Slashdot Mirror

I gave up on Webster's as an authoritative source on the English language after they added bling to its dictionary. Noah Webster would be angered by the himbos now in charge of his publication. Perhaps the publishers are just part of the Sandwich generation and spend too much time with their parents while their mouse potato kids edit the dictionary for them.

I gave up on Webster's as an authoritative source on the English language after they added bling to its dictionary. Noah Webster would be angered by the himbos now in charge of his publication. Perhaps the publishers are just part of the Sandwich generation and spend too much time with their parents while their mouse potato kids edit the dictionary for them.

I gave up on Webster's as an authoritative source on the English language after they added bling to its dictionary. Noah Webster would be angered by the himbos now in charge of his publication. Perhaps the publishers are just part of the Sandwich generation and spend too much time with their parents while their mouse potato kids edit the dictionary for them.

I gave up on Webster's as an authoritative source on the English language after they added bling to its dictionary. Noah Webster would be angered by the himbos now in charge of his publication. Perhaps the publishers are just part of the Sandwich generation and spend too much time with their parents while their mouse potato kids edit the dictionary for them.

theft:

1 a: the act of stealing; specifically : the felonious taking and removing of personal property with intent to deprive the rightful owner of it b: an unlawful taking (as by embezzlement or burglary) of property
2 obsolete : something stolen
3: a stolen base in baseball

Copying data is as much stealing as taking a photograph.

There is no deprivation of property involved in copyright infringement.

by coaching that agenda in terms that speak to more than just the Democratic base.

The term is couching: to phrase or express in a specified manner

Actually, "literally" can also have the nearly the opposite of its expected meaning: see Definition 2

Isn't that ironic?

Actually, "literally" can also have the nearly the opposite of its expected meaning: see Definition 2

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

If I invite someone into my house, but then ask them to leave, consenting to leave -- but only in a few months -- doesn't hold water.

How so? Same concept, different timescale.

Where, upstream in this thread, did I accept any other definition of "individual"?

Individual, existing as a distinct entity, being an individual or existing as an indivisible whole. An embryo is a distinct and unique entity. The fact that it is currently dependent on another is irrelevant. Heres a question: If you've got a tapeworm subsisting off you from the inside, does it cease to become a unique individual separate from yourself? Or does it literally become you?

Try another dictionary.

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

transitive verb1: to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another

Maybe this definition of the word REALPOLITIK could help:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/realpolitik

Well, what do you mean by intelligence? A machine that can walk? Catch a ball? Do math problems? Identify relevant phrases? I'm not asking for a redefinition of the term 'intelligence' I'm asking for a specific, or even precise definition, of the term. The tasks which are considered the lowest hanging fruit are rarely obvious beforehand and are performed because they tackle a more specific aspect of the overall goal, in this case intelligence. For a decent definition let's go to the dictionary, shall we?

Intelligence:
1 a (1): the ability to learn or understand or to deal with new or trying situations : reason; also : the skilled use of reason (2): the ability to apply knowledge to manipulate one's environment or to think abstractly as measured by objective criteria (as tests)

Intelligence
: is an umbrella term used to describe a property of the mind that encompasses many related abilities, such as the capacities to reason, to plan, to solve problems, to think abstractly, to comprehend ideas, to use language, and to learn. There are several ways to define intelligence. In some cases, intelligence may include traits such as creativity, personality, character, knowledge, or wisdom. However, some psychologists prefer not to include these traits in the definition of intelligence.

The Mariam-Websert defines the term as an ability to learn and apply that knowledge to new sources. Well, since a computer starts out with no information, we must tell it how to use new information or assimilate it. Now this is where we get into a bit of an argument, and where Wikipedia's definition kicks in. A computer can adapt to new information within the scope of a solving a specialized problem. It's not very graceful at handling new problems outside that scope. This is because, as Wikipedia states, it's used as an umbrella term to encompass many mental abilities. My argument is that the computer can approach true AI if we define the problems and aggregate the possible tools to solve the problem. Comparing a computer to an organism doesn't quite count, because the organism is born with the tools for intelligence. We need to explicitly give the computer those tools. The missing piece is one of two things: either we haven't found a good enough solution to generalize to all problems or we haven't developed a proper means of tying the solutions together; i.e. pick the best tool for the problem; I think it's the latter. You say AI is a failure because there isn't a computer or system that fits your definition of intelligence. I say AI is still a work in progress partly because the problem is poorly defined and relatively new (when compared to other disciplines). We've had math, biology, chemistry, and physics for well over 100 years. We've only recently had computers that could even scratch the computing power we need for some these problems.

So I don't think AI is a failure despite my seemingly insufficient examples of pieces that work towards machine reasoning.

What kind of checks and balances in a Republic is that?

Unlike a democracy a republic does not require checks and balances. All a republic requires is "a government having a chief of state who is not a monarch". A dictatorship can very well be, and most likely is, a republic.

This kills all of the lawsuits by quaffing each suit prior to the discovery process.

Only until the US Supreme Court rules it unconstitutional. Now whether they would or not is up in the air. The current court has rubber stamped some of what the Bush admin wants to do but has barred others. The recent court ruling upholding habeas corpus for instance was a 5 to 4 ruling. However the Gonzales v. Raich ruling, the case about states rights and California voters approving medical marijuana, was 6 to 3 against states rights, without giving any logic based on the USA Constitution for the ruling.

Wrong.

steal may apply to any surreptitious taking of something and ... commonly applying to intangibles as well as material things.

And if you want to argue semantics about the definition including the word property then I suggest you look up the definition of the word property . (By all means look it up on Merriam-Webster too; people seem to trust Wikipedia as unimpeachable here, which is laughable considering the audience.)

Sadly, this entire thread has degenerated into nothing better than juvenile bickering over semantics. Why is it that almost any other topic on Slashdot can (frequently) inspire some genuinely interesting debate, but turn over to YRO and it becomes the sole province of a bunch of overgrown three year olds?

Poor: "lacking material possessions". If everyone has enough to eat and shelter, which I think they would if they made 10x as much as Donald Trump, no one would be poor. It just sounds like you have an axe to grind against "socialists" so you set up this straw man to grind away on. No one is suggesting (except for maybe Kurt Vonnegut :) ) that we poke out the eyes of people in the name of social equality.

English is very complicated, take a look at the many meanings of free.

Try looking up regime before you deride its use. Sure, it is politically charged, but according to definition 2d, it is also accurate.

Copying != theft.

So, stealing the CD deprives the true owner of his or her CD. We can agree upon that.

Copyright is a grant to an author of the following (17 USC 106) exclusive rights:

(1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords;
(2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work;
(3) to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending;
(4) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audiovisual works, to perform the copyrighted work publicly;
(5) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including the individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, to display the copyrighted work publicly; and
(6) in the case of sound recordings, to perform the copyrighted work publicly by means of a digital audio transmission.

Infringement of a copyright deprives the author of one of those exclusive rights. It is certainly not larceny, burglary or robbery. Webster's definition of theft 1b is an unlawful taking (as by embezzlement or burglary) of property. Copyright is a property right held by the author of the work. Those rights are exclusive, and depriving the author of that exclusive right can, in some sense, be called theft.

In any case, this obsession with the term "copyright infringement" vs "theft" only detracts from the real point of all of this -- the penalties for copyright infringement are excessive given the impact of the crime.

Of course, you'll neither be guilty of copyright infringement or theft if you simply don't make illegal copies. Sure, occasionally, you may do it on accident, or make a fair use. Those should be treated appropriately. What I'm saying is if you get a good part of your music and video library from p2p, you should first work to change the law, then copy legally. If you choose to violate the law, that's your choice, but at least admit to it.

methods of causing massive harm before you can be prevented are literally without limit

That word doesn't mean what you think it means. I can't leap outside and kick the planet into the sun, no matter how willing I am to ride down with it. I can't even kill you with my brain.

"It's all the same as all MS: vaporware."

Nice troll, but your stupidity betrayed you. Next time, learn the meaning of the word you use, you won't look like a fucking idiot that way.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaporware

"Vaporware is a software or hardware product which is announced by a developer well in advance of release, but which then fails to emerge, either with or without a protracted development cycle."

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

"a computer-related product that has been widely advertised but has not and may never become available"

http://silverlight.net/

Holy shit!!! That's the link to go to to download the software. Guess it isn't vaporware is it?

Don't cry Mr. Sensitive, it's your fault you're an ignorant asshat, not mine.

I can do it in one .... I outsource it.

I can solve it faster .... I defenestrate it.

According to http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bludge it's a slang word used in "chiefly Australian & New Zealand". That's not "most of the English speaking world" AFAIK. And something that "googling it" turned up quite easily. I'm not a native English speaker, but I had 4 years of education in English-speaking schools. I had never heard of a bludge.

Except that you apparently don't know what a singularity is, kinda hard to predict:

a point at which the derivative of a given function of a complex variable does not exist but every neighborhood of which contains points for which the derivative does exist

doh?

Geekism is as much faith-based as any other religion.

Actually, "hue and cry" IS most often used to mean public reaction to something. At least, that is the way I have always heard it used. And Wikipedia concurs, as does Merriam-Webster.

I haeve aesked you fucking paeople ae million times to pleaese stop spaelling it like ae faeggot!!

It's spaelled pedophile

Main Entry: trow
Pronunciation: \'tro\ [long o improperly copypasta'ed]
Function: verb
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English trowan; akin to Old English trowe faithful, true
Date: before 12th century

1) obsolete: believe
2) archaic: think

from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/describe

describe: to represent or give an account of in words.

A color is either a wavelength or range or mix of wavelengths of light or is defined by similarity to what a person perceives. If you want to describe a sight to a blind person who does not and can not have the experience of seeing, then the blind person has to provide the necessary axioms.

You have stated that the basic axioms are insufficient, therefore you have introduced a new axiom. One of the axioms is that both sender and receiver are using the same set of axioms. Therefore, given a set of axioms, i.e., words related to wavelengths not allowed and words related to sight not allowed, it may be impossible to describe color.

Here's a similar exercise: describe a sphere to 2-D individual, without using a third dimension. Don't like that, describe what the entirety of a hypersphere looks like. Or back to sighted questions: What do gamma rays look like? And if you say they are invisible, well that just means not visible. You might as well say you don't know because you can't see gamma rays.

Likewise, the color blue holds a mostly common experience, but think about people who are color-blind and may have an entirely different experience. The GP description of blue which was true for a normally sighted person, and your different description for a blind person, could be different still for a color-blind person. All would be valid under the right axioms and could be false under a different set.

I'm guessing the pun is from the fact that the word 'adobe' means some kind of mud-based brick or structure? If so, then the translated pun is just as good (or bad), as adobe means the same thing in english.

You want a cite? http://www.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=correct&book=Dictionary See sense 2b.

Merriam-Webster, definitions 2a(3) and 2b. Glad to help you learn English!

"yes copyright infringement should be a Civil problem unless it is for profit then it is theft."

It's not theft even if it's for profit, because no property has been taken from the owner:

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

"specifically : the felonious taking and removing of personal property with intent to deprive the rightful owner of it b: an unlawful taking (as by embezzlement or burglary) of property"

There are many categories of illegal acts that don't count as theft either, e.g. selling heroin, trespass, and indecent exposure.

"just because a law is hard to enforce doesn't make the action moral or the law immoral."

And by the same token, the fact that a law exists is not an indication that the law is moral or whatever it prohibits is immoral.

"It is impossible to stop every rapist car thief, child molester, speeder, and drunk driver without make the world a police state. Does that mean those actions should just be made legal or that they are moral?"

The fact that the media companies have completely failed in their attempts to convince the public of any country that there is even a remote moral equivalency between these acts and copying a file without permission means that they have no moral equivalence. Societal consensus is the final arbiter of what is and is moral within that society, not the opinions of those who govern them,

He gives ambulance chasers and shysters a bad name.

A pettifogger

The first problem is ... naming an act the "Public Order Act."

So if I put up a sign calling the "public order act" a public order, would I get cited as well? If Scientology is not a cult what the heck is it? If I check in the Merriam Webster for the definition of cult, then for definition '2' I get "a system of religious beliefs and ritual". Should I be calling it "an organised group designed to oppress anyone who has anything bad to say about it"?

Regardless of whether all cults are nuts, Scientology are clearly organized criminals masquerading as a religion (cult, by popular definition), and it is pathetic that the US allows their ridiculous charade to persist.

If real entheogenic religions that use naturally occurring substances are denied First Amendment protection, why is such an obvious front for murder and extortion provided an undeserved safe haven under the same right?

Dare I say: "F*** Scientology and F*** the UK (who forfeited their right to be considered a free society many years ago)?

No. I dare not say it in this politically correct police state, now, do I?

Regardless of whether all cults are nuts, Scientology are clearly organized criminals masquerading as a religion (cult, by popular definition), and it is pathetic that the US allows their ridiculous charade to persist.

If real entheogenic religions that use naturally occurring substances are denied First Amendment protection, why is such an obvious front for murder and extortion provided an undeserved safe haven under the same right?

Dare I say: "F*** Scientology and F*** the UK (who forfeited their right to be considered a free society many years ago)?

No. I dare not say it in this politically correct police state, now, do I?

Etymology of Fuck

Here's another reference, if you're not convinced.

Wouldn't that be great?

We learn something every day. I learned that Jung had a term called synchronicity.

You get to learn that synchronicity also means "the quality or fact of being synchronous".
Merriam-Webster: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Synchronicity
Bartleby: http://www.bartleby.com/61/42/S0964250.html

You are a known committer of libel and defamation of character.

You equate intuitive with instinctive. This is doubly stupid:
- it obviously doesn't apply to anything even remotely related any technology of any kind, not even throwing a stone, never mind computers;
- it's redundant.

Fortunately, there are other definitions of the word which happen to be useful in the context of computers, much to the chagrin of obtuse UI nazis. Surprisingly enough, intuitive is what is "knowable by intuition". Intuition in turn is "the power or faculty of attaining to direct knowledge or cognition without evident rational thought and inference".

You did realise, did you, that the "Hello computer" line was a joke? So in 1986 it was obvious to most people that talking to the "object" was the wrong thing to do? Intuitively, maybe?

I find it especially funny that you specifically choose a definition of intuitive that is not the one used when talking about UI design, and then put forward specifically UI concepts such as "discoverability". Make up your mind.

As for blender, it is without a shadow of a doubt the least intuitive program I ever used. Worse, while it is the only one for which I read tutorials and so on, I am no better off trying to even guess how to do something "close but not quite the same". And judging by the comments every time the subject is brought up, I'm part of a rather large crowd. Unlike, say, Gimp, which is a annoying (or so I'm told) if you're used to Photoshop, but perfectly usable by anyone with "normal GUI apps" experience, Blender is pretty much unusable regardless of your experience, unless that includes... Blender.

Censorship is something the government can try/do, not a company or individual.

Incorrect. To censor is "to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable; to suppress or delete as objectionable". I wish the fundamentalist capitalists who love this canard that "only governments can censor" would get over it.

1) The FOURTH word however is "agreement" which often is a synonym for contract. it has contract as a synonym for one of its definitions.

2) Yes, you do copy a program when you run it (copy from disk to memory) but that is copying for your own use which is covered by fair use. You are not (and especially not intentionally) infringing on the copyright holders commercial monopoly. I mean when you read a book you are also copying information from the page through your eyes to your brain...