Slashdot Mirror

http://m-w.com/dictionary/impl...
Each balloon can service a distance of 1,930 miles.
Each balloon can service an area of 1,930 square miles.
Each balloon can service a volume of 1,930 cubic miles.
Each balloon can service a tessera of 1,930 cubic mile-seconds.
Each balloon can service a manifold of 1,930 cubic mile-square seconds.
Each balloon can service a tangle of 1,930 cubic mile-cubic seconds.

and so on.

If you are referring to "Other OS", it's not targeting specific users because of EULA violations, it was patching of a "security" hole that effected all users.

Whoa. I'd like to see the security hole that actually brings users into existence. That would be sweet. It is some kind of condom manufacturing machine defect?

Awesome bar behavior: I type www.sl... and I get fifteen youtube URLs, and then slashdot at the very bottom.

No...

Awesome bar behavior: I type s, and http://slashdot.org/ is at the top of the list, because that’s the only website I ever visit that I type “s” to get to. In fact if I started typing www I’d just confuse it.

But, if I type c, http://slashdot.org/~clone52431/comments is at the top of the list, which is actually part of the same site; Firefox remembers that’s what I type to go to that page...

g is http://www.google.com/search?q=
m is http://maps.google.com/
m- is http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/
e is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
If I was on my home computer, ma or mai would probably put Gmail at the top of the list. Etc.

Merriam-Webster lists it... prophesy

No, it is a tabloid (2) , smartass.

Right there, you've just destroyed your own argument. Having "exclusive use" of your code is not a "real, tangible product". The instant you sell or supply your code to anyone else, you necessarily lose the ability to have "exclusive use" of that code.

The "copying code necessarily destroys code uniqueness" argument and the "slavery and killing are not 'real, tangible products' argument were actually completely separate arguments. The former cited an example of something that is literally *taken away* from you (stolen) if someone copies your code; the latter was trying to disqualify his maxwells demon's examples for why "I can make a living off this" isn't a good barometer for something that should be legal—a point he was correct in making, but let's not get off track here.

Having "exclusive use" of your code (let's say "uniqueness"; totally bogus dude said that in his response to me and I think that's a better way of putting it) is not a "real, tangible product." The code itself is a "real, tangible product"; the uniqueness is a byproduct of having created something original. And yes, when you sell or supply your code to anyone else, your code is no longer unique. To create a website, however, you must place at least some code online where it is accessible by anyone. You could argue that this equates to "supplying" others with your code, I suppose, but most people do it with the reasonable expectation that it will not be copied. In this case, Plurk hadn't "sold or supplied" Microsoft with the code, Microsoft just took it. And in the case of software products like Photoshop, what is being sold is the compiled binary, not the code itself.

What copyright gives you is the exclusive right to control the copying and distribution of your code.

Yes, that's exactly what it gives you, and as a result of that you are legally guaranteed code uniqueness, unless you choose to surrender that right.

Now, what you almost touch on is that theft concerns "real, tangible products", not abstract concepts like software. Regardless of what all the armchair lawyers on Slashdot think, you cannot steal an idea. How many copyright cases do you think include the word theft? I'll give you a hint - it's probably zero. No, they use words like infringement and violation. The simple reason is, despite what they want you to believe, there is no such thing as stealing non-tangible concepts. The copyright owners know it, the courts know it, everybody knows it except the people who are taken in by Big Content's rhetoric.

I've said this before, and I'll say it again: this just semantics. Whether you "steal" an idea, "copy" an idea, or "plagiarize" an idea, it all equates to the same thing. Furthermore, just because a classical definition of "theft" requires that something is physically taken doesn't mean that more recent definitions can't be expanded to include the plagiarism of ideas. For all intents and purposes, the word "theft" conveys the intended meaning effectively, even if a more specific word might be (slightly) more appropriate.

I don't think either of us have any idea what terminology is used in copyright cases—you yourself stated that they "probably" don't say the word theft—so I'll just leave that part of the argument alone.

Copyright infringement may or may not be immoral. It may or may not be unethical. One thing it is not, however, is theft.

Actually, according to Dictionary.com *and* Merriam-Webster, it is. But again, this is engaging in semantics.

Reach for the tinfoil hat indeed...

The reason they come out with new dictionary versions every year is that new words are added to the dictionary, and sometimes old words are removed, or have their definitions changed. I don't see any reason that online shouldn't also follow this trend, but the advantage to an online format is that the change can happen relatively quickly, once it's accepted by the editor, whereas some people still use decades-old versions of the printed dictionary and don't see a reason to buy a new copy every couple of years.

And there are some *print* dictionaries that include "ginormous" in the list of words. Language, by definition, is fluid. It changes over time, and the dictionary needs to change with it. "Ginormous" is a word that has made it into the popular vernacular, and it has a generally accepted meaning as a portmanteau of the words "giant" and "enormous". As such, it belongs in the dictionary, and it's only a matter of time before the remaining editions of the dictionary add the word. A language isn't defined by the dictionary, but rather, the dictionary is defined by the language. (it's already in the Oxford English Dictionary as well as the Collins Dictionary, and Merriam-Webster.)

Obligatory disclaimer: One of my two major fields of study in my undergrad was applied linguistics.

... the websites for long-standing print dictionaries are still the best.

Oxford English Dictionary is considered the authoritative standard for the English Language.
If you or your employer/university don't have an OED online subscription, Merriam-Webster will do in a pinch.

If I want a dictionary, I might use http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/amoral, but the Google definitions will list a bunch of them for comparison, which is nice sometimes.

What the hell word is that even supposed to be? I guess "ruminate" would be the closest word that sounds remotely similar to "laminate" and also makes sense in context.

I suspect that person wanted the word lament. Though we could chew on the possibility of ruminate as well.

One might further speculate the user was using spell check and trusting it to make sense of the grammar; notice the subject is "to bad really", it should have likely been "too bad really". This would explain how (a misspelling of ) "lament" became "laminate".

Since always.

From http://www.m-w.com/
c: the provision of money, goods, or services with the expectation of future payment ; also : money, goods, or services so provided

I gain perks with my debt cards as well money back, and so forth. I can also track my purchases with my banks online account service. With the added plus there is no late charges, service fees, yearly membership or any interest if I missed a payment.

My wife and I have traveled with the debit card on vacations around the US. Paid for rooms, food, gas with no problems.

With a credit card you have to pay off your balance every time you can not miss a payment. I would hate to see what the intrest of "thousands of dollars of purchases" would be even at 8 1/2% much less the normal 14 - 21 % cards require you to pay.

Ours is simple we have the money we can buy it we don't have the money we don't. Credit cards are a crutch you get used to them and they will make you weak. You spend what you have and it makes you stronger. It isn't easy at first but it can be done.

Here's a good place to start: http://www.m-w.com/

Okay, this isn't even being overly pedantic. This is just basic vocabulary. Penultimate means next to last, so you seem to be implying that the personal automobile is the penultimate mode of transportation, since you seem to be pining for the final (i.e., ultimate) utopian mode of transportation. And for future reference, M-W still has a free basic dictionary, which is really easy to use.

Oh, and queue the predictable (and incorrect) responses about how you can't "steal" digital images. To steal a photo or a picture, you would have to take a physical copy belonging to someone, and deprive someone else of that physical copy, without their permission according to SlashDot, but not the English dictionary.

Pet Peeve of mine: That's not the definition of "steal". It's only the SlashDot conventional wisdom. It's really not that hard to look up words on the internet. Here's a link to a dictionary.

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

Appropriate:

  3 : to take or make use of without authority or right

As you've pointed out, stealing isn't always about physical
posession, but copyright advocates (e.g, *IAA) frequently conflate
this type of stealing with #3 (i.e., using without authority or
right).

However, the top definition of steal is about physical
posession and I think is obviously what most people mean by "steal" in
most contexts. So although while using "steal" to refer to copyright
infringement may be technically correct, it is misleading, at best.

Oh, and queue the predictable (and incorrect) responses about how you can't "steal" digital images. To steal a photo or a picture, you would have to take a physical copy belonging to someone, and deprive someone else of that physical copy, without their permission according to SlashDot, but not the English dictionary.

Pet Peeve of mine: That's not the definition of "steal". It's only the SlashDot conventional wisdom. It's really not that hard to look up words on the internet. Here's a link to a dictionary.

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

Appropriate:
  3 : to take or make use of without authority or right

If you actually read the whole OP, you'd know that he wanted

I'd like a URL bar that searches, you know, URL's when I type them in

In other words, you type part of a URL and FF gives a list of URLs that match.

Really I have a number of disagreements with the "Awesome" bar... I'm not just hacked off by the new search behavior.

• What the hell is this top 10 results business? I want to be able to scroll through all the results like I could before. It's way easier to delete certain (ahem!) websites from one's history this way. Deleting stuff in History is a pain, and I don't want to indiscriminately delete URLs that I'll want auto-completed later.

• Searching for page titles is clever, but it should be optional: search by title and URL / search by title and always display title matches [above|below] URL matches / don't search by title. (Doesn't History already let you search by title? How many people actually need this added to the address bar too? If enough people don't like it, it should be optional.)

• My partial URL templates need to be above completed URLs. Always. http://www.google.com/search?q= should be the top result if I start typing "goog". Every damn time. Down arrow, $search_term, enter. Boom. Same for Wiki, M-W, Google Images, and so on. (FF 2.x put them at the top; FF 3.0 "learned" that I want them once I visited that particular URL, but since I don't actually go to that URL again it starts putting them mid-way down the list after a couple of days.)

I'm coming from the "land of the free" to one of those wacky socialist European countries.

I know it's hard for US residents brainwashed during the cold war, but socialism is not an alternative to freedom or even to democracy . Socialism is an alternative economic system and as such would be an alternative to capitalism .

I'm coming from the "land of the free" to one of those wacky socialist European countries.

I know it's hard for US residents brainwashed during the cold war, but socialism is not an alternative to freedom or even to democracy . Socialism is an alternative economic system and as such would be an alternative to capitalism .

I'm coming from the "land of the free" to one of those wacky socialist European countries.

I know it's hard for US residents brainwashed during the cold war, but socialism is not an alternative to freedom or even to democracy . Socialism is an alternative economic system and as such would be an alternative to capitalism .

I'm coming from the "land of the free" to one of those wacky socialist European countries.

I know it's hard for US residents brainwashed during the cold war, but socialism is not an alternative to freedom or even to democracy . Socialism is an alternative economic system and as such would be an alternative to capitalism .

• partisan : a firm adherent to a party, faction, cause, or person; especially : one exhibiting blind, prejudiced, and unreasoning allegiance.
  
• bipartisan : of, relating to, or involving members of two parties ; specifically : marked by or involving cooperation, agreement, and compromise between two major political parties.
  
• nonpartisan : : not partisan; especially : free from party affiliation, bias, or designation.
  

• partisan : a firm adherent to a party, faction, cause, or person; especially : one exhibiting blind, prejudiced, and unreasoning allegiance.
  
• bipartisan : of, relating to, or involving members of two parties ; specifically : marked by or involving cooperation, agreement, and compromise between two major political parties.
  
• nonpartisan : : not partisan; especially : free from party affiliation, bias, or designation.
  

• partisan : a firm adherent to a party, faction, cause, or person; especially : one exhibiting blind, prejudiced, and unreasoning allegiance.
  
• bipartisan : of, relating to, or involving members of two parties ; specifically : marked by or involving cooperation, agreement, and compromise between two major political parties.
  
• nonpartisan : : not partisan; especially : free from party affiliation, bias, or designation.
  

I'm not saying that privatization caused the tiger escape.

So how is the tiger attack "an example of the tragedy of privatization"?

The definition of "example" is: "one (as an item or incident) that is representative of all of a group or type" ( http://www.m-w.com/ ). Other similar definitions involve words like "pattern" or "rule".

So, if the tiger attack is "an example of the tragedy of privatization", then the tiger attack needs to fit into some group, type, rule or pattern such that it excludes public ownership, but includes private ownership.

You said previously "the tiger escape is part of a pattern", but you have yet to define this pattern (even though I asked very specifically).

is yet another example of them screwing up

It is at least as much of an example of the publicly owned zoo screwing up. It's purely by chance that the attack happened when the zoo was under private ownership. In fact, it appears to be more of an example of the publicly owned zoo screwing up, since they built the wall in violation to begin with.

The fact that the inspectors signed off on it is a little suspicious since it clearly violates the guidelines.

It is suspicious, but you haven't presented any reason this is unique to the time it was under private ownership.

You and I obviously have different definitions of the word through or you don't understand how bittorrent works...

If you have a listing in your living room of where one could go to buy coke, and you leave your doors wide open[...]

If you're face-to-face with someone, you can be identified... That's not anonymous. Try another example.

...and?

The logs would still be accurate. You can't say it didn't happen, which is what's happening here: revisionist history.

Ye gads, man. Look at the definitions of "libel" and "slander"...

You'll note they mention "false charges or misrepresentations" and "unjustly unfavorable impression(s)"... in little words, a lie.

Weird world you live in where an ugly truth is trumped by a pretty lie.

If you're face-to-face with someone, you can be identified... That's not anonymous. Try another example.

...and?

The logs would still be accurate. You can't say it didn't happen, which is what's happening here: revisionist history.

Ye gads, man. Look at the definitions of "libel" and "slander"...

You'll note they mention "false charges or misrepresentations" and "unjustly unfavorable impression(s)"... in little words, a lie.

Weird world you live in where an ugly truth is trumped by a pretty lie.

gr8scot: "An *observation* cannot be inaccurate."

Observation
Pronunciation:
        \äb-sr-v-shn, -zr-\
Function:
        noun

1 a: an act or instance of observing a custom, rule, or law
b: observance
2 a: an act of recognizing and noting a fact or occurrence often involving measurement with instruments
b: a record or description so obtained
3: a judgment on or inference from what one has observed; broadly : remark statement

gr8scot: "Americans misspell "colour" and a lot of other words."

gr8scot: "Mongoose wouldn't need to "randomly assume" anything"

gr8scot: "An *observation* cannot be inaccurate."

Observation
Pronunciation:
        \äb-sr-v-shn, -zr-\
Function:
        noun

1 a: an act or instance of observing a custom, rule, or law
b: observance
2 a: an act of recognizing and noting a fact or occurrence often involving measurement with instruments
b: a record or description so obtained
3: a judgment on or inference from what one has observed; broadly : remark statement

gr8scot: "Americans misspell "colour" and a lot of other words."

gr8scot: "Mongoose wouldn't need to "randomly assume" anything"

gr8scot: "An *observation* cannot be inaccurate."

Observation
Pronunciation:
        \äb-sr-v-shn, -zr-\
Function:
        noun

1 a: an act or instance of observing a custom, rule, or law
b: observance
2 a: an act of recognizing and noting a fact or occurrence often involving measurement with instruments
b: a record or description so obtained
3: a judgment on or inference from what one has observed; broadly : remark statement

gr8scot: "Americans misspell "colour" and a lot of other words."

gr8scot: "Mongoose wouldn't need to "randomly assume" anything"

From Miriam Webster
Main Entry: religion
Pronunciation: \ri-li-jn\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English religioun, from Anglo-French religiun, Latin religion-, religio supernatural constraint, sanction, religious practice, perhaps from religare to restrain, tie back -- more at rely
Date: 13th century

1 a: the state of a religious b (1): the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2): commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2: a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : conscientiousness
4: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

Because the definition of religion encompasses more than just extremists who think forcing their beliefs on you is their responsibility. The truth is most religious people abhor the activities of these extremists. Being a Christian and knowing the teachings of Christ I can assert that the only people Jesus ever got mad at were the religious extremists who oppressed the people in God's name. Sound familiar?

"There are some semantic issues with your post."

That word... I do not think it means what you think it means.

"I can make up all sorts of tags and create a browser that understands them, and as long as my browser also understands the standards and renders them correctly, it's still a standards-compliant browser."

No. It is not a standards-compliant browser. A standards compliant browser would render according to the standards based on the standardized information. You could have a standards-compliant browser that also did something non-standard based on the presence of a standard tag. You cannot have a standards-compliant browser that fails to comply with the standard based on the absence of a nonstandard tag.

"Except that there are a lot of unmaintained pages out there. Microsoft wants to maintain compatibility. They don't want thousands of web developers to wake up one morning and find that half of their userbase can't use their websites because of an Internet Explorer upgrade, and they can't count on users upgrading to the new version of the browser."

Microsoft stopped supporting IE 6 as a product months ago. They might still offer major security fixes for it, but it's not seeing any upgrades. They'll stop supporting XP soon and Vista comes with IE 7. The best way to thin the herd of so-called web developers who never saw a standard is to have their pages stop working. That way, maybe their customers will assure that those so-called web developers also stop working. There sure isn't exactly a shortage of people who mistakenly think they know HTML from their asses, and real web developers would love to get the business those people get. If someone does a half-ass job and the result is a half-ass web page, they deserve to lose.

You're claiming that "clone" is a homophone and I'm confusing two words with entirely different meanings because they sound the same. Or if not homophones, that I'm at least confusing different definitions of the same word. For your example of "speaker," Dictionary.com lists four definitions, and you make reference to two of the different meanings given there in your example.

However, you have entirely misapplied this in my case. I am using exactly the same, precisely defined, scientific definition of the word "clone," and you are wrong in claiming I'm trying to "compare scientific things based on linguistics." I'm comparing scientific things based upon science, and using the accurate scientific word for both things used with the exact same definition.

I'm quite curious what it is that you think "clone" means. Here are some examples of what it actually means. Note that they all apply to both the cloned animal and apple case.
From Dictionary.com: "a cell, cell product, or organism that is genetically identical to the unit or individual from which it was derived."
From Wikipedia: "In horticulture and biology, any organism whose genetic information is identical to that of a 'mother organism' from which it was created."
From Merriam Webster: "the aggregate of genetically identical cells or organisms asexually produced by a single progenitor cell or organism"
From University of Texas' Life Sciences Dictionary: "A population of cells all descended from a single cell."
From McGraw-Hill's Access Science: "Cloning
The asexual creation of a genetic copy, a capability possessed by plants but not by most animals. Thus, plants generate genetic copies spontaneously, and rooting "cuttings" is widely used by horticulturists to propagate millions of clones annually. In animals, only some lower invertebrates can be cloned by "cutting"; for example, earthworms when bisected will regenerate the missing half, resulting in two whole, genetically identical individuals. However, asexual reproduction and cloning do not normally occur in vertebrates except for the special case of identical twinning. This is despite the fact that individual cells, called blastomeres, within the very early embryo are totipotent; that is, each is capable, if evaluated on its own, of developing into a viable term pregnancy and infant."

I see in the Access Science entry, and other places, what I think is confusing you: there certainly are many different ways cloning can occur. That doesn't mean I'm using the word wrong. It's as if I said that both Bill Clinton and Pervez Musharraf became leaders of their countries, and you said I'm wrong because they came to power in different ways. While you're right there are distinctions to be made in different ways of "becoming leaders," and different methods of making "clones," I am entirely correct in calling both animal and plant clones "clones," just as I'm entirely correct in calling both Clinton and Musharraf "leaders." And it's the same definition of "clone" and "leader." The ability to draw further distinctions does not mean they don't both meet the same greater definition. You are trying to draw semantic distinctions that do not exist.

I don't even know what word you're looking for. "Artificial Cloning" doesn't apply, because they're both artificial: those Apple trees do not make natural clones, they are grafted artificially by people, usually onto foreign rootstock. Apples have their own natural method of procreation, which is trees sprouting from the seeds inside Apples, that we bypass entirely to create the artificial man-made c

All hemp is cannabis...

While what you say is true, it should be pointed out that the term "hemp" is sometimes used for fibers other that cannabis. From Webster's:

2: a fiber (as jute) from a plant other than the true hemp; also : a plant yielding such fiber

Now, of course, the fact that this definition uses the phrase "true hemp" indicates that referring to other fibers as hemp is in some sense a misusage, but nonetheless it exists. I only point this out because I had this argument with someone before.

ETA - probably.

Wikipedia link

Merriam-Webster definition #3 is the modern common usage, which is somewhat annoying as the world originally meant something quite specific.

Oh well, I suppose it gives the future linguistic archaeologists or anthropologists something to keep them busy!

... what you think it means.

puissant

Pronunciation:
        \-snt, -snt\
Function:
        adjective
Date:
        15th century

: having puissance : powerful

Perhaps you meant pissant?

... what you think it means.

puissant

Pronunciation:
        \-snt, -snt\
Function:
        adjective
Date:
        15th century

: having puissance : powerful

Perhaps you meant pissant?

Why the hell do you people even bother with the web?

Because there are trusted resources on the web. Like your Merriam Webster, for example, can be found at http://m-w.com. It's produced and backed by the publisher as much as your hard copy is. Not everything on the web is Wikipedia.

1 : amusing or laughable through obvious absurdity, incongruity, exaggeration, or eccentricity

2 : meriting derisive laughter or scorn as absurdly inept, false, or foolish

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

Actually, it behooves you to learn what 'behooves' means, so you don't look ignorant.

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

"However deplorable such tactics are, neither the fiducial damage, nor "exposure", nor -- certainly -- "discomfort" compare with violence, especially, the deadly violence, which, really, is required to qualify for a terrorist these days."

"Required to qualify for a terrorist these days" Well you are allowed to have a personal opinion I guess, well maybe not, it depends, it seems I don't have that right in your view. I guess the old euphemism may apply here, you know where opinions are like assholes... Look physical violence is far from the only tool historically used to install terror in an individual or a population. It is not even the preferred method of those in powerful positions as it is inflexible and kind of hard to back out of. Physical violence, like ad hominem attacks in an argument, is usually the last resort of the desperate, ie: the one with the weakest position. This is regardless of who may or may not be the most powerful physical force at the time.

"I have, actually. A team of lawyers and the computer-forensics experts they hired were right here in this room searching through my hard-drives... But not for a second was I afraid for my life or limb. May lawyers be your biggest problem ever."

Really a team of computer-forensics experts were hired to examine your systems and they did so without removing them from your room? Nice bit of luck there you had huh? Good thing they did not want to find something bad enough or some 300 lb brother or bubba might be changing your mind about the possibility of being terrorized due to legal woes, as well as some amusing definitions of discomfort.

"Yawn... There you go, using the term with very specific definition as a general-purpose derogatory word. I'll finish this by calling you a cretin -- purely as another example of same."

Aww how cute of you insinuate that am below your level of intellectual discourse with the implication that you are bored with my arguments. If you feel the need to resort to ad hominem attacks with inferences like this or "as an example of the same" to indirectly call me a cretin, go ahead and do it outright. Trying so hard to sound aloof and smug about it defeats your attempt to sound witty.

If you insist on a current non topical and unbiased definition of terror/terrorism I think a dictionary is a decent place to get a definition, even today. Again I submit:
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/terror
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/terrorism

Wabi-Sabi
Matthew