Slashdot Mirror

Hypocrite

n : a person who professes beliefs and opinions that he does not hold

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

Hypocrites are actors... The term came from Greek theater. Not kettles calling pots black... If Linus was a Hypocrite he would secretly own stock in Microsoft and chairboard meetings about how to ruin FOSS behind everyone's back while proclaiming his love for FOSS to the public.

Oh the love of god! He is being the pot calling kettle black but is not... I repeat... An actor.

sware (swâr)
v. Archaic

A past tense of swear.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=price+poi nt&r=67

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

It is a classic tautology
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=tautology

whoa...before the spelling police comes:
emphasis
is not spelled like that...

Define 'Assault rifle'. What most people define as 'Assault rifles' are merely rifles with cosmetic changes and that does not change the function of the rifles. It was a fairly solid example.

From dictionary.reference.com
Any of various automatic or semiautomatic rifles designed for individual use in combat.

or

any of the automatic rifles or semiautomatic rifles with large magazines designed for military use

From en.wikipedia.org:

The typical mission of an assault rifle is to provide fire support at ranges up to 200 meters by ordinary troops. It is designed for massed anti-personnel fire at short ranges with simple maintenance.

From me:

Assault rifles are the basic issue weapon issued to a countries infantry units. They are generally designed for fully automatic fire, with the notable exception of the US issue assault rifles, which only support single shot and 3-round burst due to the fact that poor training leads the US soldier to have poor fire control.

They are designed to support the mounting of bayonets so they may be used as a hand to hand weapon when ammunition is unavailable. They are generally bolt driven and clip fed, and designed in as simple a fashion as possible so they are easy to maintain in the field and reliable even in poor environmental conditions. Assault rifles generally have a maximum range in the area of half a kilometer, but are only considered useful at this range when a section is covering an area with automatic fire and creating a beaten zone. Otherwise, the maximum effective range is generally in the area of 200 meters.

They are generally a poor choice for hunting because they use full metal jacket ammunition, which gives marginally higher penetration but does not "mushroom" inside the target, and thus is less likely to result in a fatal wound. The generally accepted rational for this, aside from any humanitarian reasons, is that a wounded soldier is a greater liability to the enemy than a dead one. In addition to the above, assault weapons generally do not support the mounting of an optical site.

So basically, an assault rifle is designed to kill people, and is a very poor choice for hunting. And if you and the original poster were better informed about the subject, you'd realize how poor an example it was. Next time you're looking for a comparison, try a machete. ;)

If you are wondering why your keen observation has not yet been modded up as "Insightful", I think you might find this link very helpful.

Read his post again after you have learned the concept, so you can laugh along with the rest of us, (for the same reason.)

Might I suggest that if you log in instead of lurking, you will probably be asked to moderate or meta-moderate yourself. That's the built-in solution for this problem. If enough people who agree with you stop lurking and start contributing, you'll collectively improve the site.

Complaining about it w/o logging in is like complaining about the election results without voting.

And now, your reply when I claimed I never said we shouldn't discuss it:

Nope. You may not have meant to, but you certainly did. It was the part where you dismissed discussion as "complaining about it."

And it is merely complaining, if you don't participate in trying to make it better! If the original poster (an Anonymous Coward) had not been a self-admitted "lurker" and was participating in trying to make it better, I'd have considered his/her comment constructive criticism!

Besides, you missed the point. The system is broken. Participation in the system won't change the fact that it's broken. It'll just make the things which are already bad worse.

This site's tolerance of --active solicitation of, really --people who litter the comments with hundreds and hundreds of pieces of trash makes the use of filtering by score a practical necessity. Which throws the flaws of the moderation system into stark contrast.

What troubles me most of all, though, is your stridence. You're downright shrill about keeping within the rules of the system. You even use Slashdot jargon like "moderate" and "AC" and "lurking." I think maybe you're a little too close to the problem to be able to see it clearly.

You obviously have an account, why didn't you answer my question about whether you have moderated, and whether anyone pressured YOU to moderate in any particular fashion? I'm curious, because maybe it's only ME that the /. management has chosen to allow free reign to moderate as I choose. Maybe you and everyone else has the experience that when given the chance to moderate up an insightful but dissonant opinion, you've been somehow penalized? It suppose it is possible, though since I don't personally know anyone associated with running the site, I doubt it.

1. One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.

Doesn't it just suck to be totally wrong?

It's called disinformation.

Atheism is a belief system as much as Christianity. It is an unwavering belief that there is NO God.

Agnostic is less of a belief system. It's more like vague avoidance of the topic all together. To be agnostic is to assume a question such as God is unknowable by human mind, so is irrelevant. Maybe there is, maybe there isn't, dont know, dont care. Very strictly speaking they're both "beliefs" (so is anything anytime you use the word "is"), but I think it's safe to say atheism is more of a belief "system" than agnostic.

Atheism is a belief system as much as Christianity. It is an unwavering belief that there is NO God.

Agnostic is less of a belief system. It's more like vague avoidance of the topic all together. To be agnostic is to assume a question such as God is unknowable by human mind, so is irrelevant. Maybe there is, maybe there isn't, dont know, dont care. Very strictly speaking they're both "beliefs" (so is anything anytime you use the word "is"), but I think it's safe to say atheism is more of a belief "system" than agnostic.

irony Pronunciation Key (r-n, r-)
n. pl. ironies
2a. Incongruity between what might be expected and what actually occurs: "Hyde noted the irony of Ireland's copying the nation she most hated" (Richard Kain).

Can't we just get back to hating people for their ideas and leave all the rest alone? PEACE!

I think this is the link you were all looking for: http://billgatesisafascist.slashdot.org

Storeys is an acceptable variant of "story."

Conservation http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=conservat ion has nothing to do with "conservative" http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=conservat ive in a political sense--except, perhaps, that there are more politically conservative conservationists than there are politically liberal conservationists.

Conservation http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=conservat ion has nothing to do with "conservative" http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=conservat ive in a political sense--except, perhaps, that there are more politically conservative conservationists than there are politically liberal conservationists.

According to this:

1. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.

2. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.

3. Of, relating to, or characteristic of liberalism.

4. Liberal Of, designating, or characteristic of a political party founded on or associated with principles of social and political liberalism, especially in Great Britain, Canada, and the United States.

However, historically, you're correct that the term "liberal" comes from the concept of "liberty". But, as Jefferson meant, only a liberal education could prepare a gentleman to defend his liberty. The grandparent is correct, and informative.

For later referece, Canada is a sovereign country seperate from the U.S., so what we do up here isn't always a reaction to what is happening down south. As a liberal[1] country, we often make decisions based on general fairness to all of our citizens.

[1] - And no I don't mean Liberal, as in the U.S. swear word. I mean it in the classic sense.

For twenty minutes. That, my friend is not a shafting of your computer. The most catastrophic failure of an OS, besides erasing the user data, occured and the machine was up and running again in twenty minutes. I think that says a lot about the simplicity of the system. The procedure to restore the system was a simple three-step procedure too boot, easily done via phone. Without destroying the system like in Dell computers. I don't know if they're like that still, but a pal got so tired of it, he bought a separate drive for user data on his Dell.

Again, with respect, I disagree. Having a system that worked be reduced to a system that hangs on reboot is 'shafted' in my opinion. If the underlying system was largely unaffected then good for you. I'm happy for you that you were able to restore it to a satisfactory state in a matter of minutes but, to my mind, it still got the shaft and required fairly technical intervention to fix. I don't want to branch off this current subject and talk about other Apple updates suffice to say that some of them did not go without a hitch and if I was an Apple user I would not be happy about that.

[snip] - support - that's good for you, shurely.

As you see, I don't argue that Apple and its products are perfect. But they are very easy to use, relatively cheap and quite sturdy. Also, they keep their value a lot better than other computers, and that gives me an edge in the upgrade cycle.

I'm not keen to open another front but I think it is suffice to say that I'm not sure if Apple ~"residual values" are that much of a boon. I think if you plan systems carefully then you can usually ameliorate the upgrade cycle.

You admit that they might be a good alternative in a lot of situations, but not all. Of course I agree to that, nothing is perfect in everything. But this system is dead-easy to use, very intuitive, has a strong user base, extremely good *nix support for professionals. There aren't a lot of areas this system wouldn't fit in. Lately, I have undertood why so many in the IT business don't like Apple. They are afraid of downsizing. Quick example: at work we do IT. The programmers, designers use Mac OS X, since they pick and maintain their own systems. The rest of us, have to use IS' XP solution. One member of the IS group has even stated that the latest worm attack was caused by a Mac program (An w2k worm), and the boss asked me if that was true because if it was we would have to ban Macs. I told him that it was a blatant lie and showed the proof. He then askedhow many viruses and worms there were for Mac, and got a bit slack-jawed when I said None for Mac OS X.

I hear that! And if you think that sucks try being a FreeBSD user reading Slashdot. (It's dead? Huh. I'm quietly confident it's not.)

I guess what I'm saying is: pick your battles. Macs aren't The Solution, like everything they have their strengths and weaknesses. I've spent literally hours been told how great Macs are and all it leaves me with is a cold feeling that Apple and it's user community could and would take much larger strides if they toned down the fervour a bit.

For me, the fact that other people I know use them gives me more free time and less irritating phonecalls. Now I can pick up the phone and know that it most likely isn't a call for help.
I have also discovered the joy of computing again, and that is important to me.

Great, good for you. I get a similar kind of feeling, myself.

I'm being honest here: the notion that I may ever "iPod my BMW" will, whenever I get round to it, be written as a clause denoting brain death in my DNR. But I would, at some point, give Macs a real go and take an interest if the community and advertising was less bombastic. And the sad thing is for you guys is that I know I'm not alone in this opinion. Please just tone it down a little. With any luck it'll spread about and you won't be t

Pretty mild namecalling. But still, I gave in to my baser impulses and shouldn't call names. So I hereby apologize for that. I'm sorry.

Thanks, apology accepted.

I bought a frickin' car. I didn't join their "community." I have found other Subaru owners that are very helpful, but that doesn't negate the fact that it would be easy for me to pick out the worst of the whole and paint them with the "dickhead" epithet. I didn't have that experience. Your idea that buying iron means you're obliged to be in a community of any kind is odd.

This is where I think the car-computer analogy goes as far as it can. If you're into a particular computer system then I think you probably want to get involved at some level in the community or even if you don't, I still think you are going to rely on the community in some capacity for help at some stage. I think this happens with cars too to some extent... people who are interested in something tend to want to learn more about it, advance their usage of it, and therefore form communities. I don't think there exists an obligation to join but I do think you miss out on a lot if you don't.

Besides, as I've written elsewhere, if you think the Mac community is nothing but mindless fanboys, you're wrong. I'd like to know where a dickhead-free body of users of any platform exists.

I don't. I've spoken at length about Apple stuff with people that clearly know their stuff. I've also been talked at by people who don't. The general trend I've observed is devotion. Which, like it or like it not, I find off-putting if it leads to the overhyping I've talked about here or elsewhere in this thread.

[snip]

I said he posed a question: 'MacOS amazes me, but not as much as peoples resistance to it amazes me.' Did you think OP was just thinking and accidentally carried on typing?

That is a statement, not a question. You can infer a question, but he didn't pose a question. Posing a question is an explicit act. Commenting on an offered opinion is not answering a question, so I don't need a question to give a response. I was just saying you didn't answer a posed question. I wouldn't even have answered this, but you challenged me and I had to preserve my honor.

Ngggh! Do we have to argue over semantics? :)

Very well. I think OP posed a question.
pose. I pick 1a: to present for attention or consideration <let me pose a question>.
pose I pick v.tr. 2: To set forth in words; propound: pose a question.
Do I have to link to 'question' as well or are you satisfied that it's 'an expression of inquiry that invites or calls for a reply'?

Those are the two online dictionaries I use the most. If you've got another source that we can both check then let me know. I maintain that the OP posed a question. True there wasn't a question mark but I think they were wondering aloud on a public forum. For why if not to seek an answer?

I disagree. But kudos to you for assuming offence on someone else's behalf and jumping in!

Come on. Work with me. This is a public forum. You didn't write a private message, and I found it likely to be offensive (I was not personally offended.). Obviously, so did a moderator. Yet you'd rather attribute it to all those mean Mac users and not consider your own behavior.

I'm trying to. I honestly think it was neither offensive nor flamebait. And as far as I can tell neither did the person I was replying to. This is apple.slashdot, I fully expect criticism of Apple or Apple users' attitudes to be moderated such. I don't attribute that to 'mean Mac users' just retardates in general. I think

Pretty mild namecalling. But still, I gave in to my baser impulses and shouldn't call names. So I hereby apologize for that. I'm sorry.

Thanks, apology accepted.

I bought a frickin' car. I didn't join their "community." I have found other Subaru owners that are very helpful, but that doesn't negate the fact that it would be easy for me to pick out the worst of the whole and paint them with the "dickhead" epithet. I didn't have that experience. Your idea that buying iron means you're obliged to be in a community of any kind is odd.

This is where I think the car-computer analogy goes as far as it can. If you're into a particular computer system then I think you probably want to get involved at some level in the community or even if you don't, I still think you are going to rely on the community in some capacity for help at some stage. I think this happens with cars too to some extent... people who are interested in something tend to want to learn more about it, advance their usage of it, and therefore form communities. I don't think there exists an obligation to join but I do think you miss out on a lot if you don't.

Besides, as I've written elsewhere, if you think the Mac community is nothing but mindless fanboys, you're wrong. I'd like to know where a dickhead-free body of users of any platform exists.

I don't. I've spoken at length about Apple stuff with people that clearly know their stuff. I've also been talked at by people who don't. The general trend I've observed is devotion. Which, like it or like it not, I find off-putting if it leads to the overhyping I've talked about here or elsewhere in this thread.

[snip]

I said he posed a question: 'MacOS amazes me, but not as much as peoples resistance to it amazes me.' Did you think OP was just thinking and accidentally carried on typing?

That is a statement, not a question. You can infer a question, but he didn't pose a question. Posing a question is an explicit act. Commenting on an offered opinion is not answering a question, so I don't need a question to give a response. I was just saying you didn't answer a posed question. I wouldn't even have answered this, but you challenged me and I had to preserve my honor.

Ngggh! Do we have to argue over semantics? :)

Very well. I think OP posed a question.
pose. I pick 1a: to present for attention or consideration <let me pose a question>.
pose I pick v.tr. 2: To set forth in words; propound: pose a question.
Do I have to link to 'question' as well or are you satisfied that it's 'an expression of inquiry that invites or calls for a reply'?

Those are the two online dictionaries I use the most. If you've got another source that we can both check then let me know. I maintain that the OP posed a question. True there wasn't a question mark but I think they were wondering aloud on a public forum. For why if not to seek an answer?

I disagree. But kudos to you for assuming offence on someone else's behalf and jumping in!

Come on. Work with me. This is a public forum. You didn't write a private message, and I found it likely to be offensive (I was not personally offended.). Obviously, so did a moderator. Yet you'd rather attribute it to all those mean Mac users and not consider your own behavior.

I'm trying to. I honestly think it was neither offensive nor flamebait. And as far as I can tell neither did the person I was replying to. This is apple.slashdot, I fully expect criticism of Apple or Apple users' attitudes to be moderated such. I don't attribute that to 'mean Mac users' just retardates in general. I think

...didn't the Boston Tea Party consist of tipping some tea into the harbour? I'd like to see the current realistic definition of 'Terrorism' that encompases that, not including legalistic definitions twisted to fit.

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."

You may feel differently.

You are a wanker.

That word just isn't used that way anymore and hasn't been for a very long time. Note the informal definition here and give the guy a break for cryin' out loud.

Yeah. That's great. But a Maya Person is a Mayan. I'm not a Pennsylvania.

If they were deterred from commiting a crime, then they wouldn't be a criminal. :)
It also doesn't shock me that criminals were not deterred from committing crime (for some reason or other).

incarceration is to deter people from
incarceration is to prevent people from

Given the definition of deter is "To prevent or discourage from acting, as by means of fear or doubt", I'm missing the distinction.
I think you do have a good point, I'm just not catching it. Could you elaborate?

Yndrd1984

Interesting.

I'd say that it's not just like robbing a bank, only worse.

That doesn't mean I think the sentence is unfair.

Ever heard of sarcasm?

Emulate: Computer Science. To imitate the function of (another system), as by modifications to hardware or software that allow the imitating system to accept the same data, execute the same programs, and achieve the same results as the imitated system.

According to that they're basically the same thing.

However, I believe the point that's being made is that reimplementation is binary compatible with applications for the original, while emulation strives to be just enough of the original to run applications for the original.

An emulator, therefor, is not a complete system in and of itself, it just implements or duplicates enough of another system to allow that system's stuff to run on another system.

or maybe I'm babbling again.

Jesus Fucking Christ. If you don't like it, LEAVE.

Noone's asking the editors to stop doing their work -- i personally would only like them to get some training. How about them taking a few short courses in journalism? Hey, i bet they could even find one online, so that they wouldn't even have to leave their comfy chairs!

Jesus Fucking Christ. If you don't like it, LEAVE.

Noone's asking the editors to stop doing their work -- i personally would only like them to get some training. How about them taking a few short courses in journalism? Hey, i bet they could even find one online, so that they wouldn't even have to leave their comfy chairs!

There's apparently some confusion.

Here you go

bloody
6. Chiefly British Slang. Used as an intensive: "Everyone wants to have a convict in his bloody family tree" (Robert Hughes).

adv. Chiefly British Slang. Used as an intensive: bloody well right.

yanks
n. Informal: A Yankee.

bloody
6. Chiefly British Slang. Used as an intensive: "Everyone wants to have a convict in his bloody family tree" (Robert Hughes).

adv. Chiefly British Slang. Used as an intensive: bloody well right.

yanks
n. Informal: A Yankee.

as an ammendum

I think you mean "addendum."

I'd have been less anal about correcting you if your mistake seemed like a simple typo, but the "d" and "m" keys aren't anywhere near each other.

...the photocopying process (xerography) is named for them http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=xerograph y ...or is it the other way around?

I am getting SO sick of that word. It's like the only word people can use to describe things with these days.

Here's a suggestion:
http://thesaurus.reference.com/search?q=sleek

The amazing thing is how well Moore's law has stood up against repeated Malthusian forecasts of its demise. One still presumes that the fences of quantum uncertainty, relativistic delay, and heat production will prevent Moore's law from continuing number of device doubling indefinitely, without major paradigm shift (async to beat the clock?reversible to beat heat & entropy? optical? quantum?), but mere technological advances may continue far beyond my Malthusian imagination.

================
Cole's Law -- Finely Sliced Cabbage with dressing.

maybe, you're just trolling, but ever heard of a dictionary? "A measure of computing speed equal to one trillion floating-point operations per second [flops]"

Making a video game based on a LEGO representation of Star Wars is "ironic" now?

Clearly, you don't know what "irony" means. You can start here.

Perhaps you meant "sarcasm" or "humour", neither of which are particularly well-applied in this case.

From (US-centric) Dictionary.com's entry for burglar: [Anglo-Norman burgler(alteration of burgesur, probably from Old French burg, borough), Medieval Latin burgulator(alteration of burgator, from burgare, to commit burglary in, from Late Latin burgus, fortified town) both of Germanic origin. See bhergh-2 in Indo-European Roots.]

In other words, "burgle" is not a back-formation of burglar, as your originally wrote, but is derived from the Medieval Latin verb "burgare". So that blows your original argument out of the water, doesn't it? Now, if you think that "burgare" became "burglarize" before it became "burgle" then, boy, do I have a bridge for you.

Remember, this is a word of Medieval European derivation, yet no where in Britain, or most of its former colonies, is the word "burglarize" in use. So what seems more likely to you: that all those former colonies (including some that became nations in their own right over two hundred years ago, such as Australia) at some stage all dropped "burglarize" in favour of "burgle", or that "burglarize" is exclusively a construct of American English?

Ever notice that "burglarize" has that "-ize" suffix that's almost exclusively associated with modern day American English? (In Britain and elsewhere, "-ise" is used almost everytime Americans use "-ize".

And have you checked the usage of these words online? Googling for "burglarise": less than 1,000 entries total (most obscure dictionary references). "Burglarize": 21,500 entries. "Burgle": 24,900 entries. Even on the Internet, which is still heavily US-centric in terms of content, that's a clear indication that "burgle" gets the nod over "burglarize".

Which, when stored in binary form, happens to be the definition for file format

I suppose the same could be said for ironic and ironical (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=ironical ).

Before you criticize someone's vocabulary, maybe you should read a dictionary.

I think the word you were looking for was "diction", not "grammar".

Even better, look at the definition of burgle. It cross-references burglarize.

http://m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary& va=burglarize&x=0&y=0

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=burglariz e

Looks like burlgarize is OK to me. In fact, for a couple of the dictionaries, the definition of "burgle" is just: "see burglarize".

The dictionary would disagree with you: Burglarize