Slashdot Mirror

From Webster:

Main Entry: terrorism
Pronunciation: \ter-r-i-zm
Function: noun
Date: 1795
: the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion

You can call yourself a revolutionary if you go after military targets, but if you are deliberately launching attacks on civilian targets to affect change in government, then you are the very definition of a terrorist.

See, the problem with the Slashdot attitude is that, in order to be "revolutionary," it has to be technically different.

Revolution: 2 a : a sudden, radical, or complete change

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

There's a big difference between "a Red Bull can" and "a can of Red Bull". One implies it's just the can, the other implies it's a can of something. Can you guess which is which?

Using your example, consider these two phrases:

1. a gasoline can
2. a can of gasoline

Which implies that it contains gasoline? Yeah, same for the Red Bull. Here's some homework you can take to your English tutor:

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=54975&dict=CALD (definition: "containing")
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/of (definition 4: "substance or contents")
http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?lextype=3&search=of (definition 4: "containing a particular substance")
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/of

You get the picture. Maybe if you're in deep redneck country, words have a different meaning. But the majority of the world parses "a can of Red Bull" as it being a can which contains Red Bull. Otherwise, it'd be a Red Bull can, wouldn't it?

It is evident that you are the one who can't read. Many words in the English language have multiple meanings. It is clear that the post to which you were replying was using the word sugar in the sense of table sugar, or sucrose. See definition 1.a.

quite a while before comp sci started breaking the standard by incorrectly using the prefixes for base-2.

Word meanings change all the time, and "standards bodies" sometimes try to stop people from "corrupting" meanings. This isn't necessarily bad.. but more often than not it's fruitless. France actually has a language police and a law to try to "preserve" the french language.

As someone else pointed out, language is inherently contextual. We can survive two meanings of kilo used in different contexts and survive quite nicely. If adherence to someone's standard is your only argument you might as well start a campaign complaining about the multiple definitions of dog.

Re: your comment, GP's user ID *IS* a palindrome. It helps if you know what a word means before you correct someone else's use of it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palindrome
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/palindrome
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/palindrome
http://sarahpalin.typepad.com/

Oops, well 3 out of 4 anyway ;)

Perhps there is logic in him refusing the money. But a huge majority of humanity will take the money. As he won't, that is not normal behaviour. Un-normal behaviour is called strange. Look at number 4 at http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/strange

Well I looked it up in a dictionary http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism and wikipedia. I understand what you mean, I just think you are misusing the word socialism. What they have in Scandinavia and to some degree in Britain is a capitalist system, except they throw in high taxation which pays for a substantial safety net and other social services (in other words the welfare state).

<pendantic>I believe the term you are looking for is constitutional republic...

And I believe the word you were reaching for is pedantic, as pendantic isn't even defined in the urban dictionary, much less any that contain factual material.

--
Using real words is a surefire way to make yourself look less like an ass.

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

Main Entry: imperialism
Function: noun
Date: 1800

1 : imperial government, authority, or system
2 : the policy, practice, or advocacy of extending the power and dominion of a nation especially by direct territorial acquisitions or by gaining indirect control over the political or economic life of other areas; broadly : the extension or imposition of power, authority, or influence

If you don't think forcing another country to obey our laws by violating their national sovereignty through political and military influence isn't imperialism, you're fucking stupid.

That's the beauty of a free country.

When the government forces you to do it, there's no "free".

In a "free country", the people still have the choice to do it or not.

In a free country, the people can tell their government "NO!", and the government will listen.

The US Government became a tyranny when the reigning political party ran roughshod over the American people to get as much of their agenda through as they could before the next election.

I wish more facilities would take this tact

<nazi mode="semantics">You mean tack , "the direction of a ship with respect to the trim of her sails" or, metaphorically, "a course or method of action". Tact means "sensitive mental or aesthetic perception" or "a keen sense of what to do or say in order to maintain good relations with others or avoid offense" and is not short for, nor in any way related to, the word tactic.</nazi>

I wish more facilities would take this tact

<nazi mode="semantics">You mean tack , "the direction of a ship with respect to the trim of her sails" or, metaphorically, "a course or method of action". Tact means "sensitive mental or aesthetic perception" or "a keen sense of what to do or say in order to maintain good relations with others or avoid offense" and is not short for, nor in any way related to, the word tactic.</nazi>

Wikipedia may make for interesting and informative reading, but I wouldn't rely on it for accurate definitions. And you even managed to quote part of the article that's marked as "dubious". Nice.

How about going to a dictionary for a definition:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/democracy
1 a : government by the people; especially : rule of the majority b : a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections
2 : a political unit that has a democratic government
3 capitalized : the principles and policies of the Democratic party in the United States
4 : the common people especially when constituting the source of political authority
5 : the absence of hereditary or arbitrary class distinctions or privileges

The key point in the primary definition of democracy is "rule of the majority". There is no rule of the majority in open source, anyone can use whichever tree they choose or develop their own. If it was a democracy, users could only choose to use trees that had been approved by the majority.

Now, let's look at anarchy:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anarchy
1 a : absence of government b : a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority c : a utopian society of individuals who enjoy complete freedom without government
2 a : absence or denial of any authority or established order b : absence of order :

Is there a government in open source? No. Do users enjoy complete freedom without government in open source, being able to use whichever tree they want or develop their own if no existing ones meet their needs? Yes. Is there an authority in open source that must be obeyed? No. Seems like anarchy to me.

Wikipedia may make for interesting and informative reading, but I wouldn't rely on it for accurate definitions. And you even managed to quote part of the article that's marked as "dubious". Nice.

How about going to a dictionary for a definition:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/democracy
1 a : government by the people; especially : rule of the majority b : a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections
2 : a political unit that has a democratic government
3 capitalized : the principles and policies of the Democratic party in the United States
4 : the common people especially when constituting the source of political authority
5 : the absence of hereditary or arbitrary class distinctions or privileges

The key point in the primary definition of democracy is "rule of the majority". There is no rule of the majority in open source, anyone can use whichever tree they choose or develop their own. If it was a democracy, users could only choose to use trees that had been approved by the majority.

Now, let's look at anarchy:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anarchy
1 a : absence of government b : a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority c : a utopian society of individuals who enjoy complete freedom without government
2 a : absence or denial of any authority or established order b : absence of order :

Is there a government in open source? No. Do users enjoy complete freedom without government in open source, being able to use whichever tree they want or develop their own if no existing ones meet their needs? Yes. Is there an authority in open source that must be obeyed? No. Seems like anarchy to me.

...what you think it means.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/netdict/contingent

contingent
2 entries found.

      1. 1contingent (adjective)
      2. 2contingent (noun)

Main Entry: 1contingent
Pronunciation: \kn-tin-jnt\
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from Latin contingent-, contingens, present participle of contingere to have contact with, befall, from com- + tangere to touch -- more at tangent
Date: 14th century

1 : likely but not certain to happen : possible
2 : not logically necessary; especially : empirical
3
a : happening by chance or unforeseen causes
b : subject to chance or unseen effects : unpredictable
c : intended for use in circumstances not completely foreseen
4 : dependent on or conditioned by something else
5 : not necessitated : determined by free choice
synonyms see accidental

-- contingently adverb

You know... there is likely, but not certain chance that you can "catch" any bacterial or viral disease.
Or sustain any form of physical injury possible.
Or even acquire an illness due to the changes in your lifestyle beyond your control - such as due to aging.

None of those have anything to do with "pre-existing" conditions, but you sure as hell can make SURE that in case it happens - your ass will get the necessary treatment.

In a conference call, you're not effectively in two places at once at all. You're effectively communicating with people at multiple disparate locations while remaining in one location.

Actually, you are. From Effectively:

Effectively: adverb: 1: in effect : virtually

So, I'm "actually" communicating with people at multiple disparate location, while remaining in one location, making me "effectively" in two places at once. My virtual presence can have an actual effect on those actually present, making me effectively present too.

The very definition of a search engine prevents it from being passive :-)

TWDMWYTID

PYMTWI?

TWDMWYTID

PYMTWI?

There's no need for the (n?). The word starts with a consonant, and just because Americans seemingly can't pronounce the letter H, doesn't mean you have to lower yourself also.

The "h" in "homage" is silent in the preferred pronunciation. So if you're using the preferred pronunciation it's "an homage", just like "an hour"; but if you're using some dialect where the h is pronounced, "a homage" would be correct.

So either could be ok here, but I have a strong urge to punch people who say "an historic occasion" or "an hallucination". These are just wrong, unless you are a Cockney aitch-dropper. Such bad grammar does not leave me an happy camper.

It's a simple rule: "an" before vowel sounds, "a" before consonants. The "n" in "an" is exactly there to hold vowels apart; if you don't have adjacent vowels (sounds, not symbols) in your phrase, it's redundant.

Hello,

1. I don't think that word means what you think it does. (Hint: It does NOT mean "wrong".)

2. In 50 years, it might be worth a fair amount precisely due to sentiment (nostalgia).

3. You're welcome.

That, or the fact that 'benthic' is an adjective referring to the bottom of the ocean.

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

...Even if you never use it yourself, it would still effect you.

For example, if the internet were down, you might not be able to look up the proper usage of certain words.

...Even if you never use it yourself, it would still effect you.

For example, if the internet were down, you might not be able to look up the proper usage of certain words.

Main Entry: enfranchise
Pronunciation: \in-fran-chz, en-\
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): enfranchised; enfranchising
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French enfranchiss-, stem of enfranchir, from en- + franc free -- more at frank
Date: 15th century

1 : to set free (as from slavery)
2 : to endow with a franchise: as a : to admit to the privileges of a citizen and especially to the right of suffrage b : to admit (a municipality) to political privileges or rights

Source:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/enfranchise

The first definition, "to set free" is simple enough. The second definition is simply one who has received a Franchise (our subject is a group of people after all), so let us examine the definition of Franchise. In essence, it is a right to something. (The etymology of the word is interesting, its base having the meaning "free".)

So back to analyzing the summary:

If we assume the summary refers to those people who have no access to a toilet then the definition does match the usage of the word. In addition if you have no alternative other than using a toilet (or perceive no alternative) then the word would be correct in its usage. In either case the word would be correct in usabe bacause the person(s) are certainly not free, they are constrained in either choice or action.

If we assume the usage is to apply to those who don't *like* toilets and would prefer an alternative then the word is misused.

I would recommend reading a book of grammar and the rules of the English language before commenting on the meaning of words. I would also recommend that you stop assuming that you know exactly what group of unnamed people a speaker or author refers to.

I am sure you have heard of the saying about what happens when you assume things. =)

Here would be some examples of dictionary references to the word Franchise:

From Merriam-Webster:

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

Main Entry: 1franchise
Pronunciation: \fran-chz\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French, from franchir to free, from franc free --
more at frank Date: 14th century
1 : freedom or immunity from some burden or restriction vested in a person or group

2 a : a special privilege granted to an individual or group; especially : the right to be and exercise the powers of a corporation b : a constitutional or statutory right or privilege; especially : the right to vote c (1) : the right or license granted to an individual or group to market a company's goods or services in a particular territory; also : a business granted such a right or license (2) : the territory involved in such a right

3 a : the right of membership in a professional sports league b : a team and its operating organization having such membership

From Reference.com:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/franchise

franchise /fræntaz/

-noun
1. a privilege of a public nature conferr

Main Entry: enfranchise
Pronunciation: \in-fran-chz, en-\
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): enfranchised; enfranchising
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French enfranchiss-, stem of enfranchir, from en- + franc free -- more at frank
Date: 15th century

1 : to set free (as from slavery)
2 : to endow with a franchise: as a : to admit to the privileges of a citizen and especially to the right of suffrage b : to admit (a municipality) to political privileges or rights

Source:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/enfranchise

The first definition, "to set free" is simple enough. The second definition is simply one who has received a Franchise (our subject is a group of people after all), so let us examine the definition of Franchise. In essence, it is a right to something. (The etymology of the word is interesting, its base having the meaning "free".)

So back to analyzing the summary:

If we assume the summary refers to those people who have no access to a toilet then the definition does match the usage of the word. In addition if you have no alternative other than using a toilet (or perceive no alternative) then the word would be correct in its usage. In either case the word would be correct in usabe bacause the person(s) are certainly not free, they are constrained in either choice or action.

If we assume the usage is to apply to those who don't *like* toilets and would prefer an alternative then the word is misused.

I would recommend reading a book of grammar and the rules of the English language before commenting on the meaning of words. I would also recommend that you stop assuming that you know exactly what group of unnamed people a speaker or author refers to.

I am sure you have heard of the saying about what happens when you assume things. =)

Here would be some examples of dictionary references to the word Franchise:

From Merriam-Webster:

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

Main Entry: 1franchise
Pronunciation: \fran-chz\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French, from franchir to free, from franc free --
more at frank Date: 14th century
1 : freedom or immunity from some burden or restriction vested in a person or group

2 a : a special privilege granted to an individual or group; especially : the right to be and exercise the powers of a corporation b : a constitutional or statutory right or privilege; especially : the right to vote c (1) : the right or license granted to an individual or group to market a company's goods or services in a particular territory; also : a business granted such a right or license (2) : the territory involved in such a right

3 a : the right of membership in a professional sports league b : a team and its operating organization having such membership

From Reference.com:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/franchise

franchise /fræntaz/

-noun
1. a privilege of a public nature conferr

Gardyloo!

Merriam-Webster says you can take your pedantry and shove it up your Peepoo:

to deprive of a franchise, of a legal right, or of some privilege or immunity; especially : to deprive of the right to vote

remind the audience to please be gentle.

Maybe we need a new section for speculative fiction here. We could call it soundingboard.slashdot.org, and everyone can go there and post their "Wouldn't it be cool if..." rants.

We can even simplify the comment section by just having one big "NO!" button.

3a: to seize, gain, or win by trickery

Value/worth is not something that can be stolen.

Just to make sure we are on the same page, your argument is that a counterfeiter is *not* gaining value by trickery. Is this correct?

Fuck off.

NONE of the definitions say “without evidence”, and definition 2b(1) specifically is:

firm belief in something for which there is no proof

Is that adequate “evidence” that your definition of “faith” is bullshit?

No. The value of their currency is reduced. Nothing was stolen. It’s just worth less than it was before.

1 a : to take or appropriate without right or leave and with intent to keep or make use of wrongfully. d : to appropriate to oneself or beyond one's proper share. 3 a : to seize, gain, or win by trickery

I've pretty sure you just said value/worth was stolen.

Care to try again?

You're incapable of demonstrating a single thing in the Bible that tells anyone to exclude any evidence. You're just inventing something that doesn't exist.

2 Peter 3:5. If you don't believe in creation, you're wrong.
Galatians 1:8. If anybody says something different from the Bible, they are cursed.
2 Corinthians 10:5. This one is so good, it can speak for itself:

Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;

If that's not clear enough I don't know what is.

That's what YOU were doing to "religious people." I was just playing along in the game you started.

Key word there is ignorant. I know a lot about history and where religion fits into it, including Christianity. I judge religion on the facts, the purges of heretics, the slaughter of infidels, the suppression of dissent, the continuance of misogyny, the tacit acceptance of racism and slavery, etc. etc. What I said is you don't know anything about these people beyond this story. Until you do, your judgement is weaker than my judgement of religion.

Also, 'judgement' is an accepted alternate spelling. But you wouldn't know that, since you have some strange aversion to dictionaries.

The Flexner Report is the reason why "modern medicine" costs so much. To quote the article:

One of the consequences of Flexner's advocacy of university-based medical education was that medical education became much more expensive, putting such education out of reach of all but upper class white males. The small "proprietary" schools Flexner condemned, which were contended to be have been based in generations-old folk traditions rather than relatively recent western science, did admit African-Americans, women, and students of limited financial means. These students usually could not afford six to eight years of university education, and were often simply denied admission to medical schools affiliated with universities. At the same time, the Report tended to delegitimize existing women doctors and doctors of color. While many such doctors continued to practice, usually within underserviced clienteles, they did so under proscribed circumstances and for less pay. In general, the standardization of medical education advocated in the Report led to the domination of American medicine by well-off white males. It also made it more difficult for people of color, residents of rural areas, and for those of limited means generally to obtain medical care in any form. The Flexner report recommended the closure of several African American medical schools, including the Leonard Medical Center, the oldest four-year medical school in the country for African-Americans.

-Flexner Report: American medicine becomes a less diverse profession

I don't know that there is a single politician in Washington who really groks the health care clusterfuck. 100 Years of Medical Robbery is required reading, as is the followup, Real Medical Freedom.

Today's health care systems sucks because an artificial monopoly has been given to a certain kind of "healer". End the monopoly, and things will improve.

To get back on-topic, the Pentagon surely has something better than rockets in their toolchest... I'd bet they have a SSTO spaceplane buried in the western deserts somewhere. :)

That is not true. To be correct and comprehendible, you must use "his/her."

Sorry, "their" is perfectly acceptable.

"The use of they, their, them, and themselves as pronouns of indefinite gender and indefinite number is well established in speech and writing, even in literary and formal contexts. This gives you the option of using the plural pronouns where you think they sound best, and of using the singular pronouns (as he, she, he or she, and their inflected forms) where you think they sound best."

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

Liar only has one meaning.

There are two definitions. Someone that tells an untruth, and someone that tells the truth with the intent to deceive.

Say wha?.. er, [citation needed].

I'll provide mine, from the webster's

Main Entry: liar Pronunciation: \l(-)r\ Function: noun Etymology: Middle English, from Old English logere, from logan to lie — more at lie Date: before 12th century : a person who tells lies

Main Entry: deceive Pronunciation: \di-sv\ Function: verb Inflected Form(s): deceived; deceiving Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French deceivre, from Latin decipere, from de- + capere to take — more at heave Date: 13th century transitive verb 1 archaic : ensnare 2 a obsolete : to be false to b archaic : to fail to fulfill 3 obsolete : cheat 4 : to cause to accept as true or valid what is false or invalid 5 archaic : to while away intransitive verb : to practice deceit; also : to give a false impression — deceiver noun — deceivingly \-s-vi-l\ adverb synonyms deceive, mislead, delude, beguile mean to lead astray or frustrate usually by underhandedness. deceive implies imposing a false idea or belief that causes ignorance, bewilderment, or helplessness . mislead implies a leading astray that may or may not be intentional . delude implies deceiving so thoroughly as to obscure the truth . beguile stresses the use of charm and persuasion in deceiving

So, a deceiver could be called a liar, but a liar lies and that's the end of it.

i hope you one day understand that "nothing has changed" relative to the possibility implied by "could" out of any deterministic context is completely correct.

Deterministic context, what? I'm sorry, which definition are you using and how is it relevant? If you're talking definition 2, the state of being determined, then this isn't a deterministic context (as the word "could" itself implies).

The conditional probability ("conditional" means based on knowledge) of Enceladus' potential habitability for life has gone up base on our increased knowledge. So in a factual context, "nothing has changed" is still completely wrong.

The only way it could be correct is if you don't acknowledge any states but "100% sure life exists", "100% sure it doesn't" and "other".

the correct headline as written by an informed editor, such as yourself, would thus read, "increase in our knowledge regarding saturn moon".

And this knowledge in particular was of the environment on the moon being more habitable to life than previously thought. Your headline isn't very good because it gives no indication of what this knowledge told us, and it did indeed tell us something. And yes, I am informed, and I think the current headline is fine.

only someone who is either uniformed, irresponsible, or lying would write the headline in it's current form.

Only a fool or someone deliberately playing one would believe that about the headline in it's current form. So, stop.

It's not 3 words, "all be it", it's a single word, albeit. You're obviously a native speaker, because otherwise you would have understood that difference...

It's jibe not jive.

It's jibe not jive.

Hint: "indentification" != "authentication".

Sure, m-w to the rescue:

Identity (3): the condition of being the same with something described or asserted

Authenticity (3) : not false or imitation : real, actual

In other words, you authenticate documents (who are just there) and identify people (who assert that they are so and so.) As part of identification you may need to authenticate something, or you may only need to look at or talk to people you personally know, or to compare their other biometrics (like {finger|palm}print).

That's why you are asked "Your ID, please!" or "Identify yourself!" and not "Authenticate yourself!" :-)

Hint: "indentification" != "authentication".

Sure, m-w to the rescue:

Identity (3): the condition of being the same with something described or asserted

Authenticity (3) : not false or imitation : real, actual

In other words, you authenticate documents (who are just there) and identify people (who assert that they are so and so.) As part of identification you may need to authenticate something, or you may only need to look at or talk to people you personally know, or to compare their other biometrics (like {finger|palm}print).

That's why you are asked "Your ID, please!" or "Identify yourself!" and not "Authenticate yourself!" :-)

...until that happens they can flaunt the law all they want.

Neato, so they're busy waving around a copy of the law, and / or bragging about it? :)

From Merriam-Webster:

<----------
Main Entry: flaunt
Function: verb
Etymology: perhaps of Scandinavian origin; akin to Old Norse flana to rush around
Date: 1566

intransitive verb
1 : to display or obtrude oneself to public notice <a great flaunting crowd — Charles Dickens>
2 : to wave or flutter showily <the flag flaunts in the breeze>

transitive verb
1 : to display ostentatiously or impudently : parade <flaunting his superiority>
2 : to treat contemptuously <flaunted the rules — Louis Untermeyer> (see note)

synonyms see show
---------->

The word you're looking for here is flout:

<----------
Main Entry: flout
Function: verb
Etymology: probably from Middle English flouten to play the flute, from floute flute
Date: 1551

transitive verb
: to treat with contemptuous disregard : scorn <flouting the rules>

intransitive verb
: to indulge in scornful behavior

synonyms see scoff
---------->

Note: It seems enough folks have confused flout and flaunt that the two are increasingly conflated, as noted in the second transitive definition for flaunt above. M-W includes a usage note at the bottom of the entry for flaunt describing this. (However, it's also worth noting that some of their examples as given indicate possible confusion by M-W's own editorial staff.)

One possibly useful mnemonic is to think of flaunt as a flag waving, and to think of flout as getting out of something.

Cheers,

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

It's a word, he just didn't use it right.

So quit your clammering.

According to webster, Democrat is the term of someone who belongs to the democratic party. Since his post was about "a" democrat president and "a" democrat congress, he is correct.

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

Heck, their url uses democrats instead of democratics. http://www.democrats.org/

"right to bear arms". What is an "arm"? Could the founders have intended it to cover a weapon they hadn't conceived of existing.

Not sure if you are attempting humor or showing natural ignorance, but...arms is short form of armaments http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/armaments which means weapons for killing people. So, in the intent of the constitution, all weapons are fair game.

Now, it could be debated that there could be a distinction between arms for defense and Weapons of Genocide (chemical, biological, nuclear, etc.), since WoGs are not used to target specific individuals whereas a bullet is, no matter if shot from a .22 pistol or .50 caliber machine gun.

"right to feel secure in person and property". Does that include data on your hard-drive? What if we invent a scanner that can perform an invasive search without entering your house? Are you secure or not? The constitution doesn't mention scanners (or wire taps, or computer sniffing, or infra-red cameras, or WiFi hacking equipment, or laser mics).

It's "living" when it's applied to a new situation that did not in the past exist. The same as all laws (or do we need to make new copyright laws every time someone comes up with a new storage device?)

There's no need to "reinvent laws" to match minor changes in technology, the premise for existing laws remains the same. And yes, your hard drive is your property so they should be required to have a warrant to seize and/or do data analysis on it. If you want a current example of this, look up the court rulings against cops using a FLIR device to read heat signatures on houses suspected of being part of a grow-op (a cannabis grow operation for all you cats not hip enough).

Pfft.

Well said - by one clearly losing this argument...

I'm sure I can find plenty of resources that claim that ain't is a word and I am sure I can find plenty of resources that claim that ain't is not a word.

Actually, "ain't" is a a word, just not one that people are encouraged to use. From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ain't (and http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ain't)

Ain't is a colloquialism and a contraction originally used for "am not"... The word is a perennial issue in English usage. It is a word that is widely used by many people, but its use is commonly considered to be improper.

Continuing...

Definitions change over time and what is considered an informal word today may tomorrow be a formal word.

This is not about word definitions, it's about word existence...

There is a clear separation of definition between alot and "a lot" in usage. I could care less what is taught, what matters is how it is used.

There is no word "alot" formal or informal - only uneducated or stupid. Which are you?

Although there is a word "lot" meaning "parcel" or "group", the two words "a lot" mean either, (formally) a singular "lot", or (informally) many.

It's clear that you "could care less what is taught" (though "couldn't care less" is the correct phrase), because, sadly, you apparently haven't ever learned anything.

Are you going to complain about into also?

Um no, because "into" *is* one word and has been since before the 12th century.
From: into

Main Entry: into
Function: preposition
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English into; from in + to.
Date: before 12th century.

In addition, "into" and "in to" are used differently. From: into/in to

"Into" is a preposition which often answers the question, "where?" For example, "Tom and Becky had gone far into the cave before they realized they were lost." Sometimes the "where" is metaphorical, as in, "He went into the army" or "She went into business." It can also refer by analogy to time: "The snow lingered on the ground well into April." In old-fashioned math talk, it could be used to refer to division: "Two into six is three."

In other instances where the words "in" and "to" just happen to find themselves neighbors, they must remain separate words. For instance, "Rachel dived back in to rescue the struggling boy." Here "to" belongs with "rescue" and means "in order to," not "where." (If the phrase had been "dived back into the water," "into" would be required.)

P.S. My wife was an English teacher.

Hi FuturePower,

I think that is a salient comment. One of the reasons Ive chosen to participate here on Slashdot is to be an apologist for Microsoft people specifically, and for the company to an extent.

Two things bug me the most

• When people just make stuff up about Microsoft. As a company, we certainly deserve criticism, but wow, some people sure make up some goofy stuff. I ask people to criticize all they like, just dont make stuff up.
• A certain class of people say really nasty personal things about people that work at Microsoft. This is really uncalled for and needs to be stood up to. These people are simply bullies. Its worse when they are anonymous. To those folks I say this.

IIm still learning about the best way to post here on Slashdot. But I hope Im having some positive effect. I think your comment above is a good result.

I cannot disagree that our senior execs have made some bad decisions. It happens. I also agree that we collectively stumbled in shipping Vista. It wasnt our best work. While you may not see it, there were many significant repercussions in the Windows organization due to this. Windows-7 was the result.

One thing I find interesting is they visceral dislike that many in the FOSS community have for Microsoft people and products. I can tell you this - it is not reciprocal at all, not even with our senior execs. Yes, Ballmer has made some famous quotes about the GPL, but notice hes talking about even this from a business perspective. I can honestly say that among Microsoft people there is very widespread respect for Linux, Apache, Perl, MySQL, and many other open source projects. Many softies also consider the idea of free and open software a noble purpose. I do.

Ill tell you another thing: We learn a lot from FOSS projects and the open source approach. While being open isnt the right thing for many of our products and businesses, it is for some and I think youll see more of this over time (I say this with no insider knowledge except for my projects). For example, Im a proponent of making the source of my next major project open. There is broad agreement and support to do so. It really is a no brainer.

What I find almost fascinating , is that the FOSS community doesnt seem to learn from Microsoft. [ pre-emptive snarky comment "We learn what not to do..." ]. We do a lot of things very, very well. Despite some obvious exceptions, our senior execs are very good. Ive worked at several big companies that were (and remain) very poorly run.

I suggest that if some people in the FOSS community spent as much energy focusing on delivering great products instead of focusing on beating Microsoft then they might be more successful. Microsoft is not in the list tiny little bit afraid of competition. We have lots of it. Personally, I think it makes us better. We compete by focusing on delivering great products that our customers like. While we pay attention to our competition, we dont spend a lot of time talking about how to beat it. Our strategy is to focus on what customers need first. Sometimes we screw up (like with Vista), but more often than not, we succeed.

In closing, I appreciate your comment and find much truth in it. I read your companys white paper /a>aand found it quite insightful.

Best Regardsbr /> --Foredecker