Slashdot Mirror

Ideally, it's something decided by the citizens of the local community, with accountability for actions. Saudi Arabia doesn't even pretend to care about personal liberty, they're a theocracy.

Saudi Arabia is still a state and you said "the degree of protection of children that the State is warranted in exercising." A state does not preclude a theocracy.

Falcon

Even the most unnatural, mutated, inedible freak of a plant is organic, because it is made of friggin carbon. That's the definition of organic.

Others have probably already answered this but I'll reply anyway. There's more than one definition of organic. Even the US Department of Agriculture has it's own.

Falcon

I remember reading somewhere on BBC that a recent study found that there is no nutritional difference between organic and normal grown plants.

There are studies that conclude that and there are others that conclude organic food is more nutritious. The same with crop yields, some conclude the so called conventional which may or may not be conventional (depending on the definition used) produces more food whereas others conclude organics produce more food. Some conclude organics can feed the world whereas other conclude the opposite. I wonder what meta studies would conclude.

Falcon

On the other hand, people who can't consistently use language correctly are very hard to work with. How are you supposed to know what they mean when they don't use words properly?

That's why I posted that. If you look through the post for this article, that was the only post I made on the subject until my replies to you and the other replier hours after I made the original post. I've done the same other tymes articles came up that had a negative connotation to "hacker". I've done the same for the improper use of "polygamy" as well. Polygamy is not what the Mormons did and various break-off sects now practice along with some Muslims. Polygamy is when a person, male or female, can have more than one spouse. What those sects and Muslims, where a man can have more than one wife, practice is polygyny. It's opposite, where a woman can have more than one spouse is polyandry.

Falcon

On the other hand, people who can't consistently use language correctly are very hard to work with. How are you supposed to know what they mean when they don't use words properly?

That's why I posted that. If you look through the post for this article, that was the only post I made on the subject until my replies to you and the other replier hours after I made the original post. I've done the same other tymes articles came up that had a negative connotation to "hacker". I've done the same for the improper use of "polygamy" as well. Polygamy is not what the Mormons did and various break-off sects now practice along with some Muslims. Polygamy is when a person, male or female, can have more than one spouse. What those sects and Muslims, where a man can have more than one wife, practice is polygyny. It's opposite, where a woman can have more than one spouse is polyandry.

Falcon

On the other hand, people who can't consistently use language correctly are very hard to work with. How are you supposed to know what they mean when they don't use words properly?

That's why I posted that. If you look through the post for this article, that was the only post I made on the subject until my replies to you and the other replier hours after I made the original post. I've done the same other tymes articles came up that had a negative connotation to "hacker". I've done the same for the improper use of "polygamy" as well. Polygamy is not what the Mormons did and various break-off sects now practice along with some Muslims. Polygamy is when a person, male or female, can have more than one spouse. What those sects and Muslims, where a man can have more than one wife, practice is polygyny. It's opposite, where a woman can have more than one spouse is polyandry.

Falcon

Definition of Kilo-: combining form denoting a factor of one thousand (10^3)
Definition of Mega-: combining form 1 large. 2 denoting a factor of one million (10^6).
Definition of Giga-: combining form 1 denoting a factor of one thousand million (10^9).
Definition of Giga-: combining form 1 denoting a factor of one thousand million (10^9).
Definition of Tera-: combining form 1 denoting a factor of one million million (10^12).

These prefixes have had meaning for *far* longer than computing existed for, and they were in fact the meanings that the original authors intended to use. They just considered a 1000 times speedup in the computation worth more than being accurate down to the last 24 bytes.

Definition of Kilo-: combining form denoting a factor of one thousand (10^3)
Definition of Mega-: combining form 1 large. 2 denoting a factor of one million (10^6).
Definition of Giga-: combining form 1 denoting a factor of one thousand million (10^9).
Definition of Giga-: combining form 1 denoting a factor of one thousand million (10^9).
Definition of Tera-: combining form 1 denoting a factor of one million million (10^12).

These prefixes have had meaning for *far* longer than computing existed for, and they were in fact the meanings that the original authors intended to use. They just considered a 1000 times speedup in the computation worth more than being accurate down to the last 24 bytes.

Definition of Kilo-: combining form denoting a factor of one thousand (10^3)
Definition of Mega-: combining form 1 large. 2 denoting a factor of one million (10^6).
Definition of Giga-: combining form 1 denoting a factor of one thousand million (10^9).
Definition of Giga-: combining form 1 denoting a factor of one thousand million (10^9).
Definition of Tera-: combining form 1 denoting a factor of one million million (10^12).

These prefixes have had meaning for *far* longer than computing existed for, and they were in fact the meanings that the original authors intended to use. They just considered a 1000 times speedup in the computation worth more than being accurate down to the last 24 bytes.

Definition of Kilo-: combining form denoting a factor of one thousand (10^3)
Definition of Mega-: combining form 1 large. 2 denoting a factor of one million (10^6).
Definition of Giga-: combining form 1 denoting a factor of one thousand million (10^9).
Definition of Giga-: combining form 1 denoting a factor of one thousand million (10^9).
Definition of Tera-: combining form 1 denoting a factor of one million million (10^12).

These prefixes have had meaning for *far* longer than computing existed for, and they were in fact the meanings that the original authors intended to use. They just considered a 1000 times speedup in the computation worth more than being accurate down to the last 24 bytes.

Definition of Kilo-: combining form denoting a factor of one thousand (10^3)
Definition of Mega-: combining form 1 large. 2 denoting a factor of one million (10^6).
Definition of Giga-: combining form 1 denoting a factor of one thousand million (10^9).
Definition of Giga-: combining form 1 denoting a factor of one thousand million (10^9).
Definition of Tera-: combining form 1 denoting a factor of one million million (10^12).

These prefixes have had meaning for *far* longer than computing existed for, and they were in fact the meanings that the original authors intended to use. They just considered a 1000 times speedup in the computation worth more than being accurate down to the last 24 bytes.

I don't recall if it was Bill Gates who once asked who would ever need more than 512K of RAM. I still recall 64K being a lot of memory and cassette tapes were used for mass storage.

That quote is overused. At the time, 640K seemed like plenty for DOS programs.

Yet you missed the reference to memory being measured in units of multiples of 1024 not 10. It goes like this: 1 Kilobyte = 1024 bytes, 1 Megabyte = 1 Kilobyte X 1024, 1 gigabyte = 1 Megabyte X 1024, and 1 terabyte is "a unit of information equal to 1,099,511,627,776 bytes or 1024 gigabytes".

Why is it dictionaries can get the right but some slashdotters can't?

It is a bright side, because now you don't think you have more storage than you do - you actually think you have what you bought. ;)

No, i have less not more. A Terabyte is a gigabyte X 1024.

Seems the rest of this is a troll so I'm ending here.

Falcon

I don't recall if it was Bill Gates who once asked who would ever need more than 512K of RAM. I still recall 64K being a lot of memory and cassette tapes were used for mass storage.

That quote is overused. At the time, 640K seemed like plenty for DOS programs.

Yet you missed the reference to memory being measured in units of multiples of 1024 not 10. It goes like this: 1 Kilobyte = 1024 bytes, 1 Megabyte = 1 Kilobyte X 1024, 1 gigabyte = 1 Megabyte X 1024, and 1 terabyte is "a unit of information equal to 1,099,511,627,776 bytes or 1024 gigabytes".

Why is it dictionaries can get the right but some slashdotters can't?

It is a bright side, because now you don't think you have more storage than you do - you actually think you have what you bought. ;)

No, i have less not more. A Terabyte is a gigabyte X 1024.

Seems the rest of this is a troll so I'm ending here.

Falcon

I don't recall if it was Bill Gates who once asked who would ever need more than 512K of RAM. I still recall 64K being a lot of memory and cassette tapes were used for mass storage.

That quote is overused. At the time, 640K seemed like plenty for DOS programs.

Yet you missed the reference to memory being measured in units of multiples of 1024 not 10. It goes like this: 1 Kilobyte = 1024 bytes, 1 Megabyte = 1 Kilobyte X 1024, 1 gigabyte = 1 Megabyte X 1024, and 1 terabyte is "a unit of information equal to 1,099,511,627,776 bytes or 1024 gigabytes".

Why is it dictionaries can get the right but some slashdotters can't?

It is a bright side, because now you don't think you have more storage than you do - you actually think you have what you bought. ;)

No, i have less not more. A Terabyte is a gigabyte X 1024.

Seems the rest of this is a troll so I'm ending here.

Falcon

I don't recall if it was Bill Gates who once asked who would ever need more than 512K of RAM. I still recall 64K being a lot of memory and cassette tapes were used for mass storage.

That quote is overused. At the time, 640K seemed like plenty for DOS programs.

Yet you missed the reference to memory being measured in units of multiples of 1024 not 10. It goes like this: 1 Kilobyte = 1024 bytes, 1 Megabyte = 1 Kilobyte X 1024, 1 gigabyte = 1 Megabyte X 1024, and 1 terabyte is "a unit of information equal to 1,099,511,627,776 bytes or 1024 gigabytes".

Why is it dictionaries can get the right but some slashdotters can't?

It is a bright side, because now you don't think you have more storage than you do - you actually think you have what you bought. ;)

No, i have less not more. A Terabyte is a gigabyte X 1024.

Seems the rest of this is a troll so I'm ending here.

Falcon

Definition of Kilo: 1000 times.
Definition of Byte: 8 bits.

Definition of Kilobyte: noun, 1024 bytes.
Definition of megabyte: noun, a unit of information equal to 1,048,576 bytes.
Definition of gigabyte: noun: a unit of information equal to one 1,073,741,824 bytes or 1024 megabytes.
And definition of terabyte: noun: a unit of information equal to 1,099,511,627,776 bytes or 1024 gigabytes.

Falcon

Definition of Kilo: 1000 times.
Definition of Byte: 8 bits.

Definition of Kilobyte: noun, 1024 bytes.
Definition of megabyte: noun, a unit of information equal to 1,048,576 bytes.
Definition of gigabyte: noun: a unit of information equal to one 1,073,741,824 bytes or 1024 megabytes.
And definition of terabyte: noun: a unit of information equal to 1,099,511,627,776 bytes or 1024 gigabytes.

Falcon

Definition of Kilo: 1000 times.
Definition of Byte: 8 bits.

Definition of Kilobyte: noun, 1024 bytes.
Definition of megabyte: noun, a unit of information equal to 1,048,576 bytes.
Definition of gigabyte: noun: a unit of information equal to one 1,073,741,824 bytes or 1024 megabytes.
And definition of terabyte: noun: a unit of information equal to 1,099,511,627,776 bytes or 1024 gigabytes.

Falcon

Definition of Kilo: 1000 times.
Definition of Byte: 8 bits.

Definition of Kilobyte: noun, 1024 bytes.
Definition of megabyte: noun, a unit of information equal to 1,048,576 bytes.
Definition of gigabyte: noun: a unit of information equal to one 1,073,741,824 bytes or 1024 megabytes.
And definition of terabyte: noun: a unit of information equal to 1,099,511,627,776 bytes or 1024 gigabytes.

Falcon

Yes inciting to riot is a crime however inciting is not. Beside provoking or stirring up as in "incite to riot" incite as at least two more definitions, "urge on; cause to act" and "give an incentive for action". Or do you want to say that incite to protest is a crime? That what Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr. did was a crime. If so them those laws need to be overturned.

Falcon

"Freedom of speech" applies only to political action and only when such action is peaceful and doesn't constitute or promote violence.

The First Amendment says nothing about Freedom of Speech only applying to political speech, but it does specifically state no law shall not be passed abridging it. And OneLook Dictionary Search defines "abridge' as "verb: reduce in scope while retaining essential elements". Limiting free speech to only political speech is abridging it.

Her actions hinder the police's ability to do their job (obstruction of justice)

If so then she could have been charged with obstruction of justice, which the Post article states she was not charged with. She was instead charged with "identifying a police officer with intent to harass".

Cops are not allowed to publish information on who they have under surveillance

Cops are not allowed to beat people either but they do. Police lobbyist are even trying to have a second bill of rights citizens won't enjoy. Like the lady who was beat by the police.

Civil servant or not, it crosses the line when you place them or their families at risk

They placed themselves and their families in danger. Nobody held a gun to their heads and ordered them to go into law enforcement. I enlisted in the US Army, did you spend tyme military? The specialty I willingly went into was infantry, where I knew if a war broke out I would be on the first lines. My nephew is now a Marine stationed in Iraq, after having served before there he even re-enlisted, and got a $250,000 bonus for it. Now he expecting to be sent to Afghanistan.

Falcon

Get out under that fucking rock you live under and watch as this bill is attempted to being rammed down the throat of the American public.

What bill? Did Obama submit one? Or are you talking about all the bills floating around congress Obama had nothing to do with? And you are wrong, Bush not Obama imprisoned people denying them habeas corpus and pushed the unitary executive theory wherein the president holds almost all power. Actually those still at Gitmo, whom Bush put there, Obama wants to put on trial. If that your definition of tyranny then you need to learn what it really is. May I suggest OneLook.

They just evolve.

They evolve for a reason. As my dictionary and others have "noun: an explanation of the cause of some phenomenon" as one definition for "reason" there is reason in evolution. Something causes evolution, even if it's random mutation.

Falcon

No, I am talking about Muslims in general. It's pretty hard to tell the difference between "normal" Muslims and "fanatical" ones.

those fanatic Muslims are that very exception I was talking of, and my point was that they are only minority.

They're not a minority.

Except they are a minority. Ask most Iranians if they want to wipe Israel off the map and most say no. In "Commentary" magazine Ze'ev Maghen wrote the article "Eradicating the 'Little Satan'". He says "It is not their genuine, vehement hatred that we have to fear; it is their endless, drone-like training" Iranians hear and see in the media as well as at mosques and on the streets. He further argues that because Iranians don't "mean it" they are actually more dangerous. He compares what's happening today in Iran to what happened in NAZI Germany. Most Germans didn't hate Jews but the repetitive drumming of antisemitism, which isn't really antisemitism, dehumanized Jews.

Falcon

Oh, people may question my remark about how I say what's perceived as antisemitism really isn't. Broken down antisemitism is "anti", against and "Semite", "a member of a group of Semitic-speaking peoples of the Middle East and northern Africa". Both Hebrews and Arabs are Semites however many Anti-Semitics are against Jews or Hebrews but not Arabs. Also not all Arabs are Muslims, there are some Christians and Jewish Arabs too. There are also Jews for Allah.

No, I am talking about Muslims in general. It's pretty hard to tell the difference between "normal" Muslims and "fanatical" ones.

those fanatic Muslims are that very exception I was talking of, and my point was that they are only minority.

They're not a minority.

Except they are a minority. Ask most Iranians if they want to wipe Israel off the map and most say no. In "Commentary" magazine Ze'ev Maghen wrote the article "Eradicating the 'Little Satan'". He says "It is not their genuine, vehement hatred that we have to fear; it is their endless, drone-like training" Iranians hear and see in the media as well as at mosques and on the streets. He further argues that because Iranians don't "mean it" they are actually more dangerous. He compares what's happening today in Iran to what happened in NAZI Germany. Most Germans didn't hate Jews but the repetitive drumming of antisemitism, which isn't really antisemitism, dehumanized Jews.

Falcon

Oh, people may question my remark about how I say what's perceived as antisemitism really isn't. Broken down antisemitism is "anti", against and "Semite", "a member of a group of Semitic-speaking peoples of the Middle East and northern Africa". Both Hebrews and Arabs are Semites however many Anti-Semitics are against Jews or Hebrews but not Arabs. Also not all Arabs are Muslims, there are some Christians and Jewish Arabs too. There are also Jews for Allah.

I don't recall the "in-" prefix means "lots" so I checked my dictionaries, I have 4, as well as OneLook. With OneLook I checked the first 10 links to the definition and not one gave "lots" as a definition. Now "in" as in into and "towards" was given as well as other definitions but not "lots". Can you give an example of it used that way?

I'll feel real stupid after you give one.

Falcon

"Inflammable" means "likely to burst into flame". Because this confused the illiterate

Confused the illiterate? Literally one meaning of the prefix "in-" is not as in "insane", not sane. Or "inseparable", not separable. Following the rule "inflammable" would mean "not flammable", so "flammable" is the better word for easy to burn. What is confusing is changing the rules.

But then again, English is a Crazy Language. In what other language does feet smell and noses run. Or look at the plural of tooth, "teeth". Why isn't the plural of "booth" "beeth"?

Falcon

USA economy is probably closer, technically, to a fascist economic system.

I'm pretty sure that word doesn't mean what you think it means.

fascism:
"noun: a political theory advocating an authoritarian hierarchical government (as opposed to democracy or liberalism)"

While still free, relative to the rest of the world, the US economy is partially controlled by the government with the higher you go the more government controls the economy.

Falcon

Citation needed.

Go look it up.

You made the assertion not me, so you need to back it up.

This is obvious when you consider that they're poorer that the people in north arlington and don't usually call the cops.

DUH! They don't call police because they could be arrested themselves. By allowing them to be here legally they are more likely to report crimes. That doe snot mean they are committing the crimes!

This isn't immigration, because they aren't allowed to be here. Go tell socal it's for their own good that their schools and hospitals are overrun by illegals.

You need to look up the definition of immigration, here it is: "noun: migration into a place (especially migration to a country of which you are not a native in order to settle there". They are immigrants, those who immigrate.

Guess what? These guys aren't starting businesses, they're working for cheap and generally are a drain financially.

More start businesses as a percentage than native born people do.

Great, they live 4 to a bedroom, spend like misers and send money out of our economy.

And they pay rent, buy food, and spend money too. Those they send money too also want to buy American goods as well, which improves export.

Did you ever think that the reason mexico is such a shithole is that the government exports its underclass to us?

Did you think this through? Mexico was a shithole before a lot of Mexicans started crossing the border. Not the other way around. And you can blame that partially on NAFTA. When US businesses can buy, export, and sell corn in Mexico cheaper than Mexican farmers can grow it because those businesses receive billions in US taxpayer dollars in subsidies they can't compeat. You want to blame someone for illegal immigrants, blame Cargill, one of the largest private corporations in the world, and Archer Daniels Midland, ADM. Both are good examples of corporate welfare. They get billions of your taxpayer dollars, that can't be said enough, and you complain about Mexican illegal immigrants.

Lock down the borders and make it impractical to come here and work illegally, and see if they don't riot.

Yea, and let's call it the Berlin, er Apartheid Wall. Let's also say "fuck you" to those who have the right to cross the border such as the Tohono O'odham Nation. Let's split up families that live on opposite sides of a line on a map, but within a short walking distance.

Falcon

If it were polygamy it'd be fine with me but it isn't. Instead it's polygyny.

Falcon

If it were polygamy it'd be fine with me but it isn't. Instead it's polygyny.

Falcon

Someone who does not believe in god is an athiest.

No, an atheist is someone who denies a god exists. There is a big difference between denying a god exists and not believing one does.

Falcon

Eugenics is generally defined as selective breeding based on human characteristics.

Show me one dictionary definition wherein force or laws are used to select those human characteristics. Here, I'll help with a link to a bunch of dictionaries, OneLook, I'll even include the link to eugenics.

I'll admit I didn't check all of the definitions, but I did check the first 5 and none of the said anything about the use of force. The closest is the first one which does say permitting reproduction, from MSN Encarta which says "selective breeding as proposed human improvement: the proposed improvement of the human species by encouraging or permitting reproduction of only those people with genetic characteristics judged desirable. It has been regarded with disfavor since the Nazi period."

I only said it was closer to abortion, not that it was abortion. Both abortion and whatever this is both involve fertilized embryos. The similarity ends there.

That's right the similarity ends with both involving fertilized eggs, so why did you compare it to abortion?

Not defined by me. Defined by various online dictionaries, medical texts, and Sir Franis Galton himself. How you and others define it is irrelevant and incorrect.

Not how I define it but how all those dictionary definitions I linked to above define it.

Did you even look up the definition or just arrogantly assumed you were correct? Spot checking onelook has entries that all support my statement that eugenics exclusively involves selective breeding and therefore the actions of this company don't meet it.

Check what I say above. Quite simply when parents pick a fertilized egg they are selecting it. Don't believe me, check this thesaurus select: "Definition: pick out, prefer from among choices". Of those 9 definitions you provide only 4 say anything about the discouraging unfit people from reproducing and encouraging those who are fit. Those are Encarta, Cambridge, InfoPlease, and SFF.NET That's less than half.

I got tired at this point, but needless to say it seems that the vast majority of online references prove that I am correct

I too am tired of this, so I'll end after one more statement. Four out of nine references is not a "vast majority" of references, that's not even half.

Falcon

Eugenics is generally defined as selective breeding based on human characteristics.

Show me one dictionary definition wherein force or laws are used to select those human characteristics. Here, I'll help with a link to a bunch of dictionaries, OneLook, I'll even include the link to eugenics.

I'll admit I didn't check all of the definitions, but I did check the first 5 and none of the said anything about the use of force. The closest is the first one which does say permitting reproduction, from MSN Encarta which says "selective breeding as proposed human improvement: the proposed improvement of the human species by encouraging or permitting reproduction of only those people with genetic characteristics judged desirable. It has been regarded with disfavor since the Nazi period."

I only said it was closer to abortion, not that it was abortion. Both abortion and whatever this is both involve fertilized embryos. The similarity ends there.

That's right the similarity ends with both involving fertilized eggs, so why did you compare it to abortion?

Not defined by me. Defined by various online dictionaries, medical texts, and Sir Franis Galton himself. How you and others define it is irrelevant and incorrect.

Not how I define it but how all those dictionary definitions I linked to above define it.

Did you even look up the definition or just arrogantly assumed you were correct? Spot checking onelook has entries that all support my statement that eugenics exclusively involves selective breeding and therefore the actions of this company don't meet it.

Check what I say above. Quite simply when parents pick a fertilized egg they are selecting it. Don't believe me, check this thesaurus select: "Definition: pick out, prefer from among choices". Of those 9 definitions you provide only 4 say anything about the discouraging unfit people from reproducing and encouraging those who are fit. Those are Encarta, Cambridge, InfoPlease, and SFF.NET That's less than half.

I got tired at this point, but needless to say it seems that the vast majority of online references prove that I am correct

I too am tired of this, so I'll end after one more statement. Four out of nine references is not a "vast majority" of references, that's not even half.

Falcon

How do you distinguish between what you describe and eugenics?

I do it by using the definition of eugenics . For instance, eugenics: "a science that deals with the improvement (as by control of human mating) of hereditary qualities of a race or breed". No where in there does it say force or laws are used. What it does say is "control of human mating" and that's what the potential parents who go to this clinic are doing, they are picking which fertilized eggs they will use.

Ok, uh: If the child doesn't end up looking like the parent wanted, presumably they'll face a greater than average chance of rejection.

That already happens. Not only do parents reject children but they also beat and abuse them.

What if I really want a kid with no immune system? Or if the 4-arms option requires no immune system also? I wouldn't be the one killing the kid with an infection, but my action would be indirectly responsible, regardless.

Ah, you've got to make shit up to justify making something illegal.

As you will make up whatever you want to justify your position, whether it's basesd on facts or not, I see no reason to continue.

Falcon

Eugenics is a horrifically offensive behavior and this is NOT IT. Eugenics is when I tell you that dark skinned people cannot have babies with light skinned people. Eugenics is when the German government told people that Jews could not have children with non-Jews.

What the NAZIs did was not eugenics, what they did was racist.

What this company does it closer to abortion.

BS! Abortion is removing an embryo that has already been implanted in the uterus. In this case the embryos aren't even inserted into the uterus.

Please don't use the word "eugenics" since the only accepted definition of the word references a truly abhorrent behavior that should never be approved of, which is what you have done through your ignorance of the word.

Defined by you but plenty of others use a different definition than you do. Don't believe me, look at all the definitions OneLook provides for eugenics.

Falcon

Regardless of what Wikipedia want's to claim, In the US, Liberals and liberalism is little more then socialist pushing government controls under the guise of freedom and enlightenment.

That is only because people like you refuse to correct people when they use a word incorrectly. And it's not just wiki that uses that definition. Merriam Webster has "liberal" as meaning "of, favoring, or based upon the principles of liberalism" and "liberalism" as "b: a theory in economics emphasizing individual freedom from restraint and usually based on free competition, the self-regulating market, and the gold standard". OneLook has more definitions along this line. Fact is is the first liberals used "liberal" to mean liberty and laissez-faire economics and self-regulating markets. Thomas Jefferson was one of those liberals as was Thomas Paine.

Falcon

My proposal is that the USA should cut off free trade with nations that adopt mercantile policies

How are you using mercantile?

We shouldn't be begging the Chinese for a loan.

What "we"? If you mean the government, a good economic system may mean government spending more than it brings in taxes. And governments are frequently borrowing from each other.

Rather, they should be spending those dollars for their people.

The Chinese people are benefiting from trade. Up until the recession the average Chinese was seeing an improved living standard. A Chinese from a rural village could move to a big city and work saving their money. After a few year they could have enough saved to move back to the village and start their own business. While many people in the US would say the Chinese lived and worked in slave labor conditions, the same is true about US labor, especially in the past. My own family is a good example, my background is low income. Our mother, I have two sisters, taught us while we were growing up we could be almost anything we wanted to be as long as we were willing to work for it. Neither of our parents went to college, my dad enlisted in the US Air Force and retired from it while my mother worked her way through a 2 year technical school, while raising my sisters and I, to become a lab assistant in a hospital. All three of us went to college. My older sister became a nurse and my younger sister got her Masters in Taxation and now runs her own accounting business. Me, I started college with a major in Computer Engineering. Unfortunately that ended when I was hit while riding my bike after my classes one day. The accident, ha ha it was no accident as the driver who hit me caused other accidents because he didn't take care of his diabetes, left me with a disability which unless a break through in neurology happens before I die will be permanent. I survived a Traumatic Brain Injury, TBI. And I do mean survived, while in a coma the docs told my family it would be a miracle if I lived. It was no miracle, but something else entirely.

On the other hand, I would like to see trade expanded between the USA, Canada, and the European Union

If I recall right, one of the problems with TBIs is poor memory, Canada is the US's biggest trading partner. And Mexico is near the top as well.

Falcon

Ever dub one of those vinyl records to a reel without written permission?

Yes I have, when I bought a new record the first tyme I played it I recorded it on tape then listened to the tape. This is creating a backup. But even if it isn't legal it's still not pirating. Piracy would be then selling the recording I made as though they were my own. Of course the DMCA, which became law in 1998 changed that. However seeing as I lost my tape deck years before I didn't break that law.

reel-to-reel is still used extensively at radio stations. It's not quite dead yet

I've been looking for new reel-to-reel decks but the only ones I've found are commercial quality decks. However I've found new turntables in stores, more and more are carrying them. Best Buy lists 7. It's seems half of them have USB ports so they can be plugged right into a computer. I want to hook mine, when I get one, to an amp. Maybe a preamp first depending on if a preamp is built in or not.

I don't know if the effort for the Wikipedia link was necessary ;-) I'm not quite that young.

I didn't know how old you are or if you knew about reel-to-reels. There are people over 40 who don't know what they are, I wouldn't be surprised if people over 50 don't know about them. I do because my dad had one he got in Japan when he was stationed there while in the US Air Force. I got mine when I was stationed in Germany. Way back when, it seems longer than it really is, 8 track tapes are what were popular.

Falcon

Obama isn't a classical liberal, just like the GOP aren't classically conservative. On the modern US political spectrum Obama is more liberal than Bill Clinton.

That's right, it is semantics, the meaning of words is important. If no one uses the same meanings for words nobody will understand each other.

Falcon

Would you care to explain the mechanism that these rights are granted, and what "Creator" is being referred to? Hint: Jefferson wasn't a particularly religious man. Perhaps you should take that phrase a little less literally and a little more figuratively.

You're right Jefferson wasn't religious. He even said religion was a private affair and that's where religion should stay, private. Because of that, and because he was a Deist, when he ran for president some clergy and other religious people tried to demonize him, Alexander Hamilton compared him to an atheist. TJ went so far as to take the Bible, strip all the passages about miracles and such and released the Jefferson Bible. As for how I take his statement I don't take it as been religious at all. For all I care the creator could be evolution. The point though is that rights are innate not granted.

"Nature" does not write laws. We believe that there are certain rights inherent in being human, but that is a concept we created for ourselves, along with all of our other laws.

Some of the USA's Founding Fathers, like Alexander Hamilton did not want rights to be enumerated in the Constitution. If rights were enumerated then some rights may be overlooked. Hamilton even wrote "I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and in the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed constitution, but would even be dangerous." So as a compromise the Constitution was written without them then the Bill of Rights amended the Constitution.

Falcon

No they're not, these cops are not just, "of moral excellence", or any of the other adjectives enumerated. Nor are they any of the adverbs listed.

I'm not saying that they achieve their aims. But in their minds, they are very much doing what they believe is right (morality being subjective). Even if they ultimately fail.

And don't get me wrong - I do believe these individuals are very much failing their office and duties.

No they're not, these cops are not just, "of moral excellence", or any of the other adjectives enumerated. Nor are they any of the adverbs listed.

Falcon

And yours is compleat?

More complete than your spelling education, I see.

compleat. It's your spelling education that's deficient.

And you aren't discounting or ignoring inconvenient facts as well?

And what facts are those?

it has been for a little while, but for the last few years it's been cooling.

I haven't heard that, but if it is cooling then why was last year the year with the least summer ice in the Arctic? And why was this year have the second least ice cover? If it were cooling then there should be more ice not less.

The problem with your guessing is that you're unable to separate your personal desires and agenda from what should be a rational thought process, hence your dogmatic insistence that anyone questioning your conclusions must be an idiot.

Ah, another mind reader. Slashdot is filled with mindreaders. I wonder why they aren't as wealthy as Warren Buffet.

Falcon

Down in the business law section of that page (you know, the part pertinent to the discussion) we find this definition:

What page? I provided two kinks. Pertinent? Maybe to you but not to me. eBay has plenty o f competition and therefore is not a monopoly.

If we go back to my original post, which you obviously didn't read, we have this:

I read it, then in reply I provided a link to the definition of monopoly. A "board game", eBay is not a board game. "exclusive control or possession of something", eBay does not have exclusive control or possession of auctions. A "market in which there are many buyers but only one seller", eBay has many buyer and sellers, and there are other online auctions with more buyers and sellers as well.

Nowhere did I say Ebay is "illegal", just that they hold a commanding market position

A commanding market position is not a monopoly though.

and need to prevented from making anti-competitive moves.

Agreed. But more regulations are not needed. There are already anticompetitive and antitrust laws on the books. Actually a hero of conservatives, Republican President Teddy Roosevelt was a fine "trust buster" and dissolved 40 monopoly corporations (according to the wiki article).

Did you even read the /. summary?

Unlike most /.ers, perhaps you're one, I not only read summaries I actually read the articles linked to. Did you read the article?

Falcon

Because they control the online auction market.

I suggest you read, and learn, the definition of "monopoly". eBay is not a monopoly. However even if it were, being a monopoly isn't illegal. What is illegal is to use a monopoly position to use that position anticompetitively. eBay compeats with other on online auction services and doesn't try to block others from compeating. At least I have not heard of any such attempts, do you have any references to any accusations or lawsuits saying they do?

It's absurd to suggest otherwise.

What's absurd it to improperly use a word. Get a dictionary and look up word definitions sometime.

Faclon

You can't speed on a highway with no speed limit.

Sure you can speed on a road with no speed limit.

Also, Germany actual requires their drivers to be trained; in the U.S. driver's education is usually only required for teens, and is a joke in any event.

I'm not sure how it is in all states in the US but in some no training, driver's ed, is needed even for teens.

Falcon

It seems that's what you are doing yourself. A monopoly is a lack of competition.

Microsoft has the majority of the market share of the desktop world. But that is not what makes them a monopoly.

It does make them a monopoly. However being a monopoly is not illegal.

using their position of dominance to suffocate other competitors, such as forcing computer manufacturers to install only Microsoft Office products under the threat that if they don't comply that Microsoft will yank their Windows licenses.

Now that is what is illegal. Simply being a monopoly is not illegal but using the monopoly to squeeze out competition in another area is illegal. The original lawsuit again Microsoft wasn't because they were a monopoly, it was because they used the fact they were a monopoly to force computer manufacturers to install other Microsoft products on PCs instead of competitors' products, IE instead of Netscape.

Falcon

Maybe it does...

http://www.onelook.com/?w=literally&ls=a

Actually, it's not beneficial for large numbers of single men, who necessarily have no wife at all (for each man with two wives, there is one with none, since the sex ratio in humans is very close to 1:1). There is also some evidence that having large numbers of single men contributes to violence (this should come as no surprise). Hence, polygamy probably contributes to violence.

The problem you are describing in caused not by polygamy but by polygyny. Polygamy would actually help here. Please notice the differences in definition, in polygyny a man can have more than one wive whereas in polygamy a man and a woman can have more than one spouse. And to make it more confusing, in polyandry a woman has more than one husband.

Furthermore, while from a strictly materialistic point of view, polygamy is beneficial to women (since richer men tend to have more wives and can support them better on average), I don't think there's a lot of evidence that these women are "better off" from a liberal Western point of view. They are probably not going to be well educated or in the work force, for example.

Perhaps a look at Love unlimited: The polyamorists will disavow that.

Falcon