Slashdot Mirror

Sure?

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=mispelled
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=misspelle d

I don't see anything about it...
Bitch.

Sure?

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=mispelled
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=misspelle d

I don't see anything about it...
Bitch.

There is no corollary (deduction or inference from axioms) about the change in price. There is an assumption of it.

"Ahhhh the virtual boy. An answer to a question that nobody asked."

"Sony didn't "redesign" their controller so much as they added features to it."

Honestly, the controller came out. Nintendo released their's, Sony released a new controller that was different than the previous one. That's a fucking redesign. If you're going to argue semantics, at least have a leg to stand on.

I assume that you didn't get the Branson, MO reference either. Picture it as Mecca for Hillbillies. Hence, backward-joke guy lives in backward place.

I interpreted your "just fucking cope" comment to include none of these "countermeasures". . .

Definition of cope

KFG

Well, as long as you're not a pederast feel free do be as pedantic as you'd like.

Well, as long as you're not a pederast feel free do be as pedantic as you'd like.

If there's one thing that I cannot stand, it's pedanticism!

A 1995 vintage machine, long after 5.25 floppies were abandoned, would go for what, $20?

I remember machines from that time period. 5.25" floppies were being phased out, but they were hardly abandoned. You could still get them on machines for backward compatibility.

And yes, you could get a such a machine for $20 now. But if it's from 1995, we're talking about a Pentium 100. It'd have a 100 MB hard drive and 16 MB of RAM.

And hey, where do you get 5.25 floppies in 2003 anyway?

It took me less than a minute of looking. Look on google's froogle. I'm sure you can also find them on eBay.

But seriously, to be racist, you don't have to be declarative. You don't have to say "I am a racist. I look down on Indians." You can accomplish that by telling untrue stories that portray Indians and their social institutions in a belittling manner. Such as the stapled floppy episode.

If you think the story is untrue, then attack the story. If you think what I'm writing is untrue, then attack my writing.

Calling someone a racist is a knee-jerk reaction that isn't warranted. It's an ad-hominem counter attack that doesn't truely address my statements. A true statement is true regardless of it's source.

This is just a racist joke on Indians: they're so poor, they're so ignorant, they're so backward, they're so inept ha ha ha it's a great day to be a white bastard in the good ole US Of A.

How is this not racist towards white people? You see, that racism card works both ways. At least I addressed your statements.

Only in America. Everywhere else, it's fuck you.

Must you be so pedantic?

The plural of pedant is pedants.

Didn't look up boxen then?

It is the nature of language to evolve.

Or boxen.

The plural of box is boxes.

Joke.

Humor.

Funny.

Of course, maybe you just missed it.

Joke.

Humor.

Funny.

Of course, maybe you just missed it.

Joke.

Humor.

Funny.

Of course, maybe you just missed it.

See: Dictionary.Com's definition of Doped, entry 4 (Electronics)

Still is pretty funny, though.

Is this true? Can you link to a source?

Sure, have a look here.

An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market.

Free market.

An economic market in which supply and demand are not regulated or are regulated with only minor restrictions.

An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market.

Free market.

An economic market in which supply and demand are not regulated or are regulated with only minor restrictions.

Why should the government be doing this?

The local telcoms are failing to provide the service themselves. They don't want to do what we want them to do, they just want to dig and and rake in the money.

Someone else spent millions on this and you're just going to take it?

No, not someone, a corporation. Big difference there.

That isn't, nor should it be, legal.

Yes,
it is legal. Specifically, see #5.

If the service is really that bad, get a huge petition together and lobby a different telecommunications company to lay their own lines and render SBC inefective.

Why? And we would be petitioning, petitioning to just take the lines from them. Why should we have to pay AGAIN for lines, when we've already been paying all this time?

THAT is your option.

The telcos have made sure that is actually NOT an option. Just look at the new law in PA. Think other telco's aren't chomping at the bit to get a law like that passed?

Not to just take it because they manage it improperly.

It is (or should be, at least) public infastructure, so yes, just taking it from them because they manage it poorly I think is perfectly acceptable.

Note that my plan doesn't even require putting them out of business...they still get to offer serivce over the lines too, they just don't own them anymore (and actually don't have to worry about maintence either). They'll still have a head start, b/c they already have CS in place, and everthing else they'd need.

The idiot that illuminated the aircraft in NJ
with a laser could have blinded the pilot and
caused the plane to crash. The Patriot Act is
an ideal tool for use in such cases.

I'd say you were an idiot for thinking that. Was he purposefully trying to take down the plane, or was he doing something else? (Hint: Something else, like pointing out constilations to his daughter. RTFA).

Yet in your mind motive makes no difference? You might want to read the definition of terrorism. This isn't anymore terroristic then those kids that poisoned the punch at a school dance. They even did it purposefully, but it wasn't terrorism. Note the part about 'for political or social reasons.'

Quintilian 9.2.45-51; Bede 615; Aquil. 7 ("ironia," "simulatio"); Susenbrotus (1540) 14-15 ("ironia," "illusio"); Sherry (1550) 45 ("ironia," "dissimulatio"); Peacham (1577) D3r; Fraunce (1588) 1.6; Putt. (1589) 199 ("ironia," "the dry mock")

This is a false statement and a common argumentative fallacy called "Shifting the burden.".

No, it is neither. On whether It is a false statement, I refer you to the definitions of Atheism and Agnostic. Athiesm is the statement "there is no god" (which is a statement of faith). Agnosticism is the statement "One cannot know if there are gods" (a statement of faith) or "I do not know if there is a god" (a statement of non-faith) or "I've seen no proof of god"(a statement of reason).

As for whether it is "shifting the burden, I refer you to this which says:

Shifting the burden of proof, a special case of argumentum ad ignorantiam, means putting the burden of proof on the anyone who denies or questions the assertion being made.

I have not asked you to prove anything. You said you have no faith in the existance of god, not "there is no god". This is the definition of agnostic.

Atheism is simply the lack of any belief in a diety.

On this point you are mistaken. Atheism is the belief in the non-existance of a deity. Agnosticism is the lack of belief in the existance or non-existance of a deity.

You have written:

Within the group of people called "atheists", there are negative atheists and positive atheists. Those who lack any belief are "negative" while those who feel that there is substantial evidence for the non-existence of a diety are "positive".

This is incorrect. "Those who lack any belief" are agnostics, and "those who feel that there is substantial evidence for the non-existence of a diety" are atheists. The only reason that both are sometimes called atheists is that many people do not understand what agnostic means.

Further, you write:

The agnostic is simply that person who refuses to reach a conclusion on the subject (like my father, who hopes there is a God but won't make an assertion one way or the other).

Agnostics also include others who either have no faith in the existence of any deity but do not believe that none exists, and those who believe that one cannot know if any deity exists.

Then you conclude erroneously:

Your definitions are flawed as you exclude a group which actually contains most of the set. I am an atheist, and most of the atheists I know are similar in basic beliefs to me.

Actually, many who call themselves atheists are agnostic but do not understand the word. You may be in either group; I cannot tell. You have not yet stated "I believe there is no god".

(I see from another post you have written that you believe that no deity exists, which would mean you are atheist)

This is a false statement and a common argumentative fallacy called "Shifting the burden.".

No, it is neither. On whether It is a false statement, I refer you to the definitions of Atheism and Agnostic. Athiesm is the statement "there is no god" (which is a statement of faith). Agnosticism is the statement "One cannot know if there are gods" (a statement of faith) or "I do not know if there is a god" (a statement of non-faith) or "I've seen no proof of god"(a statement of reason).

As for whether it is "shifting the burden, I refer you to this which says:

Shifting the burden of proof, a special case of argumentum ad ignorantiam, means putting the burden of proof on the anyone who denies or questions the assertion being made.

I have not asked you to prove anything. You said you have no faith in the existance of god, not "there is no god". This is the definition of agnostic.

Atheism is simply the lack of any belief in a diety.

On this point you are mistaken. Atheism is the belief in the non-existance of a deity. Agnosticism is the lack of belief in the existance or non-existance of a deity.

You have written:

Within the group of people called "atheists", there are negative atheists and positive atheists. Those who lack any belief are "negative" while those who feel that there is substantial evidence for the non-existence of a diety are "positive".

This is incorrect. "Those who lack any belief" are agnostics, and "those who feel that there is substantial evidence for the non-existence of a diety" are atheists. The only reason that both are sometimes called atheists is that many people do not understand what agnostic means.

Further, you write:

The agnostic is simply that person who refuses to reach a conclusion on the subject (like my father, who hopes there is a God but won't make an assertion one way or the other).

Agnostics also include others who either have no faith in the existence of any deity but do not believe that none exists, and those who believe that one cannot know if any deity exists.

Then you conclude erroneously:

Your definitions are flawed as you exclude a group which actually contains most of the set. I am an atheist, and most of the atheists I know are similar in basic beliefs to me.

Actually, many who call themselves atheists are agnostic but do not understand the word. You may be in either group; I cannot tell. You have not yet stated "I believe there is no god".

(I see from another post you have written that you believe that no deity exists, which would mean you are atheist)

Though you referred to me as idiotic, I will go ahead and kindly correct you. While the idea that adaptations of the parent are passed on to the offspring IS included in the Lamarckian theory of evolution, the idea itself is in fact called pangenesis and WAS proposed by Charles Darwin himself. Thank you for keeping the debate at a high level of respect and intelligence. Good day.

Indeed

Relax, it's called hyperbole..

Do you think the OP is even *capable* of killing anyone?

Haven't you thought to yourself "I'd like to KILL that guy"? Which means "I want him out of my life/my house/my girlfriend" or whatever is appropriate.

Consider this, the number of possible proteins 200 amino acids long is 20 raised to the 200th power or about 10 raised to the 260th power. Now, the number of particles in the known universe is about 10 to the 80th power. Suppose, on a microsecond time scale the universe were doing nothing other than producing proteins length 200. It turns out that it would take vastly many repeats of the history of the universe to create all possible proteins length 200. This means that, for entities of complexity above atoms, such as modestly complex organic molecules, proteins, let alone species, automobiles and operas, the universe is on a unique trajectory (ignoring quantum mechanics for the moment). That is, the universe at modest levels of complexity and above is vastly non- ergodic.

Yeah, yeah, it's Slashdot and all, but when expanding an acronym for those who don't know, it's best to spell it correctly -- "incumbent".

dude, I call bullshit on this whole thread. Hitler wasn't great, he was a fucking psychopath. I don't care who you want to have around your house, but I do care who you call a visionary. Hitler wasn't a visionary - you are confusing the ideas of the sycophants hanging around him (and some of those were into medical experimentation, rocketry, and all sorts of other stuff) with his own ideas. Hitler never had a halfway coherent idea in his life, other then "lets take over the world", and it is a stretch to call that idea coherent to begin with. There exists a methodology to define A "Great Person" and both Hitler as well as Bush fail those tests.

The only confusion I see is you confusing "shooting your mouth off in what seems a relatively coherent fashion" with "facts, inteligence and research". If you would have done your homework, you would have known how to spot the Great Person.

Unless you *really* think Hitler was onto something, in which case you simply need help. Oh, and I'm sure RMS is really thrilled about you mentioning him in the same lineup as Bush and Hitler.....

+1 Nazi point for "arisen".
-2 Nazi points for not knowing that "categorise" is an acceptable spelling.

merkin engineers

Perhaps I should apply for a job at AMD, it sounds much more interesting than I would have expected.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=merkin

No, they said almost

The phonetic spelling can be found on Dictioary.com .

Luckily, also being Dutch myself, I have no trouble at all pronouncing this word.. but I do like that supermodel thought! ;)

Pirate
"one who takes another's work without permission"
OMG THATS NOT WHAT COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT IS! WTF!

Pirate
You're just sounding like you're a pirate yourself and the word is too "harmful" to you, so you try to get people to think nicer of you when you commit crimes. Sorry, not likely.

Lots of words have multiple meanings. Just deal with it.

Yes it is. It's commonly used in business and corporate environments. If you're going to try to correct someone, at least do a Google search before posting. Sigh...

It's a jargon.
According to this, it has a rather long history, too.

First, installing adware hardly meets the definition of violence.

Second, when playing the "terrorist card" as a tactic against some person or group, the 2 worst things you could do are to phrase it in the form of a question and invite rational thought/analysis.

n.

The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

How is what the **AA are doing (hacking into music downloaders' computers and installing malware to further their cause against piracy) any different?
If this is the way they think they must do business, lets give 'em h*ll!

"People don't understand that time is hydraulic," he said, meaning that time spent on the Internet is time taken away from other activities.

Perhaps it's because hydraulic is a stupid word to use in that sentence.


-Colin

fraud
n.
A deception deliberately practiced in order to secure unfair or unlawful gain.

Last I knew, fraud was illegal...

>If i remember correctly, multi-tasking is used incorrectly even in the computer field. The processor "seems" to multi-task only because it's very rapidly switching between the tasks.

I did a google search prior to my original post to ensure that I was correct, e.g.:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_multitasking
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=multitask ing

Since the term "multi-tasking" originated in the computer industry, it seems rather unlikely that they are using it incorrectly.

I would say that the meaning of "copy" as a synonym of "manuscript" is archaic in the sense that it is now used only within one limited context, that of journalism. Outside of this discipline, many or most people may not even be aware of this additional meaning of the word.

For a quick justification, see www.dictionary.com:

copyright
The legal right granted to an author, composer, playwright, publisher, or distributor to exclusive publication, production, sale, or distribution of a literary, musical, dramatic, or artistic work.

Note that this definition refers to distribution, not the making of copies.

For a longer treatise on this subject, including the misinterpretation of the original meaning of "copy", see Taking the Copy Out of Copyright, by Miller and Feigenbaum.

Slashdot effect has an entry on dictionary.com and it doesn't surprise me at all.

With 570 users, we're still #1. Also, it runs under wine I've heard.

You make yourself look like a raving lunatic everytime you post a comment with "whe" in it.

How about a visit to dictionary.com?