but for the fact that you took the time to say so little in so many words. I do think that when you dusted off cacodemonic, we'd sailed past hyperbole into gobbledygook. 8)

My only intention was to correct an apparent error in the use of the word. This was the second time over a very short period. Now what I don't understand is that I used a standard definition that appears to be valid in all the dictionaries available to me, and people are actually denying it. Why? I posted only one of them, the second being more of a "mini ha-ha" to have some fun. Now you point out the second definition there. Is it somehow in conflict with the first? Does it negate it? Or is it merely complimentary? To me it simply marks the various available uses of the word. legitimate child; legitimate business, etc. What is there that tells you that legitimate cannot be the same as legal? You didn't point that out to me. I never said it has to be, but how did the link convince you otherwise? I merely said that by one definition, something which we base meaning so as to make the language understandable by those who speak it, it is the same. I have seen nothing to the effect to where it can't be. Is there a real expert out there to correct this possible misunderstanding of the language? I didn't expect this to be dragged out to some big long debate, but your post really piques my curiosity now. Especially since I got two replies stating almost the same thing, and neither showing the reason why. What's up with that? Small brain crave info.

This is turning into an essay (que onda ese) on the use and meaing of the word "legitimate". I hope I get a good grade. I wrote it myself. I guess while I'm here, I may as well post this, just to rub it in :-)

If you are No. 3 to No. 10, you look at open source as a way to get back to those serious RSEUs, because they are where you make money.

At least McDonald's knows what the term "manager" means. Look it up. But I would be willing to bet that the title isn't as far off the mark as you would like to pretend it is. I've heard it said that the role of many "managers" at MS is to run interference so the developers can work unimpeded. What I haven't heard is commentary [derision] about what must be wrong with a company that needs 9 people clearing red tape so 6 people can get some work done. I can only imagine how much fun that is.

A mis-spelled expiry.

An attempt doesn't mean that the act was unsuccessful, it simply means that it was tried. Success or failure are not part of the word (although legally, failure is usually implied).

And as one person said, attempted crimes are often persecuted, with murder as a clear example. Robbery is another.

I'd laugh if I saw this plea in court:
"Yeah I tried to rob the store, but the cop stopped me! Let me go free, I didn't actually do that"

Please read this.

The press loves to tell us that China is now post-communism since it allows citizens to own businesses. There is still only one political party there, they have very strict policies against just about everything

Ah but China is post communist seeing as how communism is an economic system wherein the state owns all property and businesses and controls the markets. However China never was Marxist, which is political as well as economic, as Marxism focused on industrial workers whereas Mao and the Chicoms focused on peasants, farmers and farm workers.

Falcon

First of all, modding pedants up always rubs me the wrong way. I'm a pedant myself, and sometimes even a grammar nazi, but I don't expect (or even hope) that such posts of mine are modded up. I completely fail to see how someone giving their definition of a "fair-weather friend" is insightful. If I point out that fair-weather friend is supposed to be hyphenated, does that make me insightful? What about if I point out that technically, only the B in Blu-ray is supposed to be capitalized?

Second of all, it seems to be your definition of fair-weather friend that needs adjusting. As pointed out above, a fair weather friend is not the same thing as a foul weather enemy. It's a friend that is "loyal only during a time of success." There's no implication that such a friend actually turns against you when the weather isn't so fair, just that they don't support you.

Just because Disney has been contractually beholden to the Blu-ray format does not necessarily make them a supporter. If their contracts lock them into using Blu-Ray but they were out there touting how great HD-DVD is and how much Blu-ray sucks, would that make them a supporter? No, and there have been some instances where something like that has happened. (The row between Howard Stern and Clear Channel comes to mind, when Stern was actively ridiculing Clear Channel on the very stations they owned.) In this case, Disney trying to straddle the fence with their public comments can certainly be taken as non-loyalty towards Blu-ray.

> And if there were thousands of other girls who were pretty, Britney must have had something besides a pretty face
> to climb over them on the slippery slope to success.

Urh, never heard of "luck"?

Son, I do this for a living. 2. http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/data "factual information (as measurements or statistics) used as a basis for reasoning, discussion, or calculation." In any event, a computer program is as much a fact as a phone number. You've engaged in low-grade sophistry, and it's not worth additional discussion. Facts within the meaning of the analysis are not copyrightable. The presentation of such facts may be copyrightable, but in this case the presentation was not original to the 'artist.' End of debate. 3. Wrong. Usually it is, but it is released into the public domain. Federal government works are not copyrightable. 17 U.S.C. 105. State and local government works are copyrightable, although much is released into the public domain. But that is not a necessary result. 4. That is a gross misunderstanding of how those four points are used, or not used. Again, son, I do this for a living. If you care to make the argument that the use of the entire photograph outweighs all the other factors under the totality of the circumstances, then be my guest. Otherwise it's an accurate simplification of the result, and you're getting more than you've paid for. Yes, it's not a numerical analysis. No, it's not a gross misunderstanding of how the points are used. 5. even if it coulr kill your whole business? Blogger is just doing what it is mandated to do Blogger is required to replace the content if the poster submits a counternotice. I never argued that Blogger was free to disregard the DMCA takedown notice. Did you have anything constructive to offer, or were you just dying to take potshots at anyone who failed to post a treatise to answer a simple question? I find it telling that you couldn't even take the time to post correctly spelled English sentences.

"If not will video stores be forced to ban "BAD RENTER" walls and such other devices for shaming/controlling problem customers?"

Yes, but that's aside from the discussion - if you want to keep a collection of photos of bad renters as reference for your staff to know who not to rent to then go ahead, but photographing people and putting them on display is completely crossing the line. Not least because it's mass libel. 'Shaming' people, as a primary method of government sponsored punishment was done away with a very long time ago for good reason, private businesses should not be allowed to carry it on.
Doesn't something disturb and worry you about a shopkeeper whipping a polaroid camera out and snapping photos of customers that they don't like so that they can put them on the wall?

End rant.

The States also need to have representation which used to be called the Senate

I don't trust state legislators much more than I do congress. If the states elected the senators I'd trust the feds even less. And I'd be more wary of the states. Tell the truth it's people who need representation in government, state or otherwise. If government weren't so greedy for power it's be different. Afterall it's government that has the most blood on it's hands.

Our current system short circuits our Republic.

As long as there isn't a monarchy there is no danger to a republic. However sometimes it seems there's a threat from King George, er president Bush.

It's an unfounded pet peeve. All the dictionaries I consulted list at least one definition of verbal that means "spoken". I think it's quite clear from the context this is the intended meaning here.

Merriam - Webster: "spoken rather than written"
Dictionary.com: "expressed in spoken words; oral rather than written"
Encarta: "oral as opposed to written: relating to or consisting of spoken words, as opposed to written words"

Sorry, but you're an idiot. Tell you what, get a job somewhere that has an Internet Acceptable Use Policy that forbids looking at porn from your work computer and also backs that up by using a blocklist/proxy. Find a proxy server out there that isn't blocked from work, then use it to surf porn on your office PC. When you get caught and they go to discipline you tell them your theory above and see if it helps.

if the system doesn't make a serious effort to block sites they can lose their government funding for Internet access. Do you think it's OK to let a few kids break the rules and get to blocked sites when it may mean the entire school (or district) losing Internet access?

Is that really censorship?

Would you care to explain to me exactly what education purpose being able to access sites like MySpace from school accomplish?

(We had kids caught using proxies to look at porn sites -- in the computer lab during typing class no less.)

While I don't have kids part of my tax dollars help pay for the school system's computers and Internet access. I do not want those computers being used during school hours for non-educational purposes.

According to MW it's "put-down"

Our scurrilous websites? Your fucking kids wrote the stuff!

-Peter

censorship : 1 a : the institution, system, or practice of censoring

censoring : inflected form of censor : to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable

If they find this content objectionable (they do) and therefore seek to suppress or delete it then they're engaged in censorship. Yes, the same goes for your social security number. I know, that makes the world a scary place when some censoring may be GOOD and other censoring BAD. Welcome to the real world. Please drive carefully.

censorship : 1 a : the institution, system, or practice of censoring

censoring : inflected form of censor : to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable

If they find this content objectionable (they do) and therefore seek to suppress or delete it then they're engaged in censorship. Yes, the same goes for your social security number. I know, that makes the world a scary place when some censoring may be GOOD and other censoring BAD. Welcome to the real world. Please drive carefully.

Of the Americans that go out for sushi, they will probably have sushi more frequently than the average Japanese person does. I don't have sushi very often but I do eat it more frequently than my relatives in Japan. It's a delicacy, even in Japan (and perhaps more so). Also, the North American varieties of some fish actually make better sashimi so it's quite possible to have better quality and tastier sashimi in the states. Most Japanese people do not regularly stock sashimi quality fish (or varieties), nor do they frequently go out for sushi. In fact, I have never had sushi/sashimi at a relative's house [in Japan]. The only time I've had sushi/sashimi in Japan was when we went out to eat.

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/disorientate

Inflected Form(s): hung /'h&[ng] /; also hanged
  usage: For both transitive and intransitive senses 1b the past and past participle hung, as well as hanged, is standard. Hanged is most appropriate for official executions "he was to be hanged, cut down whilst still alive...and his bowels torn out -- Louis Allen" but hung is also used "gave orders that she should be hung -- Peter Quennell". Hung is more appropriate for less formal hangings "by morning I'll be hung in effigy -- Ronald Reagan"

You mean, Lo and behold, maybe: 'used to call attention or to express wonder or surprise' .