Slashdot Mirror

"Some of the effected distriubtions include..."

It's affected.
To effect means "to bring about" or "to cause to happen." To affect means "to change" or "to influence." What that quote actually means is "Some of the distributions this exploit created include..."

"Some of the effected distriubtions include..."

It's affected.
To effect means "to bring about" or "to cause to happen." To affect means "to change" or "to influence." What that quote actually means is "Some of the distributions this exploit created include..."

Well, see sycophant in this online dictionary - seems correct.

You assume I know nothing about the whole controversy, when in fact I do. I've met RMS, I've heard him speak about what drives him.

The quip at the start was meant to be humour. You asked why they're using creative commons - I said because RMS is a hippy-looking MIT drop-out (using the second definition of the word), which is all true.

Now, without wanting to disturb you up there on your soap box, what matters when picking sides over this for most people isn't reality. It's perception. Laurence Lessig is the foremost authority on electronic IP right now, known widely amongst the community for his ideals. RMS is known mostly only within the IT fraternity, and even then people think of him as some smelly monk whose interesting but for the most part to be avoided.

So, assume you're a Joe Blow (no law degree or PhD, as you quite proudly boast) and you have to pick a license. Do you:
a) pick the guy who has stood up in front of the supreme court fighting for the prevention of copyright extensions, and who developed the licence that The Beastie Boys have released work under; or
b) pick the guy that quit MIT, is in serious need of a haircut/shave and who gets up on his soapbox regularly about it should be GNU/Linux, not just Linux?

Doesn't matter about whose right or whose wrong. It's just how it's perceived. I admire RMS, I think the world needs people like him, but I think that what he's proposing is flawed. I think that Linus's philosophy is much more realistic than RMS's semi-communist approach, and in trying to create freedom for the users he denies freedom for the developers - the people whose software it is.

Regardless, the original quip was meant humourously (note the smiley). So just relax a bit, ok? :)

Ostensibly? Really, you might at least check what the words mean before you post them. I realize that you're just trolling/karma whoring, but surely you might take some pride in at least making semantic sense. :b

Are you an Indian bigot? You smell like one.

Mmm, tasty troll... munch, munch. (For the record I am Scots.)

The grandparent article is not referring to Western ethics in 1591. The article is referring to Western ethics in 2004.

But as you're obviously doing the latter, you must just be a fool.

The Chinese bigots are fond of setting the date back to 10th century AD. Then, they compare Chinese ethics and Western ethics. The Chinese also compare standards of living between China and the West in 10 A.D.

What has any of this got to do with the existence of a unified and definable system of Western ethics? Nowt. Care to explain? Or would you prefer to just cast aspersions?

Only a bigot would act in this way.

What way would that be? Would that be the way of someone who sees nationality as a reason to denigrate people? If anyone is a bigot in this conversation it is you. You assume that everyone has your viewpoint in the Western world. However, it would appear that by arguing to the contrary I am in fact proving you wrong.

I know many people in my day to day life with a wide set of views of ethical conduct. The local minister, the Wee Frees, the noisy neighbours, the neds, thieves, Tories and Liberals, Greens and UKIP freaks. The world is full of conflicting opinions and the vast majority of that conflict comes down to ethics: a set of principles of right conduct.

I'm willing to compromise. Shut the door to Chinese immigration into the USA. Why? Well, the standard of living in 10th century China was much higher than that of the Apache Indian "nation" on the Western plains of North America. There is no reason to allow a Chinese bigot into the USA since the Chinese are doing so well.

You do realise you're ranting, don't you? We weren't discussing Chinese immigration into the United States of America. In fact, I believe the exact point of discussion was whether Western society has an ethical code which the rest of the world lacks, particularly on medical/biological grounds.

Instead you've turned it into a rant about Chinese immigrants into (I presume) your home country. Which kind of makes you out to be a bit racist, doesn't it? Can someone who makes remarks like that about fellow human beings on something as arbitrary as skin colour or place of birth really be taken seriously in a discussion of morality?

Don't be patronising; I know what the crusades were. Crusade also means "A vigorous concerted movement for a cause or against an abuse" (ref. You can't seriously believe that that single statement from bush in 2001 proves that this is a christian war against muslims. Muslims in the US *still* have far greater freedoms than muslims in the middle-east! Bush has said over and over and over again that this is not a war against islam.

I guess yout think the Buddhists in Thailand are waging a holy war against innocent muslims too?


We've already had "witches", "heretics", "pagans", and "commies


You forgot infidels.

Which one of you needs to get a clue again?

1. 1. Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives.

Funny that you can discriminate and hate things such as Dark Elves. Why? None of us are Dark Elves. Or Possibly the DE population is content with being hated. The second the in game hate and discrimination is directed at something real(like being female even if its only an attribute of the character) that "Its just a game" feel vanishes and people believe they are being attacked. http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=hypoc risy

a rouge regime

Every time i see someone make that mistake i imagine the floor of the Senate during a fierce debate, except DeLay and Daschle and all their cronies are dressed in drag.

rouge
rogue

a rouge regime

Every time i see someone make that mistake i imagine the floor of the Senate during a fierce debate, except DeLay and Daschle and all their cronies are dressed in drag.

rouge
rogue

Yes - you are flinging bullshit in a smokescreen to pretend you didn't "allude" to IndyMedia's clearly "liberal" orientation by using the word "liberally". This isn't an argument. This is the facts vs. your obfuscations and denials. Despite your facile citation, "fascism" is much more specific than "reactionary": was the Continental Congress "fascist"? Was the dictator Pol Pot "fascist"? No - there are other kinds of assholes, like Communist dictators.

Who are you kidding with this bullshit? Certainly not me, but perhaps yourself. Neither Webster, Merriam-Webster nor Oxford are cited in that page you linked. That page does cite the _American Heritage_ dictionary which says "see fascism ":
"the name of an authoritarian political movement [like] Fascism, founded in 1919 by Benito Mussolini". Mussolini signed the entry in the Encyclopedia Italiana (though Giovanni Gentile wrote it): "Fascism should more appropriately be called corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power".

You are a fascist by every definition, right down to your pathetic demand that I "go away", and pleas to stop this "argument". You can keep up your hollow screeching, but you are a fascist, and I am not. If you want, I can produce facts to quash your drivel wherever it rears its ugly head.

Aluminium is a variant of Aluminum

Aluminium is a variant of Aluminum

You are confusing the word liberally , in the sense of definition 2, with the sense of definition 1d. What you read into my post is not my problem.

Also, since you seem to have more authority than webster's, merriam-webster, and oxford, could you please tell me how fascist, as defined by the link here is wrong? According to that definition, you are being the fascist.

(I was hoping you would reply so I could say just that, you pompous idiot.)

Also, I think you are confusing truth with propaganda.

Sure you want to continue arguing your point?

You are confusing the word liberally , in the sense of definition 2, with the sense of definition 1d. What you read into my post is not my problem.

Also, since you seem to have more authority than webster's, merriam-webster, and oxford, could you please tell me how fascist, as defined by the link here is wrong? According to that definition, you are being the fascist.

(I was hoping you would reply so I could say just that, you pompous idiot.)

Also, I think you are confusing truth with propaganda.

Sure you want to continue arguing your point?

You are confusing the word liberally , in the sense of definition 2, with the sense of definition 1d. What you read into my post is not my problem.

Also, since you seem to have more authority than webster's, merriam-webster, and oxford, could you please tell me how fascist, as defined by the link here is wrong? According to that definition, you are being the fascist.

(I was hoping you would reply so I could say just that, you pompous idiot.)

Also, I think you are confusing truth with propaganda.

Sure you want to continue arguing your point?

You are confusing the word liberally , in the sense of definition 2, with the sense of definition 1d. What you read into my post is not my problem.

Also, since you seem to have more authority than webster's, merriam-webster, and oxford, could you please tell me how fascist, as defined by the link here is wrong? According to that definition, you are being the fascist.

(I was hoping you would reply so I could say just that, you pompous idiot.)

Also, I think you are confusing truth with propaganda.

Sure you want to continue arguing your point?

No, you're reading something into it.

Personally, I enjoyed it because in many ways, they are an abusive organization hell-bent on imposing their views on those they don't like. They show no respect for those who do not accept their agenda, and this thread is a glaring example of that reality.

I never even said Indy Media was "liberal". Heck, I didn't even allude to it, but you spend half your post using that as a basis to call me a "fascist". And you have the balls to make the assumption that I'm backing up? Heck, I never put my foot out there in the first place, you just keep trying to drag my leg.

Yes, I am a "fascist". fascist fascist fascist.

I get a strong feeling you have no fucking idea what "fascist" means, you just know it's a bad word.

Here, I'll give you a bad word: bigot, because that's what you're acting like right now, which expresses the viewpoint I addressed in my original post.

Now go away and think about how you've acted.

Coupled with the fact that you can make a reasonable rip-off with flour, water and food colouring for next to nothing. Bonus points for using cornflour and water to demonstrate dilatancy, ie. make your own silly putty.

Here here... everyone uses the term wrong, but we let it go because we don't know a better word for people getting what they deserve.

Or do we ... ?

From dictionary.com:
Comeuppance (n.) A punishment or retribution that one deserves; one's just deserts: "It's a chance to strike back at the critical brotherhood and give each his comeuppance for evaluative sins of the past" (Judith Crist).

Not to be a dick, but it's spelled "misspelling".

I was almost going to complain about the spelling, but I decided to check it first.

oestrogen and estrogen are the same thing. It's spelt with an O on this side of the Atlantic (Ireland/UK).

T.

I think the problem here is arbitrary vs ambiguous

I think you are confusing effectively random choices (arbitrary choices) with ambiguity (having multiple interpretations/meanings).

Sorry about that double nagative. Perhaps that should have been: if you don't believe in force [1], it would also be wrong to stop me from using information that has already been released in ways I see fit. [1] I assume that coersion of any kind is also wrong

I think the problem here is arbitrary vs ambiguous

I think you are confusing effectively random choices (arbitrary choices) with ambiguity (having multiple interpretations/meanings).

Sorry about that double nagative. Perhaps that should have been: if you don't believe in force [1], it would also be wrong to stop me from using information that has already been released in ways I see fit. [1] I assume that coersion of any kind is also wrong

Look it up.

People are allergic to either the dander, saliva or urine of cats.

sure sure, off-topic, but correct ;)

Dictionary.com find no difference in the two:

Constitutional Republic:
1. A political order whose head of state is not a monarch and in modern times is usually a president.
2. A nation that has such a political order.
3. A political order in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who are entitled to vote for officers and representatives responsible to them.

Democracy:
1. Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives.
2. A political or social unit that has such a government.

So, it would seem, the US is both.

-bZj

Dictionary.com find no difference in the two:

Constitutional Republic:
1. A political order whose head of state is not a monarch and in modern times is usually a president.
2. A nation that has such a political order.
3. A political order in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who are entitled to vote for officers and representatives responsible to them.

Democracy:
1. Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives.
2. A political or social unit that has such a government.

So, it would seem, the US is both.

-bZj

Dictionary.com find no difference in the two:

Constitutional Republic:
1. A political order whose head of state is not a monarch and in modern times is usually a president.
2. A nation that has such a political order.
3. A political order in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who are entitled to vote for officers and representatives responsible to them.

Democracy:
1. Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives.
2. A political or social unit that has such a government.

So, it would seem, the US is both.

-bZj

Ironic

not really...

Congratulations on buying a supercomputer for your third rate school with our money. The smart people who made it in California and sold it to you must be very happy. And thanks for hosting a NASA test site too dirty for any state of smart people to have in their backyard (at least 200 miles from yours), though it's a good demonstration of socialism working to drag smart people from out of state to prop up a failed society. Offering them the state's 70 miles of beachfront probably helped them ignore the swamp of ignorance and mud to the north.

Since I embrace the smart Mississipians who can cut it here in New York City (and elsewhere that I've met your refugees), I'm hardly the bigot that you are. Unless a prejudice for smart people as "smart" is bad. Of course, I don't expect you to understand words like "bigot", when you point at state schools which admit 13% of their students as black in a state with 36% black people: "in 1992 it was necessary for the U.S. Supreme Court to order the state college system to end its tradition of segregation". Thanks for the chance to quickly research the facts behind the obvious display of bigotry and idiocy that is synonymous with "Mississippi" after all your hard work. Please send back some of our tax money - I promise New York will spend it on sending you more of that good TV that you love so much.

I wasn't absolutely positive about the exact definitions, and have previously made a similar distinction earlier in life, so I looked them up in the dictionary. Looking at the definition of morals I don't see the terms "religion", "faith", or even "belief". In fact when I look up ethics, I find a definition that references morals. No, they aren't the same, but their distinction has to do with the difference beween principle and application, not religion and secularism.

However, it looks to me that the grandparent's use was indeed incorrect and the overall posting pretty naive and uninspired anyway (see the reply to the grandparent about creative carp abuse to see why it's bunk). But the distinction outlined does not appear to be consistent with reality.

I wasn't absolutely positive about the exact definitions, and have previously made a similar distinction earlier in life, so I looked them up in the dictionary. Looking at the definition of morals I don't see the terms "religion", "faith", or even "belief". In fact when I look up ethics, I find a definition that references morals. No, they aren't the same, but their distinction has to do with the difference beween principle and application, not religion and secularism.

However, it looks to me that the grandparent's use was indeed incorrect and the overall posting pretty naive and uninspired anyway (see the reply to the grandparent about creative carp abuse to see why it's bunk). But the distinction outlined does not appear to be consistent with reality.

( and potentially effecting business, since the poster was specially talking about restaurant entertainment )

( and potentially effecting business, since the poster was specially talking about restaurant entertainment )

( and potentially effecting business, since the poster was specially talking about restaurant entertainment )

"Why is Hillary Clinton becoming the first female U.S president a problem?"

One reason

Irony - look it up.

Oh, a jesuit. I love fried jesuits for breakfast.

I am not a Jesuit, because I am agnostic.

But I'm glad to see you like making blind assumptions.

I do not give a flying fuck about not being "educated" in economics

Then STFU about economics until you know what the fuck you're talking about. Stop talking out of your ass, because you are an ignorant dumbass by your own admission.

Look, I don't talk about the things I know nothing about. I don't talk about fashion. I don't talk about celebrity news. I don't discuss the philosophies of Plato, Kant, and so on. I don't talk about the effects of art on society. I don't really know how an automatic transmission works, at the technical level.

I don't talk about such things, because I am ignorant of them. I would like to learn about them. But until I do, I don't make the mistake you have of thinking my answers are right when I haven't the slightest fucking idea of what I'm talking about.

I suspect that you conversely do not give a flying fuck about being utterly ignorant of social affairs, and dismiss it as the work of poor people whose dullness is their inability to buy themselves the latest fashionable (insert whatever floats your boat here).

Another vapid assumption.

One of my lady-friends is has a Master's in social work. She is *far* from dull.

I, personally, am not much for social work. I get along well enough with all kinds of people, and they don't bother me, but for various reasons, the work doesn't interest me.

But I have nothing against those who enjoy it. If you get your rocks off helping the poor find jobs, so much the better for the economy (and the spirits of those poor seeking work) I say! What I have a problem with is when those social workers try to take my money and use it for their ends. Would they (or you) like it if I took their money and used it to educate economic retards like yourself as to the ways of economics?

I doubt it.

Hey, you're a yankee. We, in the rest of the world, know that yankees are mostly ignorant self-centered dopes,

So we're self-centered. So what? What's wrong with the betterment of and attention to the self?

totally unable to understand that there can be very valid alternatives to your squalid asocial existence, and you prove my point magnificently by parrotting half-baked arguments and half-truths truffled with tired right-wing clichés.

As if your parroted state control *isn't* a tired cliche and half-truth of its own?

My supposed "half-baked arguments" are refuted by... what claims? Seeing as you admit willful ignorance to economics, how do you know you're right?

And how the points of socialism valid -- didn't you ever hear about the fall of the Berlin Wall? Socialism failed. People of socialist East Germany tore down the wall because their lives sucked so badly compared to those of people living in relatively-capitalist West Germany. That is an established fact.

I'm sure one of your trained wolves delivered the paper carrying that news to you about 14 years ago...

Don't remain an ignoramous. Compare the economic strengths and weaknesses of some of the more-socialist EU nations (Sweden, Finland, Denmark, France) to those of the U.S., Hong Kong, or Peru. I know it seems a funny trend, but somehow, the countries which tend to have freer markets also have higher rates of growth; faster growth means faster-dropping prices on technology (like computer parts, as we're both aware), meaning greater integration of wealth for more people more quickly.

100 years ago, not even John D. Rockefeller had air-conditioning. Now, even the poorest people in the U.S. have it, both in their homes and in their cars. That's an improvement in the wealth of nations (ours, and everybody else's), and it wouldn't have come about as qu

No, I meant kerosine. Kersene is an alternate spelling.

And for the language illiterate, it's "Voilà!"

Unless you meant whala, to lash with stripes, to wale, to thrash, to drub.

On second thought, that's probably a good idea for IE users. I hope they suggest that in the NY Times ad.

In this context, franchise does not mean the same thing as, say, a McDonald's franchise. Time Warner is the franchisee from the city. There is no small corporation that is franchising from Time Warner.

franchise

1. A privilege or right officially granted a person or a group by a government, especially:
   1. The constitutional or statutory right to vote.
   2. The establishment of a corporation's existence.
   3. The granting of certain rights and powers to a corporation.
   4. Legal immunity from servitude, certain burdens, or other restrictions.
2. 1. Authorization granted to someone to sell or distribute a company's goods or services in a certain area.
   2. A business or group of businesses established or operated under such authorization.
3. The territory or limits within which immunity, a privilege, or a right may be exercised.
4. A professional sports team.

That's not saturation, we're not talking about cell phones here.

Maybe you can explain how Columbine resembles the definition of terrorism then?

If I go to a Gay Rights event, and put on a tee shirt that says, "I'm gonna murder all you fags and laugh as you burn in hell" and then walk up to people there and try to engage them in conversation about the weather to trick them into looking at me and reading the shirt, then I'm accosting them. Oh, sure, theoretically they don't HAVE to read the shirt, but they're gonna.

While you like to maintain the facade that you haven't thought this through, I think the real issue here is that you're being deliberately obtuse because you support the views of the people being arrested. But I've got to tell you: if a bunch of libertarians bought tickets to a Kerry (or Nader) rally, put on shirts that said, "Kerry (or Nader) is a Goddamned Commie Dirtbag and I'm Going To Kill Him and Laugh as He Burns In Hell," then went around and asked people about the weather, then got invited to leave or be arrested, then refused to leave, then got arrested, I would not hold them up as victims of the police state. And I would not do that because it would be so obviously dumb as to make negative implications about my intelligence. Even though I agree that Kerry and Nader are filthy crypto-Socialists who lie about their true ideology to get their slimy tentacles on the power of the presidency.

I only said the stereotyping was racist.

>Ah yes, that racist outsourcing humor never gets old.

Ahem, you meant to say "racial" rather than "racist", correct?

If you plan to insult someone, you would do well to first be perfect yourself.

>Ah yes, that racist outsourcing humor never gets old.

Ahem, you meant to say "racial" rather than "racist", correct?

If you plan to insult someone, you would do well to first be perfect yourself.

That's only ironic if the software that makes the computer run slower is actually intended to make it run faster. Otherwise it is unfortunate, but not ironic. Please stop the abuse of the word ironic. All it takes is for each one of us to do our part.