Slashdot Mirror

Despite XML being a 'subset' of SGML, SGML allows many constructs not allowed in XML.

Or is this word the one you don't understand?

Despite XML being a 'subset' of SGML, SGML allows many constructs not allowed in XML.

Or is this word the one you don't understand?

I can sense real desperation in the way you are quibbling over the webster dictionary's hostname.

Here, here's the word in every dictionary on the internet.

This, from the guy who gives "unbiased" "reliable" media commentary from a site called "cosmoetica".

Hmm, like poetry, you demonstrate how much of a scared, lying hypocrite you are, all in a few sentences.

The ratings system is the most accurate measure of how much the public trust is being served.

So, I take it you are backing off of your early assertion, and are ready to allow false advertising, and unlabeled pornography on TV? Even on saturday mornings?

I am speaking of totalitarianism, which I don't believe presupposes any particular flavor of autocratic power. It could remind you of Hitler or Stalin, or any number of other sad nations equally. Personally I was thinking of post-war Hungary, in the 1940's and 50's.

I think you are already starting to see what I am saying. "Intellectual Property Rights" cranked up several orders of magnitude are a central vehicle by which corporate interests can subvert the democratic process. Or rather, by which a group of aristocrats could finalize such a takeover and truly begin to suppress dissent.

If you really think the Internet is immune to control, you have been reading too much Wired. But I don't really think that of you. What you have to ask yourself is, hypothetically, if someone were laying the groundwork to control, perhaps ultimately prevent, democratized mass media, what would it look like?

Functionally, it looks a lot like DRM/trusted computing/etc etc.

This could be a conspiracy theory, but this is the government that passed PATRIOT, considered INDUCE on the floor of Congress, and has openly advocated outlawing non-escrowed cryptography, and the list goes on, and on...

Heh... I did not use "copyright" in my post at all, and "patent" is defined here by any number of sources. I would refer you first to the sidebar, where the noun "patent" is defined as "an official document granting a right or privilege."

Trademark is defined as a "formally registered symbol."

I see no problem with anything I wrote, including my spelling.

Although your spelling is above average, your cofunsion

YOUR spelling, on the other hand...

I usually don't bother replying to ACs, but just this once: this from my CDROM Oxford. But it should be in any reasonably comprehensive dictionary, even American ones. Or maybe try Onelook.

It's in Cambridge. Trim the suffix. (And perhaps get a better dictionary.)

Actually, the term genome refers to a haploid (single) set of chromosomes. As we are diploid organisms, we would have two genomes each. Most cultivated bananas are triploid.
http://www.onelook.com/?w=genome&ls=b&sourceid=Moz illa-search/

"His confederates" doesn't refer to money. It refers to his accomplices.

Look up the word confederate. At the Cambridge International Dictionary site, you'll find this definition.

"Confederate, noun:
1. A member of a confederacy; an ally. 2. One who assists in a plot; an accomplice. See synonyms at partner. "

Confederate is also used among currency collectors for confederate banknotes, but that usage is almost as rare as confederate banknotes are.

To your final word: "Typical." Not at all. Fortunately, you aren't typical of Canadians either. My experience with Canadians is that they are friendly people with a fine command of their language. I hope you're an American troll trying to make Canadians look bad. After all, you're a prig, you defend your prejudices with your ignorance, and you can't spell or even be bothered to use a spell checker. Oops! Upon checking out you r website, you appear to be the genuine article.How embarassing for you. Apparently arrogance knows no borders. (attend to the absence of the letter "a" in that word.)

NB: that's the Cambridge Dictionary as in "the oldest printing and publishing house in the world" in a gorgeous gothic town in East Anglia. Wouldn't want to offend you with a definition from the _American Heritage Dictionary_ or it might trigger another bigoted whine.

Finally, for getting a good feel for words, I like OneLook Multi-dictionary search is my favorite place to look up words online. It's a (wait for it...) multi-dictionary search engine. I love to have several definitions of a word I'm looking up.

"thru" is a word http://www.onelook.com/?w=thru invented by the author of the Dewey decimal system.

http://www.sims.berkeley.edu/sfsla/bulletin/sepoct 00/history.html

Have we already forgotten the terrorist attacks at the Munich Olympics of 1972? The explosion at the Atlanta Olympics of 1996? Anybody remember 9/11? 3/11? (Spain) Anybody seen the news lately? No, the one-sided hype on yro.slashdot.org doesn't count.

Anti-Zionism is a strange one - since Zionism, historically, arose as a response to anti-Semitism. This is such a confused, muddied term, I'd stay away from it entirely, since it tries to collapse complicated political issues into a jingoistic phrase. Lots of people, Jews included and Israelis included, don't support parts of current Israeli government policy, ongoing occupation and so on. The word "anti-Zionist" could mean almost anything, and even Wikipedia seems befuddled by this issue since the page on it is currently locked as a result of editorial disputes.

Anti-Judaism is a pretty awkward sounding word, as is "Anti-Islam". I'd stick to "anti-Jewish bias", "anti-Muslim bias" or "anti-Arab bias" if you're worried about being misunderstood. But the hubbub against anti-Semitism needs to stop now - you can't expect people to change the meaning of words to accomodate your political agenda, and if you go around flapping your arms when people use perfectly clear dictionary English words, you're going to end up marginalizing yourself and your viewpoint.

Spot on. Indeed every series of actions is an algorithm is it not?!

To establish a prima facie case of obviousness, three basic criteria must be met. First, there must be some suggestion or motivation, either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art, to modify the reference or to combine reference teachings. Second, there must be a reasonable expectation of success. Finally, the prior art reference (or references when combined) must teach or suggest all the claim limitations. The teaching or suggestion to make the claimed combination and the reasonable expectation of success must both be found in the prior art, and not based on applicant"s disclosure. In re Vaeck, 947 F.2d 488, 20 USPQ2d 1438 (Fed. Cir. 1991). See MPEP 2143 - 2143.03 for decisions pertinent to each of these criteria.

how righteous of you. in fact, if you look and know a little about intelligence analysis techniques, i think you'll find that the NSA already know about this approach for 'interpreting' typewritten redacts, even as far back as the 50's.

I just wish the intelligence community and their unintelligent sycophants the press would stop using redact to mean elide.

Especially as a noun, because a "typewritten redact" is like a copy editor with ink hammered onto him, somewhere.

how righteous of you. in fact, if you look and know a little about intelligence analysis techniques, i think you'll find that the NSA already know about this approach for 'interpreting' typewritten redacts, even as far back as the 50's.

I just wish the intelligence community and their unintelligent sycophants the press would stop using redact to mean elide.

Especially as a noun, because a "typewritten redact" is like a copy editor with ink hammered onto him, somewhere.

what the fuck is a quatloo. thats the stupidest fucking currency name ive ever heard.

Try Google Quatloo, Wikipedia Quatloo, or meta-dictionary search Quatloo (though the only result here is the wikipedia link I gave already).

I was also going to provide an Everything2 link, but surprisingly no one has created a Quatloo node (yet). Of course that will probably be corrected within a few minutes of this posting.

However by far the best refference on Quatloos is Quatloo Valuation in the 20th Century , the first result for a routine Google groups search on Quatloo.

Come on, this is the INTERNET. There is no excuse for silly posts asking "what does [word] mean?"

Of course once you *do* look up Quatloo you're perfectly welcome to complain it's stupid all you like :D

-

That's almost a redundancy there. I suppose you mean: true, but I don't care.

Not everyone has an etymological dictionary with them all the time, and I suspect that most people wouldn't happen to know the roots as well as you do.

Though remembering "annus" = year, from primary school, I just cut and pasted it. Actually everyone does have access to an etymological dictionary ( for example). But that is just for those who find such background interesting, more important is simply the meaning of the word, which anyone using words professionally (e.g. those who publish online) should know.

Usage is a critical mass thing - once a certain expression or meaning becomes popular enough it becomes domninant...

I doubt this is popular enough yet to displace the real meaning. At least years are stil the default units. (This phrase wasn't in the referenced FA, just in the summary the submitter gave and blindly pasted by the "editors" here into the headline).

Um, yes. onelook.com

Sorry, no dictionaries indexed in the selected category contain the word handywork.
Perhaps you meant:
handiwork (found in 16 dictionaries)

stealing competitor's technology: the pirating of a competitor's technology by dismantling an existing product and reproducing its parts and construction to manufacture a replica
Source: MSN Encarta

Granted, this is Microsoft's definition, but other sources have similar definitions.

I don't think its bad to reverse engineer something just for the hell of it. However, when a company spends millions of dollars on R&D, then somebody reverse engineers the item to unlock trade secrets and make replicas for themselves or resell it at a discounted cost because they don't have R&D costs to absorb, this is a stealing. When you purchase a product, you don't just buy the processed materials. You also pay for research, design, marketing, and all of the other labor that went into the product.

I am guessing you don't know what MO actually means, so heres a link: Modus Operandi

If only you had used the correct word. It's elicit, not illicit.

If only you had used the correct word. It's elicit, not illicit.

can you say pedifile....

Yes. Can you spell it? ; )

It is paedophile, in proper English. Or in molested English (American) is is pedophile.

Googling for pedifile seems to indicate that it is underground spelling used in place of the real word. I'd stop using it if I were you. Unless you are one, in which case, please proceed to the nearest sharp object and run it quickly and with force, against some part of yourself which would almost certainly cause your own expiration.

Do not pass go, do not collect 200 children, just fucking die.

Algorithm

a precise rule (or set of rules) specifying how to solve some problem

-

Boondoggle CCAGW Misspeaks English, Generally Can't Comprehend Communication

What "Boondoggle" means...

HTH
Cheers & God bless
Sam "SammyTheSnake" Penny

Access OneLook(R) Dictionary Search from any site!

I use it a lot, and since someone pointed out the Google Toolbar add-on, this would be all that's stopping me from a complete conversion to Mozilla/Firebird.

P.S. ...1st post ever. Please be gentle...

you know that insipid means "dull", right?

If you love that one how about the router debate?
Is the pronunciation a rooter or a rowter.
The computer device is a rooter.
The Woodworking tool is a rowter

Look it up

OneLook has the answers. :),
Jouster

>Look me straight in the eye and tell me you've got several dictionaries spanning a significant period of time, and that you've compared the defintions of "theft" in all of them.

Is a few hundred years ok? Seems like a significant period of time, considering it covers the time span of all major revisions of copyright law (including having none for many countries).

[if you're wondering where I got most of these (apart from dictionary.com), check here]

1913's webster (available on www.everything2.com):

Theft (?), n. [OE. thefte, AS. i'ef[eth]e, f[eth]e, eof[eth]e. See Thief.]

1. Law The act of stealing; specifically, the felonious taking and removing of personal property, with an intent to deprive the rightful owner of the same; larceny.
To constitute theft there must be a taking without the owner's consent, and it must be unlawful or felonious; every part of the property stolen must be removed, however slightly, from its former position; and it must be, at least momentarily, in the complete possession of the thief. See Larceny, and the Note under Robbery.

2. The thing stolen.

[R.] If the theft be certainly found in his hand alive, . . . he shall restore double. Ex. xxii. 4.

There's no need to quote the current webster's -- it hasn't changed.

The American Heritage Dictionary, whose definition sucks and requires a recursive search (ho hum).

theft ( P ) Pronunciation Key (thft) n.
1. The act or an instance of stealing; larceny.
2. Obsolete. Something stolen.

larceny ( P ) Pronunciation Key (lärs-n)
n. pl. larcenies The unlawful taking and removing of another's personal property with the intent of permanently depriving the owner; theft.

Merriam Webster (I'd do the OED, but I'm too lazy to type it in from the book, this should satisfy anyone but a kook):

Main Entry: theft
Pronunciation: 'theft
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English thiefthe, from Old English thIefth; akin to Old English thEof thief
Date: before 12th century
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

1783 webster's American Spelling book (no definition for theft, sorry, this is the closest to it, but it clearly shows in 1783 the definition would have been the same)

Steal, to take away without liberty

Cambridge Dictionary of American English

theft noun [C/U] the act of taking something that belongs to someone else and keeping it; stealing car theft

1891 encyclopedia britannica

THEFT, the act of thieving or stealing. In English legal usage the practice is to call this act by its Norman-French name of "larceny," but properly theft is a wider term including other forms of wrongful deprivation of the property of another (see LARCENY).

[I'm starting to have fun here]

Webster's 1828 Dictionary

THEFT, n. The act of stealing. In law, the private, unlawful, felonious taking of another person's goods or movables, with an intent to steal them. To constitute theft, the taking must be in private or without the owner's knowledge, and it must be unlawful or felonious, that is, it must be with a design to deprive the owner of his property privately and against his will. Theft differs from robbery, as the latter is a violent taking from the person, and of course not private.

1. The thing stolen. Ex.22.

Oxford Paperback Dictionary and Thesauraus

theft /eft/ noun act of stealing.

burglary, larceny, pilfering, robbery, stealing, thievery.

larceny /"l:sn/ noun (plural -ies) theft of personal property. la

Perhaps you could do use of online tools as supplemental language aids ... eg Onelook dictionary (sorry couldn't resist, likely not a typo as e/i are on different hands?).

Thesauri and [en]cyclopedias are also tools I find useful as writing aids.

And no, I'm not perfect either!

1. 1 To get into one's possession by force, skill, or artifice, especially:
2. 
   a. To capture physically; seize: take an enemy fortress.
   b. To seize with authority; confiscate.

If I capture, seize, or confiscate your property, I have control and possession of your property while you lose it. That is the point you cannot see. If I don't take, or remove your property there is no theft. There might be copyright infringment, forgery or plagerism, but there is no theft without a transfer of possession.

But if that's not good enough for you, perhapse you'd like a few more. While you're noting the complete absence of any copying of so called "intellectual property" from any of those, check out how many specifically say "taking and removing". Thats because theft is concrete. I've either stolen your car from your garage or I haven't. I've either removed some stereos after breaking into Radio Shack or I haven't. That doesn't apply to downloading a copy of Office XP without paying for it, because there is no guarantee that I would have bought it in the first place. And even if it was guaranteed, MS has only "lo

We're talking about plain-English terms. In plain English, a work belongs to him what created it.

In plain english I bought it, I own it.

Any time you reffer to a specific copy everyone knows it belongs to the person that bought it. If you walk into a room with a song playing on the CD player and say "Cool, Hotel California! Who does that belong to?" the person who bought the CD is going to say "Me!". There is absolutely zero chance anyone is going to respond "It belongs to Elektra Entertainment Group".

I doubt a random 8th grader is going to have any difficulty with the plain english sentence "This is my book/music, it is copyrighted by the author".

So legally and in plain english, I own it. The copyright lobby is trying to spread the false impression that the copyright holder owns it, but it just isn't true. Copyright is not ownership of the copies, never was, (hopefully)never will be. They are trying to justify DRM by saying it's not your data, they want to claim it is their data. The fact is that it IS your data. You bought it, it's yours. You have the right to use it in a school project, you have the right to play it backwards, you have the right to cut it up in pieces, you have the right to scramble it any way you like. And if the file is encrypted then one of the ways to scramble it happens to decrypt it. The DMCA tries to make decryption a crime, but it is a crime you can commit merely by thinking and sitting motionless.

As for the meaning of "theft", I would say the copyright is primarily responsible for pushing the infringment meaning into "common usage".

OneLook Dictionary Search provides two definitions and links to TWENTY-FOUR other dictionary definitions. Not a single one gives any hint that theft might cover copyright infringment, and most of them explicity rule it out. For example Merriam-Webster says "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 ".

Reffering to infringement as theft is at best a figurative use of the word, and based on 28 dictionary definitions I'd say it's clearly a new usage.

If you went back in time before the internet existed, I think people would have looked at you a bit funny if you called it theft when someone copied a music cassette.

The common english term for copyright violation is copyright violation. The copyright lobby is trying to get what it wants by redefining the language. Copyrights are not property. Infringment is not theft. The RIAA does not own the DRM file I bought any more than Ace Publishing owns the book I bought. BTW, patents aren't property either.

-

I looked through several online dictionaries as well as Merriam-Webster (not the Unabridged site) and I can only find definitions for "google" that are in fact google.

If this is the case, then it seems that wordspy should define the verb "to microsoft" as "to crush your enemies, to see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of the women".

Apologies to Conan (no, not the late night one)

You've been watching too much Technicolor.

The definition of Privateer has no requirement that the privateer be a pirate.

--Blair

For subversives:

1. Wireless camera constantly recording to her computer. Or maybe motion-activated. *shrug* Catch those damn dorm-thieves in the act.
2. Motion-Sensor light aimed toward the door. Maybe the light will scare them off. If not, it'll help the camera take a better picture. ;)
3. Water-balloon slingshot. Especially good for launching pudding cups and/or eggs out windows at people, cars, and loud swans.
4. In response to all the condom posts... if you really value this chick, buy her ass a chastity belt.
5. Leather pants. You can't be subversive without a good, tight pair of leather pants. Plus they look hot on chicks. Although the lock on the chastity belt might make an unsightly bulge...

-FF

Look it up yourself, if you don't believe me.

Besides, if I wanted to contribute to entropy through my language, this like write would I. Yoda I am not.

And why must you disparage Eris? Someone had to put all that chaos there!

By the way, Taco, I find Wordsmyth and OneLook Dictionaries useful (you don't need MS Windows to use a spell checker).

Find me an intellectually significant online resource that was available 15 years ago that is still just as accessable.

www.onelook.com

(It's not 15 years old, but you might want to bookmark it, to keep it readily accessible.)

Find me a libray full of paper journals that has every issue of every volume of every title available on the stacks at the same time, or even guarantees that any one of them will come available within a year after you slip a request in the box.

The Internet means you copy it onto the server once, and 6 billion people can find it and borrow it at the same time. Try that with paper.

We have a trillion-dollar infrastructure designed to make it possible with only a few thousand dollars of investment by the server end. The dollars governments and universities spend as grant and library money could be used to support the journal-publishing societies directly, with the result that the end product is free information. You only need to think outside the transactional box and repipe the cashflows to take the subscribers out of the stream.

Since all the worthwhile publications are produced as adjuncts to professional and academic societies, it should be simple to convince them to apply for online-publication grants to cover their costs; if necessary to lobby the NSF to create such a grant program.

Issues of persistence are in the long run economically equal in paper and online realms.

--Blair

I just checked a number of internet dictionaries for the definition of hacker. Some list it as a relatively innocent person with a deep interest in computer programming. Other's list it as someone with little training in computers (!) and some list it as a person with malicious intent. The definitions seem to vary greatly, check them out. I recommend starting at http://www.onelook.com/. Try the "Special Subjects" search as well as the "General Words" search. As a result, it may seem that MTV was using one of the many varied (but apparently valid) definitions of the word "hacker". Seems this word's meaning hasn't been completely nailed down -- either that or there are a lot of bad dictionaries out there.