Slashdot Mirror

Plaintiff defines "e-mail” to include features such as an inbox, outbox, folders, a “to:” line, a “from:” line, a “subject:” line, the body of the message and the ability to include attachments, and the ability to copy (“cc”) or blind copy (“bcc”) other recipients. (See Compl. 13). However, that is not the only definition. For example, the online Merriam-Webster dictionary defines “e-mail” in far more general terms as “a means or system for transmitting messages electronically (as between two computers on a network.” E-mail, MERRIAM-WEBSTER, https://www.merriamwebster.com... (last visited Aug. 31, 2017). Similarly, in the context of a patent dispute, the Federal Circuit has held that “a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that an electronic mail message must include a destination address and must have the capacity to include an address of an originating processor, message content (such as text or an attachment), and a subject.” In re NTP, Inc., 654 F.3d 1279, 1289 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Accordingly, whether plaintiff’s claim to have invented e-mail is “fake” depends upon the operative definition of “e-mail.” Because that definition does not have a single, objectively correct answer, the claim is incapable of being proved true or false.

Given that most messaging systems prior to any formalized RFCs would fall under some sort of "email" designation, it would be hard to prove that they are in fact the original "email" that was invented. What is clear would be that the plaintiff would not be the first.

In what language and on what planet does "Capitalistic" mean "Unfettered human cooperation"?

http://media.merriamwebster.co...

http://merriamwebster.com/dictionary/segway
 
  http://merriamwebster.com/dictionary/segue
 

http://merriamwebster.com/dictionary/segway
 
  http://merriamwebster.com/dictionary/segue
 

I hope you feel better you fucktard

Would you rather see Merriam-Webster?
http://merriamwebster.com/dictionary/prise
Main Entry: prise
Pronunciation: 'prIz
chiefly British variant of PRIZE

Cambridge?
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=629 55&dict=CALD
Definition
prise Show phonetics
verb [T]
UK FOR prize (LIFT)

And here I found a definition of COLA MAN from MS Encarta:

http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/refpages/RefEdList.a spx?refid=210031633

http://www.merriamwebster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?b ook=Dictionary&va=nuclear

Click on the third speaker icon. Looks like it's a valid way to say it. Sorry.

Last time I looked 'enquire' and 'inquire' were both permissable spellings. See Merriam-Webster

We live in a federalist republic. Merriam-Webster has their whole contents available on the internet. I suppose you could toss a link on the end of your post Republic: defined and that would be fair, right?

http://merriamwebster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book= Dictionary&va=hysterical

One entry found for hysteria.

Main Entry: hysteria
Pronunciation: his-'ter-E-&, -'tir-
Function: noun
Etymology: New Latin, from English hysteric, adjective, from Latin hystericus, from Greek hysterikos, from hystera womb; from the Greek notion that hysteria was peculiar to women and caused by disturbances of the uterus
Date: 1801
1 : a psychoneurosis marked by emotional excitability and disturbances of the psychic, sensory, vasomotor, and visceral functions
2 : behavior exhibiting overwhelming or unmanageable fear or emotional excess
- hysteric /-'ter-ik/ noun
- hysterical /-'ter-i-k&l/ also hysteric adjective
- hysterically /-i-k(&-)lE/ adverb

Some people are so far removed that they write words like "genious". Of course, the right word would be genius. For more great tips on spelling, try clicking here.

Go look up appropriate in the dictionary.

From merriamwebster.com: "to take or make use of without authority or right"

adultery: voluntary sexual intercourse between a married man and someone other than his wife or between a married woman and someone other than her husband

and

sexual intercourse:
1 : heterosexual intercourse involving penetration of the vagina by the penis : COITUS 2 : intercourse involving genital contact between individuals other than penetration of the vagina by the penis

All that said, my having computer sex (with someone other than her) would certainly be a just cause for my wife to separate me from my family jewels.

They are not that obvious. All societies except anarchies limit "rights" to an extent. What is to decide is which to limit and by how much.

I don't claim that rights are obvious, but I do claim that they are absolute when they are properly and precisely expressed. We can debate whether something is a right, or whether we have described it precisely enough, but I won't debate whether it is ever OK to limit a right.

Here is the definition of "right" from Meriam Webster that underlies what I trying to say:

2 : something to which one has a just claim: as a : the power or privilege to which one is justly entitled

First, rights are not granted or defined by man. They pre-exist. If you are a theist, then they are endowed by our creator. If you are not, then they spring from our value as human beings. Our job as ethical agents is to recognize and describe rights, not to create them.

Second, if we have properly described some set of pre-existing rights, then it must be true that the rights of two people can never be contradictory. Otherwise, one right or the other either isn't a right, or isn't described precisely enough.

All this said, I don't claim to have a monopoly on figuring out what is a right and what is not. I tend toward using libertarian (not anarchist) standards, but consider each case individually.

How do I apply this to the right to keep and bear arms?

Well, I start by assuming that every human being has the "right to life," that is, the right not to be killed or harmed unjustly. That is a very abbreviated statement of the right, and a lot is wrapped up in the word "unjustly." For example, if I initiate a physical attack on someone, I do not have the right not to be harmed by that person. Also note that the right to life does not imply an obligation on others to feed me, clothe me, or otherwise keep me alive.

Because one has the right not to be killed or harmed, one has the right to get, possess, and use effective tools to keep from being killed or harmed. One of the most effective tools for personel defense is a firearm. That is why police in the US carry them, rather than buckets of hot grits. (grin)

Of course, one must not violate another's rights during this process, or the getting, possessing, and using a firearm cannot be a right. So one mustn't steal a firearm. One mustn't endanger others by negligently storing a firearm, just as one mustn't endanger others by negligently storing rat poison or any other potentially dangerous object. One must use a firearm responsibly, and may give up his right to possess a firearm permanently for gross misuse.

So in summary, I agree that rights are not always obvious. But I don't think that all societies other than anarchies must limit rights. In fact, an anarchy is no better than a tyranny with respect to rights. In such a society, every individual can violate your rights, without fear of organized reprisal from "society" at large. Society, at its best, exists to recognize and protect the rights of individuals.