Slashdot Mirror

No, live tracking the CEO of Google because Google is pushing live tracking of employees.

Right.

It's called turnabout, and by all accounts is considered fair play.

Seriously, what regular non-porn websites are you finding that serve porn ads?

Schlock Mercenary, a non-porn site where an advertiser went rogue and started with obviously bad ads (complete with porn, flashing, and making noise.)

It just takes one rogue advertiser, and your site now distributes porn.

When was the last time you saw a popup/under ad?

Before or after installing adblock?

In any case, http://www.merriam-webster.com/ produced a popup window..

I don't understand how people possibly come by this type of malware.

It just takes one browser-side exploit. Usually they appear in Java, Flash, or other plugins.

And that's not counting dialog box loops that had a habit of locking up Firefox until you did what the site wanted. It just takes one email from a friend, where you click on a link to watch a video.

According to Marriam Webster online morality has several definitions, one of which is "conformity to ideals of right human conduct" which might eventually have some bearing on human rights. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/morality

Relatively speaking, the US grants better human rights than China does so yes, this does actually make sense though it might not be exactly what the parents intend.

First you mistook ridicule for hatred. Then you thought you can tell what should be discussed and what should not be. Then mistook opening a new thread with interjecting in some other thread. Then you showed you did not know the meaning of the word apropos. Then proved that you do not look up the dictionary just to be safe. Take a look at what it means. . No wonder people laugh at the apologists for creationists more than they laugh at the creationists. They are usually simple minded folks who are mostly honest but gullible.

hasbeen

Ah, no, it is a general purpose word, used in print since at least 1865.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/swoosh
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/swoosh
http://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/british/swoosh
http://dictionary.reverso.net/english-definition/swoosh
http://www.ldoceonline.com/dictionary/swoosh

Not one of those dictionaries mentions Nike.

House of Commons Could Force Social Networks To Indemnify Trolls

*trollface* lol u cnat sue me.

Insecure means not confident, not safe is unsecure.

Not according to the dictionary. One word can have more than one meaning :)

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/kook

"one whose ideas or actions are eccentric, fantastic, or insane "

Only one of the three descriptors align with the notion that a kook has to be in the minority. A kook can be in the majority. It just means the majority have ideas or actions which are fantastic or insane

Also, I find it amusing how you claim to be on the side of religion, but you don't seem to practice one of the common teachings of religions, which is respect for others. Or does your religion teach you that calling people blind fools is a way of respect?

MW gives 4 (plus two subdefinitions):
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/myth

1
a : a usually traditional story of ostensibly historical events that serves to unfold part of the world view of a people or explain a practice, belief, or natural phenomenon b : parable, allegory
2
a : a popular belief or tradition that has grown up around something or someone; especially : one embodying the ideals and institutions of a society or segment of society b : an unfounded or false notion
3
: a person or thing having only an imaginary or unverifiable existence
4
: the whole body of myths

And Christianity meets 1a,b, 2a,b, 3, but not 4. 5 out of 6 isn't bad!

Definition of SENSELESS:
b : foolish, stupid: it was some senseless practical joke — A. Conan Doyle
c : meaningless: a senseless murder

He probably meant it as "meaningless" I'm guessing. As in, it's meaningless to resort to violence when it only makes the problem worst.

Start here; I tend to take mistaken pronouncements seriously. I'm willing to entertain the idea that is a character flaw as long as it is understood that it stems from a passion for truth.

We see firstly that wealth, the abundance of valuable resources or material possessions, has nothing to do with money or valuation.

It follows therefore that service transactions, which result only in the exchange of wealth for service (money being usually used as a proxy), do not add to or subtract from the global supply of wealth.

Right... now realize the value of everything is nothing but a illusion and go back to square one of your poor reasoning.

Sorry, coward. That may or may not be true, but has absolutely NOTHING to do with the point. Wealth has nothing to do with valuation.

Whenever two parties exchange goods, services and/or money in a freely chosen transaction, they are presumably both giving up something they value less for something they value more, and therefore the net product of the economy has risen. To say that only the creation of tangible objects can lead to the creation of wealth is not, in fact, generally accepted.

Sorry, coward. That's full of shit. Wealth: "abundance of valuable material possessions or resources". You haven't ended up with more material possessions or resources.

moral or mental strength
capacity to persuade or convince

People who had never done anything else wrong, other then believed in the wrong political party, distributed information about their political ideology were deemed a threat and charged under this section of US law. Without violence or other physical harm being done. Read some history, it will do good for you.

Wow, two in a row!

So many winners, so little time to recognize them all.

Wow, two in a row!

So many winners, so little time to recognize them all.

I know it has yet to be tested, but it works.

Congradulations, you've won our dictionary definition word of the day!

Yes, we are a representative democracy... and a republic.

You are correct about the definition of republic, unless you're American. When the term is used to refer to America, republic == representative democracy.

Dictionary:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/republic
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/republic

Wikipedia explains (first paragraph.. the rest included because it's interesting):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic

United States

A distinct set of definitions for the word republic evolved in the United States. In common parlance a republic is a state that does not practice direct democracy but rather has a government indirectly controlled by the people. This understanding of the term was originally developed by James Madison, and notably employed in Federalist Paper No. 10. This meaning was widely adopted early in the history of the United States, including in Noah Webster's dictionary of 1828. It was a novel meaning to the term; representative democracy was not an idea mentioned by Machiavelli and did not exist in the classical republics.[53]

The term republic does not appear in the Declaration of Independence, but does appear in Article IV of the Constitution which "guarantee[s] to every State in this Union a Republican form of Government." What exactly the writers of the constitution felt this should mean is uncertain. The Supreme Court, in Luther v. Borden (1849), declared that the definition of republic was a "political question" in which it would not intervene. In two later cases, it did establish a basic definition. In United States v. Cruikshank (1875), the court ruled that the "equal rights of citizens" were inherent to the idea of republic.

However, the term republic is not synonymous with the republican form. The republican form is defined as one in which the powers of sovereignty are vested in the people and are exercised by the people, either directly, or through representatives chosen by the people, to whom those powers are specially delegated. In re Duncan, 139 U.S. 449, 11 S.Ct. 573, 35 L.Ed. 219; Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. (21 Wall.) 162, 22 L.Ed. 627. [54]

Beyond these basic definitions the word republic has a number of other connotations. W. Paul Adams observes that republic is most often used in the United States as a synonym for state or government, but with more positive connotations than either of those terms.[55] Republicanism is often referred to as the founding ideology of the United States. Traditionally scholars believed this American republicanism was a derivation of the liberal ideologies of John Locke and others developed in Europe.

A political philosophy of republicanism that formed during the Renaissance period, and initiated by Machiavelli, was thought to have had little impact on the founders of the United States. In the 1960s and 1970s a revisionist school[citation needed] led by the likes of Bernard Bailyn began to argue that republicanism was just as or even more important than liberalism in the creation of the United States.[56] This issue is still much disputed and scholars like Isaac Kramnick completely reject this view.[57]

After all, we know that OUR definition of humane is the REAL definition.

I'd say that Merriam-Webster's definition is a reasonable attempt at a "REAL" definition:

humane: marked by compassion, sympathy, or consideration for humans or animals

Are you really suggesting that it's possible to have a *functional* morality (i.e., one that functions as any sort of reasonable foundation for a non-moribund society) that includes inhumane behavior like violence against innocent people as "good" behaviors? That inhumane treatment of another innocent human being can defensibly be called a moral good?

Tell me more, I'm fascinated by this new horizon in morality, and may wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

You may want to look up the definition of the word. It probably has many more meanings than you suspect.

P.S. - why are some people never happy unless they're ripping down someone else?

unobfuscated

Uh... I think you're wrong. Unless you think JEL and Brooks Automation are not in the business of making robots.

Or maybe you can't count past one in Merriam Webster's definition. You're either an idiot or a troll, or perhaps a little bit of both, hmm?

I can see this argument. If some African-American person is voting when I don't think they should, beating up a few of them pour encourager les autres is definitely a hate crime because the reason for my actions is to frighten others.

I'm even willing to say that if I beat up someone purely because he's an African-American and he's done nothing to me, it's a hate crime.

On the other hand, getting into a fight with my African-American roomate because he's a dick? Not a hate crime.

You really have to be able to prove prejudice and intent. If I beat up my African-American roomate because he's an annoying prick and that means that you, as an African-American, feel concerned for your safety because of this, that's your problem.

He didn't use "sic erat scriptum", you did. He only used "sic", which according to online dictionaries is Latin for "so, thus". The first two dictionaries I referenced came up with slightly different definitions. The first one only applies to quotes, the second one is more general. I'd say his usage is acceptable:

[1] "Thus; so. Used to indicate that a quoted passage, especially one containing an error or unconventional spelling, has been retained in its original form or written intentionally."
[2] "intentionally so written -- used after a printed word or passage to indicate that it is intended exactly as printed or to indicate that it exactly reproduces an original"

You obviously don't know what "marginally" means. Here, I'll paste a definition for you: "close to the lower limit of qualification, acceptability, or function : barely exceeding the minimum requirements "

So you said that a 100Mbps RDP connection is close to the lower limit of acceptability or function, and that ltwally repeated what you said. However, that is not the case--ltwally said that a 100Mbps RDP connection "is rather more speed than is necessary" for function. That's pretty much the opposite of being at the lower limits of functionality.

stop saying throwback. throwback is a marketing term coined by cola companies and snack food conglomerates to gin up their respective markets and attract new customers to the same unhealthy vapid product theyve sold for 50 years.

Nope, though abused by those companies, "throwback" is a word that's been around a very long time. Taking a gander at Google's Ngram viewer shows the term in use back to the early 1800's. Other sources indicate it's origin as being 1855 or 1888.
 

second, until makerbots start employing millions of people in well paid, safe factory conditions with competitive pay and honest retirement options, theres absolutely zero equivalent measure between a CnC factory that gets a building permit and a tax break from the city of brooklyn and the 1960's manufacturing explosion that dominated the northeast and ushered in american prosperity for hundreds of millions of people.

Wait, what? By the 1960's, the "explosion" in the Northeast was over - and manufacturers there were already feeling the cold touch of winter as production (and consumers) fled to other part of the country and overseas to avoid rising land and labor costs. Manufacturing was running on inertia not "exploding".

The problem with this is that when something is intuitive, it's very easy to combine it with hindsight and call it obvious.

Intuitive. I don't think that word means what you think it means. If something is intuitive, that means it is obvious to one learned in the art.

The problem with this is that when something is intuitive, it's very easy to combine it with hindsight and call it obvious.

Intuitive. I don't think that word means what you think it means. If something is intuitive, that means it is obvious to one learned in the art.

And anyway that word is completely mis-used to denote bigotry against jewish people when in fact semite != jew:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/semite

The word is weltschmerz.

  http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/weltschmerz

Thanks to http://www.toptenz.net/top-10-german-words.php

Except as soon as you hire an amateur, he becomes a professional...

amateur- not a profession (simplest is not paid for work)
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/amateur

professional- paid for the work
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/professional

Except as soon as you hire an amateur, he becomes a professional...

amateur- not a profession (simplest is not paid for work)
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/amateur

professional- paid for the work
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/professional

Sometimes, not having english as your first language makes things funnier. The first meaning of the word "survey" that came to my mind this morning was 1 b) - "to query (someone) in order to collect data for the analysis of some aspect of a group or area" and I was wondering if they had sent questionaires to all the planets on one of the Voyagers. :-)
 

You think dictatorship requires that one person stays in power and does whatever he wants. What you fail to understand is that that is not true.

What you fail to do is provide a citation for your pet definitions. Here's an actual dictionary definition:

"1: the office of dictator
2: autocratic rule, control, or leadership
3a: a form of government in which absolute power is concentrated in a dictator or a small clique
  b: a government organization or group in which absolute power is so concentrated
  c: a despotic state"

and for dictator:

"a: a person granted absolute emergency power; especially : one appointed by the senate of ancient Rome
b: one holding complete autocratic control
c: one ruling absolutely and often oppressively"

Now compare the powers of the US government with actual dictators. Remember SOPA? Would that even have been an issue up for discussion in a dictatorship? No, it would have just been handed down by government and expected to be followed without protest.

Ah, when you call it "violation", what exactly are you trying to accomplish?

Clear, unambiguous communication. You might want to see a dictionary if you're not clear what "violation" means. When you steal, you are violating the laws against theft. When you infringe copyright, you are violating laws against copyright.

Pirate A buys a DVD, makes a copy, and gives the copy to pirate B. Pirate B didn't steal anything, it was given to him by pirate A, who also didn't steal anything -- he paid for his copy.

It isn't theft, to call it "theft" is simply a lie.

Basically, you are a fucktard making a fucktarded argument. You are not worth the effort of responding to, but I will solely for the benefit of anyone else reading this tread, so they see how fucking stupid and wrong you are:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship#Types http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/censorship http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/censoring http://gilc.org/speech/osistudy/censorship/ http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/censor http://www.thefreedictionary.com/censorship http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/Censorship

Now, please go eat the bag of dicks you came in on, asshole.

Basically, you are a fucktard making a fucktarded argument. You are not worth the effort of responding to, but I will solely for the benefit of anyone else reading this tread, so they see how fucking stupid and wrong you are:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship#Types http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/censorship http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/censoring http://gilc.org/speech/osistudy/censorship/ http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/censor http://www.thefreedictionary.com/censorship http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/Censorship

Now, please go eat the bag of dicks you came in on, asshole.

Socialism isn't an economic system to be compared or contrasted with capitalism or communism. It is the aspect of all government systems that seek to minimize harm to society as a whole. Nothing more, nothing less.

You're wrong. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism
Socialism is an economic system characterised by social ownership and control of the means of production and cooperative management of the economy
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/socialism
1. (Economics) an economic theory or system in which the means of production, distribution, and exchange are owned by the community collectively, usually through the state.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism
1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods

By the same logic you're following, I could say capitalism isn't an economic system either. It is merely an aspect of all government systems to grow society through a free market. Or some nonsense like that. But when it comes down to it, they're both economic systems because they both involve a distinct manner of handling/overseeing the free market.

Nothing contrived here. No general lumping of other tools like mathematics, engineering, logic, various analytical techniques (e.g. PCR, peptide mapping, carbon dating, etc...), into the parent term of science either.

Science (see 3a) in the strictest sense requires adherence to the scientific method.

Nothing contrived here. No general lumping of other tools like mathematics, engineering, logic, various analytical techniques (e.g. PCR, peptide mapping, carbon dating, etc...), into the parent term of science either.

Science (see 3a) in the strictest sense requires adherence to the scientific method.

You can't show that someone misused a word by providing one usage that would be incorrect. You must show that all possible meanings of the word would be incorrect. Unfortunately for you, there is one meaning that fits his usage:
engineer:
3.c. a person who carries through an enterprise by skillful or artful contrivance

Hint, that is a word. From Merriam Webster

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/irregardless

"The most frequently repeated remark about it is that âoethere is no such word.â There is such a word, however."

Just because you choose to not recognize it, even though you understand perfectly what he meant by it, shows your ignorance. By the way, ain't is a word too, well a contraction at any rate.

Hmm, I've got mod points but I can't find the -1, Wrong entry on the menu. So I'll just point out here that you're wrong. The internet has not magically caused everyone to use your particular dialect of English.

Er, thanks for the reply instead of down-mod. And, apologies to orig. poster; I was a bit harsh.

However, I was also correct. And misuse (on the internet or elsewhere) has not (yet) made drug mean dragged.

Drug tr.v.:

1. To administer a drug to.
2. To poison or mix (food or drink) with a drug.
3. To stupefy or dull with or as if with a drug: drugged with sleep.

Or here:

transitive verb
1: to affect with a drug; especially : to stupefy by a narcotic drug
2: to administer a drug to
3: to lull or stupefy as if with a drug

This site is also in agreement.

It's rather clear that orig. poster was meaning dragged.

Used games give zero profit to the developers, and often actually *cost* the developer money (storing two player's data on their servers instead of just one).

Often? Did the majority of games suddenly grow a persistent multi-player component when I wasn't looking?

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/negativistic

2. to put by trickery into an undesirable position

You're using one of the most commonly used fallacies in existence to attempt to discredit a statement. Quit it. It gets old, usually it's an attack on grammar or spelling, but ignoring an accepted definition in order to twist another is in second place.

France is currently being colonized by Muslims.

Colonise
Dude, they're just immigrants.
They aren't melting well, and that's causing problems, which turns you into a bigotted fascist.

Muslims reproduce more

Yeah, they probably do. Holdover habits from the old country. Give em a generation or two and they'll match 1st world standards. (Isn't a slumping birthrate an issue for Europe?)

they also demand French people to adapt to Muslim costumes

Calling it a costume makes you a fascist bigot.
But cite some sources for this. Here in the USA I have zero casual knowledge of this and I don't see it as having a snowballs chance in hell of actually happening. I mean, the immigrants can whine all they want, but that doesn't mean the girls have to cover up.

You are right, but so is the submitter...
Decimate

And just how, pray tell, do you think they measure the mass of the bars Mr. Nitpicker? Some elaborate physics experiment?

Think about it.
Here's a hint: http://visual.merriam-webster.com/science/measuring-devices/measure-weight/beam-balance.php