Slashdot Mirror

This law is hardly under attack in Germany

I don't think that word means what you think it means. "Hardly" means "almost not", but I'm quite sure you wanted to say "very much" ...

Well, hardly.

[Citation needed] It is underhanded of you to cherry-pick definitions to support only your argument
Webster Dictionary describes it as:
2) racial prejudice or discrimination (a.k.a "the act, practice, or an instance of discriminating categorically rather than individually")
So now that we have citations and more definitions.. it is clear that not allowing a monkey picture of someone because of their race is clearly discriminating by a category (their race) instead of on their personal merit of resembling a monkey.
You are supporting a racist argument. You really are. You think you're doing the right thing, but you're merely perpetuating stereotypes.

[Citation needed] It is underhanded of you to cherry-pick definitions to support only your argument
Webster Dictionary describes it as:
2) racial prejudice or discrimination (a.k.a "the act, practice, or an instance of discriminating categorically rather than individually")
So now that we have citations and more definitions.. it is clear that not allowing a monkey picture of someone because of their race is clearly discriminating by a category (their race) instead of on their personal merit of resembling a monkey.
You are supporting a racist argument. You really are. You think you're doing the right thing, but you're merely perpetuating stereotypes.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/scientific%20method

and the formulation and testing of hypotheses

So, in what way is Anthropomorphic Climate Change testable? It is a hypothesis, yes. How can it be tested?

Basically. ACC is not science at all. It is philosophy or rather, politics, until it is made testable.

Do you want the email on the professor I read it with? Just so you can notify him personally that the laying out of branches of government, establishing the election process, citizen rights, free speech and all that has nothing to do with democracy. He'll be so surprised.

If he is surprised, then he's an idiot, too. I repeat, read it yourself.

Pray tell, what makes a country democratic, if not free speech, free elections, oversight of government, balances to prevent accumulation of power, basic rights of all citizens, habeas corpus?

What makes a country a democracy is majority rule, it has nothing to do with any of those other things at all.

I take back the part about reading the constitution. Maybe you should start with a dictionary.

Same place I get that water is wet, fire is hot, sky (on Earth) is bluish color and other hard to find information.
It is common sense.

Or, you can look it up.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/fame

http://www.yourdictionary.com/fame

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

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

I have problems with your semantics (lying and cynicism are not mutually exclusive)

Never said they were.

OK, my bad. When you said "there's nothing cynical about using the beliefs of others as camouflage in order to attain your own goals." I should have pointed you at a dictionary that that clearly contradicts you.

and there's no real difference between the old USSR and the new Russian Federation.

Never said that, either.

Really? Then I have no idea what point you're trying to make.

corporations and the wealthy *flaunt* the tax system

Like... walk it around town and show everyone how incredibly sexy it is? Or mayhap you meant flout? :)

Programming is the IT equivalent of brick laying, it's a trade, not a profession

Programming is ... an art, AND a profession.

Look up the definition of profession. I don't think it means only what you think it means. Your statement was unprofessional :-p

Is it a trade? Sure. And a profession. And, for some of us, it's an art, and we like it like that, because good code can be beautiful in the eye of the beholder.

I think you are using a rosier definition of ambition than is standard. Websters has a more precise definition: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ambition

As to your overall point, the following holds true a majority of the time; No person will commit any action without that action providing them some benefit. Mother Theresa, for example, didn't do her charity work because she didn't want to. It gave her a sense of fulfillment, it felt right.

At a very base level, there is no such thing as a selfless act.

Plus every source file would be a .gog!

"Steal" and "take" are not synonyms, you know.

After all, dictionary.com gives this as a sense for "steal": 2. to appropriate (ideas, credit, words, etc.) without right or acknowledgment.

And Merriam-Webster says of "steal": synonyms steal, pilfer, filch, purloin mean to take from another without right or without detection. steal may apply to any surreptitious taking of something and differs from the other terms by commonly applying to intangibles as well as material things.

Oh yeah, and I can't help that the definition you gave is either your own (unlikely) or you stole the definition from someone else.

Hmmm... well, I realize that checking a dictionary first would've been a lot of work, but here's what m-w has to say about it. Note that the first entry is for the verb "impact".

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/america. Also, according to several of my many U.S. American friends, my English is noticeably superior to that of the average U.S. American speaker. From what I understand, I wouldn't have been allowed into a German university with the typical lack of understanding of English grammar that is common in U.S. American high school graduates. When I was studying towards my doctorate in physics at the University of Oregon, I once had a competition with another graduate student, a native speaker, concerning the usage of grammar in English. From what I recall, it was a close call, but I won the competition. That was almost 20 years ago. I am fairly certain that my English skills have improved since then. I make most of the silly mistakes that native speakers make but, I make them in order to fit in and I am still keenly aware of them, when I make them! Examples are using "is" when it should be "are" or "me" when it should be "I", or "who" when it should be "whom." The last one may only be required in British English, I am not sure...

Then this must be wrong?

Close, but no cigar. To whit:

Etymology: Middle English poumgrenet, from Anglo-French pome garnette, literally, seedy fruit

link: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pomegranate

Sapient?

I think you mean "sentient".

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

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

Sapient?

I think you mean "sentient".

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

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

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

Please learn to use words properly. Albeit means, literally "Although it be", right? So your sentence makes no sense at all.

The word you were looking for was "Although". Or perhaps "Although I rather think..." or something like that.

Never use that word again, k?

I don't normally complain in this manner, but I've noticed a recent rise in misuse of this word, and it's quite irritating.

Monolithic maybe, megalithic no.

Webster has a better definition.

Compare adsorption with absorb.

An adsorbent gathers stuff (fine particles or even dissolved substances) on its surface via very small intra-molecular forces, similar to static cling. Thus, you need large surface area per volume (porous structure).

An absorbent gathers fluids (liquids or gases) in its pores via capillary action. Thus, you need a porous structure for this too, but for an entirely different reason.

Webster has a better definition.

Compare adsorption with absorb.

An adsorbent gathers stuff (fine particles or even dissolved substances) on its surface via very small intra-molecular forces, similar to static cling. Thus, you need large surface area per volume (porous structure).

An absorbent gathers fluids (liquids or gases) in its pores via capillary action. Thus, you need a porous structure for this too, but for an entirely different reason.

What's next, we're going to call telemarketers "vammers"? And we'll call phreakers "vackers"?

How about varmints and pharmints?

Telemarketers don't deserve a new word, especially when an existing one fits so well. Phreakers at least are exhibiting some level of skill, even if it is in a somewhat antisocial manner (so I assume, at least).

"irrumating.

Slashdot's word of the day. And no, that word doesn't mean what you think it means.

There's a special circle of hell for people who talk at the movies and those who do what you just did.

You might try actually looking it up before you hypercorrect someone...

Methinks the term exclusive can have more than one meaning. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/exclusive
b : limiting or limited to possession, control, or use by a single individual or group

or from http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/exclusive
single or sole

So the netflix was limited to one console (XBOX 360) whether by contract or just first entry.

Grr... forgot to escape the brackets in the Merriam-Webster quote.

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

-- Merriam-Webster

Wow, how did MS pay you to write that? When I talked about % ratings i was referring to IE's compliance in working with CSS (using the acid test)

What you thought you were referring to is irrelevant. What you said was that IE has never been more than 20% web compliant (which is false):

Just look at Internet Explorer, they have been working on it since 1994. 15 years later, we are still YET to receive a browser from Microsoft that is at least more than 20% web compliant.

yet 2 a (1) : up to now : so far --often used to imply the negative of a following infinitive

-- Merriam-Webster

THE religion was meant to specify the religion specifically being talked about, not that there is only one religion. I have said in another post just a little lower that I have no problem with gay marriage, and I really don't. I have a problem with calling it marriage as that is the name of a religious ceremony:

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

Definition #2 for your edification.

My dad pointed out to me once that, at least originally, "trolley" referred to just the device at the top of a streetcar that provides the electrical junction between the overhead power lines and the car.

inflammatory

Pronunciation: \in-fla-m-tor-\

Function: adjective

Date: circa 1711

1 : tending to excite anger, disorder, or tumult : seditious

2 : tending to inflame or excite the senses

3 : accompanied by or tending to cause inflammation

— inflammatorily \-fla-m-tor--l\ adverb

Source

Come on people... there is no such word as noone It's 'no one' !!

You'd think all the literate people on this blog would eventually call people who do this...

Oh, that's right, Slashdot... grammer doesn't count, drivel does.

noone - Wiktionary

or

noone from Merriam-Webster dictionary

word natzy

You want to claim the origins of liberalism for the American Libertarians

I want to make no such claim, I am stating what liberalism used to mean before others distorted the meaning. Back when the Founding Fathers used it there was no qualification to liberal or liberalism. To them liberalism meant liberty and small government. You are making the claim as to w2aht it means not me. Only now you're using "Lockean Liberalism". I dare you to find any qualifications to "liberal" such as "Classical" or "Lockean" used by Jefferson, Madison, or any of the other Founding Fathers. Heck, even Onelook defines liberalism as "an economic theory advocating free competition and a self-regulating market and the gold standard". Looking at the first three links to online definitions, American Heritage Dictionary, Encarta® World English Dictionary, and Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary also define it that way.

Falcon

I was wondering the same, I saw Private Eye itself use 'injuncted', but I think this is another of those slightly fishy past-participle formations, like 'to gift' which some people use instead of 'to give'. I believe the right verb is 'to enjoin', and so 'enjoined'. An act of joining things is a junction, and so an act of enjoining is an injunction (so the first letter changes, but apart from that it follows the rule). Merriam-Webster also supports this.

...so if information is information, it's remembered, right? Memory?

If the issue isn't lack of information, but lack of study, what is study? Examination of a certain amount of information, and not grabbing all of it? I don't see how it's possible to study *everything in the world* in school.

That being said, what does study produce as output? I'm seeing something like..... hmm... *thinks* examination of information =~ discovering underlying concepts and patterns. So, using underlying concepts and patterns like "how to do multiplication" or "how to understand what the dinosaurs looked like" is.. hmm.. useful, BUT, if you don't use it in your life, what is the use?

Now lemme think again *strains with face turning red* understanding HOW things work and storing information with a past modeling concept in mind, along with taking a look at current subjects with those models applied, and let me mention "with near 100% accuracy and repetition of past events and models," I conjecture a person who has more useful ability than the storage of the information from school.

Now let me decide who I should be that's of more use... Do I want to be the person who learned what they were taught in school, by the reading materials and examinations of rote that were chosen by that school district and/or their teaching staff?
Do I want to be someone that can understand the underlying concepts of things, events, and procedural outcomes, so that I may intelligently learn how to learn things of use, filter out garbage, and understand the outcome of situations before wasting people and/or time attempting them?

I'll choose the latter.

Irony is when a phrase has an opposite meaning than it's literal meaning or intended meaning.

It's ironic that someone who portrays himself to be an expert on linguistic devices couldn't even get the language itself right.

Also, from your own reference for "irony":

6. the incongruity of this.

Using just one definition and discarding the rest in an attempt to prove a point? Pardon me for being cynical.

As the ingenuity of GenL shows, it's not up to them.

I'm unfamiliar with GenL, can you please shed some light on that. Both Google and M-W were no help. The best I can infer is you mean Generation Linux... but that doesn't quite grok.

I get a huge kick out of the fact that the name is a likely play on the X-Men hero "Dazzler", who used light to disorient people.

Or it could be that the name is a likely play on the word "dazzle", as in "to lose clear vision especially from looking at bright light", but your guess is good too...

This is exactly the situation this word was invented for.

Let us look up the definition of "misappropriate [merriam-webster.com]", shall we? "to appropriate wrongly (as by theft or embezzlement)"

If you really want to play that game, you should've looked up appropriate:

1 : to take exclusive possession of

This is the definition you'd like to apply, and quite possibly the one that was meant. But look here:

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

Which says nothing about exclusive possession, or depriving the others of said use. It seems to me that this is exactly what's happening here.

So I suppose the answer is "very yes".

Fair enough. But it's also only something which can be done at the individual level, or, very carefully, with open source. If I use h.264 for something, and a commercial entity wants to make use of that something -- be it source material or software -- they're going to have to pay some sort of fee, or risk lawsuits.

Which also means they'll be legitimizing software patents in the process.

If I instead use Theora, a commercial entity can just pick it up and run with it, to the extent that my licence allows -- that's my license, not mine plus h.264.

I don't think that choosing Theora for that reason puts me in the lunatic fringe of frothing-at-the-mouth FSF "free as in freedom" people.

Let me reword it in a way that more unambiguously represents the intent of my analogy: Most people would agree that Crysis's graphics engine is better than Pong's.

I wouldn't agree with that, either. Let's try again, with something more relevant: Would most people agree Crysis' graphics engine is better than Valve's Source Engine? From the games I've seen, the Source engine is much better at scaling up and down -- I don't know of any CryEngine-based games that will run on 256 megs of RAM and a DirectX 6 graphics card.

Or consider price -- if I'm wanting to build a free mod, what's the best engine? The Source engine may give me a free SDK, as will several other commercial engines. On the other hand, if I start with Nexuiz or Quake 3, I get source code. Depending on the game I'm trying to build, being able to modify the engine -- not to mention deliver a stand-alone executable -- may trump whatever technical features Source has over those engines.

Add to that the fact that Nexuiz and Quake 3 are both incredibly scalable, and Quake 3 almost certainly supports much older systems than Source, and you can see why one graphics engine is not necessarily "best", unless one presupposes (as you do) that the only criteria worth considering for making an engine "good" is "makes the most realistic graphics".

I understand what your analogy is trying to do, but no matter how you reword it, it's still not valid -- even when you get it down to "what's the best sorting algorithm?", the answer isn't always Quicksort.

except for a specific, tiny minority, most people would agree with me that "more quality per bit" is, in fact, what makes one compression method "better" than another.

Depends what you mean by "tiny". While I'm often surprised at the number of game studios who pay for MP3 support in their games, rather than just using vorbis, that is a valid concern for just about anyone who wants to include a video clip in their game. Or in any other software, for that matter.

That may still fit your definition of "tiny", though, I'm not sure.

your wording was "anywhere other than the pirate community", and that's an exact quote.

I also said "likely to be" -- but I suppose you have a point.

refuse to make it easier for the developers of a specific program to implement a single feature poorly.

Or make it possible for the developers of any browser to impleme

How your trash got modded insightful is beyond me.

>Speaking of Orwellian, you're a fascist.

Didn't you get the memo? Calling those you disagree with facist is so 2001-2008... now you are supposed to call them racist, get with it man!

>No one is rioting.

Depends on your definition of rioting, Merriam-Webster defines it in part as:

2 a : public violence, tumult, or disorder b : a violent public disorder; specifically : a tumultuous disturbance of the public peace by three or more persons assembled together and acting with a common intent

Given some of the footage I've seen... that would seem to fit it... or are people grabbing dumpsters and running them towards the police something ordinary and peaceful protestors do?

>That's a lie that you just made up.

Such a shame that the word 'lie' has lost all meaning over the last 8 years.

For what he said to be a lie... he would have to know the truth and be deliberately trying to say or imply otherwise. He could be dead wrong... as could you... however you are offering no more than him but instead come off looking rather petty with your name calling.

>I've read several accounts of what has been going on, and I find nothing about damage or what I would call a "riot".

Really? Your Google-foo must be weak... mine though is strong, because a quick search for g 20 pittsburgh damage turns up 290k hits... repeating a number of ~50k in damage (20k of which sounds to be due to one man).

Care to offer some links to some of these bits you've read with no mention of damage?

>What the protesters are accused of is "unlawful assembly", but I've also found nothing about what makes the gathering unlawful.

Just because you have the right to free speech does not mean you are free to exercise it where you want. Some areas (including Pittsburgh) require permits for certain types of activities so as to try to prevent those activities from interfering with the rights of others.

Those groups who were accused of 'unlawfully assembly' failed to acquire such permits.

Interestingly enough... many of the Tea Parties planned ahead and did.

>So that makes you a fascist who hates our constitution and our freedoms, in my book.

And you are a moron who does not understand our constitution or our freedoms... not just in my book, but in demonstrated fact, as evidenced by this post of yours.

>It doesn't matter what they think they are accomplishing.

Amazing... you've actually said something correct here, congrats!

>They have a first amendment right to protest, and shooting them with pain cannons seems to fly in the face of that right.

It depends on if they are breaking the law while exercising that right.

I too have the right to free speech... however if I show up outside of your front door with a bullhorn at 3 am to express it with a lecture on... why Coke is better than Pepsi, I will be arrested (as I should).

If I were to return with a group of friends the next night to protest my arrest, break a few windows and refuse to leave when the police come, they would once again be legally obligated (rightly so) to arrest us.

>If someone breaks a window, obviously that person should be arrested, but you can't arrest people for crimes that you think they might be about to commit when there is no evidence that any crime is imminent.

You started correct... but then just had to go off on another nonsensical tangent... unless you wish to provide specific evidence from this case of someone being arrested for just being there based on the fear that they MIGHT commit a crime...

Which, like it or not, is still not a terribly inaccurate way of describing what's going on here. You could say "illegal unlicensed format", if you like, but I don't think it changes the tone significantly.

Violating IP laws is not the same as theft. Not even close. Were it merely claimed to be illegal, I never would've had a problem with its wording. Let us look up the definition of "misappropriate", shall we? "to appropriate wrongly (as by theft or embezzlement)" Saying merely that it's "illegal" is a neutral statement of fact. Using the word "misappropriate" expresses an opinion of the author that it is against morals or ethics, which goes a fair bit beyond that, and unless the author thinks doing things that they believe to be wrong is good (a rather safe assumption), one can thus conclude that they disapprove of it. This changes the tone very significantly.

Are you going to argue that patent infringement is a positive thing? I'm not necessarily saying I disagree, but let's be clear, because it sounds like that's what you're advocating.

I'd say members of a society have no obligation to follow laws that harm society, or perhaps even that they have an obligation to expressly ignore such laws. Software patents are certainly such a case (and the patent system overall needs a pretty huge overhaul). So I suppose the answer is "very yes".

It's "better" even if it's impossible? In that case, might I suggest a codec that assumes we've solved the halting problem?

The qualifier "given current hardware" is pretty important there. A codec that requires solving the halting problem isn't simply "impossible on current hardware", but just plain "impossible". Though I would say it's better, even if a bit less than useful.

[snip lots of stuff about Crysis and Pong]

You seem to have grossly misinterpreted my intent with that comparison (and also completely ignored the other), rephrased it to more directly represent this (incorrectly) perceived intent, and then argued against that. Let me reword it in a way that more unambiguously represents the intent of my analogy: Most people would agree that Crysis's graphics engine is better than Pong's.

The fact that you don't consider a concern to be important doesn't make the concern go away, because like it or not, Virak on Slashdot is not the arbitrator of What's Best for Everyone.

Given the fact that pretty much every comparison of video codecs ranks them by better-as-in-more-quality-per-bit, and all progress in lossy compression has been driven by the quest for better-as-in-more-quality-per-bit, and all the video compression experts I've talked to use better-as-in-more-quality-per-bit, and all the non-experts I've talked to use better-as-in-more-quality-per-bit, I feel safe to say that except for a specific, tiny minority, most people would agree with me that "more quality per bit" is, in fact, what makes one compression method "better" than another.

focusing on users and ignoring commercial usage is distorting the picture, even if you only care from a user's perspective.

Again, putting words in my mouth. I never ignored commercial usage. You completely ignored personal usage; your wording was "anywhere other than the pirate community", and that's an exact quote. I pointed out that the only place patents matter is commercial usage and there is a large amount of usage of video codecs that is neither piracy nor commercial, and thus that your assertion that only pirates don't need to worry about the patents was blatantly false.

[stuff about Firefox]

Yes, it's the fault of all these big bad encoder meanies who refuse to make it easier for the developers of a specific program to implement a si

Merriam-Webster disagrees with you.

So you're saying that an XLS file isn't a database. Then I say it is a database. Then you say it is a database but it's still not a database because just rows and columns does not make it a database. Well what DOES make something a database?

According to Merriam-Webster, a database is "a usually large collection of data organized especially for rapid search and retrieval (as by a computer)." Based on that definition, how is an SQL database (which, you agree, could use a spreadsheet format for storing data) AT ALL different from a "spreadsheet"?

It's so not-a-solution to foreign oil that it makes no sense to damage that ecosystem just to immeasurably affect our situation.

You keep using that word... I do not think it connotes what you think it connotes....

While PP's correction of GP's improper choice of homonym is laudable, the incorrect definition PP provides, and the tacit approval of GP's errant usage that stems from that, are unfortunate. Give PP 1 point, but take away 2 points.

When you're correcting someone's correction, you really should double-check your assertions to make sure you're not talking crass nonsense, especially if you do it in that tone.

Your point:

However while "moot" can take several different meanings, "Of no practical importance; irrelevant" is not one of them.

Your fault:

moot, adj.

2: deprived of practical significance : made abstract or purely academic

(http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/moot[3])

As I posted above, http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/organic. Definitions 3a vs. 3b. Round Two. Fight!

They way these people use the term incorrectly drives me nuts.

Seriously.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/organic He's using definition 3a. You're using 3b.

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

Inflected Form(s): canceled or cancelled

Please turn in your Grammar Nazi badge. I want another.

I don't know why you people are making such a big deal about a perfectly cromulent word.