Slashdot Mirror

I'll bite, troll.

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

Please stop calling things racist that aren't racist people. His comment didn't show any superiority over a race or anything that would make it count as a racist comment. It MAY be perceived that his comment shows malcontent for the outsourcing situation, but that's not racism. Nor did his comment "discriminate" in anyway. His simply made fun of the accent and the current tech support situation.

Wow, if you were electrocuted an hour ago that means you are talking to us from the other side! Oh, you just meant that you got shocked...

definition of electrocuted: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=electrocu ted

Imagine this wasn't an interview by the founder of Linux. Imagine (most) everyone on this forum didn't already despise Microsoft, and/or love Linux.

Now, is Microsoft a monopolist? Before you answer, read up on your history. Have they used this monopoly power to hurt consumers, by locking them in, by limiting choice?

If that's the American Dream, then I maybe its time to revise the American Dream.

By the way, from here, an ecosystem is "a community of organisms." There isn't much of an ecosystem if one of the "organisms" has absolute power over every other one.

JON STEWART IS A COMIC.

COMIC.

His job is to MAKE PEOPLE LAUGH. Anything else is a side effect.

He is the first one to mention that his show is a "fake news show" and that he follows a show where "puppets make prank phone calls."

I read the transcript and I didn't see John Stewart actually say anything. He asked "Why do you argue?" and that seemed to be the gist of it. He then said "It's hurting the country". SO what he wants everyone to agree? Then he claims that he's "The People" work for "The People". The reason everyone (on Slashdot) likes this position is because it's a Dialectical viewpoint. Which is a viewpoint that assumes that their is always an easily attainable final answer to difficult questions like "When does human life begin?" and "What is obscene?" and "Does the U.S have the right to pre-emption?". Dialecticism wants to resolve the Dualism of many modern political realities. For instance their is the dualism that the state and the people are not always in agreement. The dialecticist resolves this by creating a "people's state". Their is a dualism between political theory and practice and the dialectcist wants to resolve this by creating an ideologically pure government. There is a dialectic between why some people do better than others if we are all created equal. A dialectisist wants to resolve this by making everyone economically equal. A dualist on the other hand knows that these are hard problems that we can't solve perfectly. Our reality never reaches perfection. This evolved from the Judeo-Christian idea of origional sin. That we are not perfect. That we will never be absolutely perfect though we can strive to perfection. The political process for a dualist is a constant war of ideas, compromise and experimentation, moving more slowly toward a better political organization.

How to attain the goal is not know to a dualist, he realizes that much debate, experimentation and examination of details must occur before things improve. The dialecticist on the other hand is far more arrogant believing he can put together the whole solution and all that remains is to push aside the debaters and doubters and implement his vision. Dualists are people like Karl Popper and Hayek. Dialectisits are people like Ayn Rand, Marx, Hegel.

I read the transcript and I didn't see John Stewart actually say anything. He asked "Why do you argue?" and that seemed to be the gist of it. He then said "It's hurting the country". SO what he wants everyone to agree? Then he claims that he's "The People" work for "The People". The reason everyone (on Slashdot) likes this position is because it's a Dialectical viewpoint. Which is a viewpoint that assumes that their is always an easily attainable final answer to difficult questions like "When does human life begin?" and "What is obscene?" and "Does the U.S have the right to pre-emption?". Dialecticism wants to resolve the Dualism of many modern political realities. For instance their is the dualism that the state and the people are not always in agreement. The dialecticist resolves this by creating a "people's state". Their is a dualism between political theory and practice and the dialectcist wants to resolve this by creating an ideologically pure government. There is a dialectic between why some people do better than others if we are all created equal. A dialectisist wants to resolve this by making everyone economically equal. A dualist on the other hand knows that these are hard problems that we can't solve perfectly. Our reality never reaches perfection. This evolved from the Judeo-Christian idea of origional sin. That we are not perfect. That we will never be absolutely perfect though we can strive to perfection. The political process for a dualist is a constant war of ideas, compromise and experimentation, moving more slowly toward a better political organization.

How to attain the goal is not know to a dualist, he realizes that much debate, experimentation and examination of details must occur before things improve. The dialecticist on the other hand is far more arrogant believing he can put together the whole solution and all that remains is to push aside the debaters and doubters and implement his vision. Dualists are people like Karl Popper and Hayek. Dialectisits are people like Ayn Rand, Marx, Hegel.

standards setting sits in a boring trough between two exciting peaks. ... It's often the rush for money that makes us move to fast to do the job right.
Standards (now) exist in spelling, ever since Dr Johnson's dictionary came out. Before then, spelling was whatever someone could be bothered with.

Or did I misinterpret the last sentence, and what was actually meant was that the rush for money makes us abstain from food to do the job right?

The "It's only piracy if you sell it" notion is incorrect and self-serving. Probably thought up by somebody who didn't want to be bothered by feelings of guilt when they pirate software. Why bother with euphemisms? Fly the jolly roger proudly.

typing "dict piracy" into Firefox's address bar takes you to dictionary.com, where the relevant definition is:

The unauthorized use or reproduction of copyrighted or patented material: software piracy.

For all the clever bunnies who'd like to point out that the word "piracy" has other definitions, as well: so do lots of words. The word "piracy" is a homonym. This is a fundamental concept of the English language that we all learned in grade school.

Allow me to again quote your original statement:

I don't see how expressing an opinion on Slashdot could possibly be ballsy, anonymous or not. Slashdot is where you gripe about stuff, occasionally become deluded with the idea someone is listening, but ultimately are ignored. Doing it anonymously is really just redundant, that's all. I've been posting for years to Slashdot and have never created an account. You know what? I'm not missing anything.

That was your original statement. In it you mention posting anonymously as being "redundant." dictionary.com gives a definition as: "Exceeding what is necessary or natural; superfluous". I assume that you were talking about the cowardly nature of the posts when you made this comment. Thus, you yourself admitted that posting anonymously was more cowardly than posting non-AC (otherwise it wouldn't be redundant). Well, that is what you said in your original statement anyway. Now this is what you are saying:

I responded by stating that ALL Slashdot postings are cowardly, anonymous ones no moreso than others.

But you said anonymous ones were redundant? I won't argue with the ALL Slashdot postings are cowardly statement. I agree with you. But you appear to have changed your tune with the "anonymous ones no moreso than others" part. If this is indeed your true feelings I will suggest you are close, but not quite right. With Karma, while busted surely, there is the potential for a slight ramification if you were to post flames all day long. One could argue that it isn't strong enough (I would) but it is method of accountability and that is more than posting AC has.

You in fact are missing out on things by not having a slashdot membership. You personally might not value them or desire to use them (which is fine) but to make a statement that you are missing out on nothing is patently wrong. Can you have a journal? Can you moderate? No, those are things that you are missing out on. Whether you care about such things is up to you of course, I don't really care whether you value them or not (obviously you don't).

And finally about the school thing, never did I say government shouldn't do something. I think government should do something and I also feel that that something shouldn't happen via the school systems (at least not our current systems). I believe that the problem of bad parenting should be fixed rather than covered up by the schools performing the job for the parents. Personally I would like to see government offered "seed" money in order to grow local grassroots social organizations to facilitate parental learning so as to work to eliminate the problem as much as possible. With the ultimate goal being to reduce the dependency of these groups on the government (here is where the libertarian part of me comes through).

"We consider downloading this code, or making it available for others to download, as theft," the company says in a statement.

you probably also suggest that there is...

no such thing as cold, just the absence of heat
no such thing as dark, just the absence of light

guess what?
we english speaking humans have decided to call
and the absence of heat, 'cold'
the absence of light, 'dark'
and negative acceleration, 'deceleration'

You can look up what we call things here
;-)

you probably also suggest that there is...

no such thing as cold, just the absence of heat
no such thing as dark, just the absence of light

guess what?
we english speaking humans have decided to call
and the absence of heat, 'cold'
the absence of light, 'dark'
and negative acceleration, 'deceleration'

You can look up what we call things here
;-)

you probably also suggest that there is...

no such thing as cold, just the absence of heat
no such thing as dark, just the absence of light

guess what?
we english speaking humans have decided to call
and the absence of heat, 'cold'
the absence of light, 'dark'
and negative acceleration, 'deceleration'

You can look up what we call things here
;-)

Others would disagree.

expertly

It's a word. It's in Webster's. Deal with it.

I guess they misspelled misspell. Perhaps they should use a good online dictionary: Dictionary.com/misspell

I don't understand what is so funny about that.
Recently, Microsoft has been doing much more than Apple on compatibility. At least they offer products that let you run Windows under Mac OS X.

With the same kind of setup in reverse, Apple could have made a version of Mac OS X to run in Windows. Or even a version of Mac OS X that ran without Apple hardware.

Is it possible to run Windows on Mac hardware without Mac OS X being installed? Not that I've seen...

See definition of "interoperable"

I don't know how you can say, "a literal reading of the bible cannot be reconciled with science" when you haven't bothered to even do a Google search regarding your "favorite question."

I think that it would be impossible for anyone to "reconcile" the Bible with science without having an attitude of sincere, intense study of the relevant subjects.

I'll give you a few places you can check out if you'd like.

• "firmament" in Easton's Bible Dictionary
• Is the raqiya' ('firmament') a solid dome?
• Genesis FAQ
• Online Bible search - many translations
• Online Bible dictionaries
• Online Bible commentaries
• Open source free Bible software - Linux, Windows; many translations, dictionaries, commentaries, etc.

I don't know how you can say, "a literal reading of the bible cannot be reconciled with science" when you haven't bothered to even do a Google search regarding your "favorite question."

I think that it would be impossible for anyone to "reconcile" the Bible with science without having an attitude of sincere, intense study of the relevant subjects.

I'll give you a few places you can check out if you'd like.

• "firmament" in Easton's Bible Dictionary
• Is the raqiya' ('firmament') a solid dome?
• Genesis FAQ
• Online Bible search - many translations
• Online Bible dictionaries
• Online Bible commentaries
• Open source free Bible software - Linux, Windows; many translations, dictionaries, commentaries, etc.

There are no modern, natural famines. There is ample food supply to feed every person on Earth as much as each person needs. All the famines that exist today are man-made, the products of regional stupidity (Communism, greed, war, genocide). Even with the regional famines, there is ample food from the rest of the world to feed everyone, if not for problems with distribution (again, distribution is disrupted by people with an agenda, not because of natural shortcomings).

Leftists have chosen to blame starvation on population explosion, but the real cause are the policies of the people in regional power, whether warlords or dictators. The wars are not fought over food, but over power, money and race. The Left is lying.

"I'm John Kerry, and I approved this plagiarism".

Hey, just so you know, 'viri' is the incorrect word in this context. I know it's odd, but the English language is full of these exceptions. The correct plural of 'virus' is 'viruses'.

See here for more info (like what the meaning of the word 'viri' is).

Big Endian which makes a huge difference depending on what you're doing. For example most multimedia applications.

Okay, can you please explain again how it was redundant?

It is phalus - not phallus for heavens' sake! Can't you people read Wikipaedia before you make stupid erotic jokes or even use Google for God's sake? Don't know how does poicephalus look like? Fine, then click here to see some pictures. But don't embarass yourself by showing your ignorance like that not being able to count L's in poicephalus! This is not funny.

It is phalus - not phallus for heavens' sake! Can't you people read Wikipaedia before you make stupid erotic jokes or even use Google for God's sake? Don't know how does poicephalus look like? Fine, then click here to see some pictures. But don't embarass yourself by showing your ignorance like that not being able to count L's in poicephalus! This is not funny.

I happened to stop into the electronics section while my fiancé did some shopping elsewhere.

It's shocking how so many of you are actually rationalizing what these 'programmers' do. Not only are these practices unethical, but they give real programmers and the entire industry a bad name. They cause our government to enact laws which are destroying the freedom that is the essence of the Internet.

In a finantial bind? Get a McJob if you have to. It's pretty hard to say you don't have any other choice: there are plenty of better jobs than building software/systems for scammers and spammers. Resorting to this behavior makes you just as bad as them.

The whole thing makes me want to [insert rash action here]. Ironically, it is my own morals stopping me from doing such things.

The meaning of hype applicable in this case is "[exaggerated] or extravagant claims made especially in advertising or promotional material". If people can get their hands on the game it destroys the hype, because people can see quantitively exactly what the game consists of.

In other words, by definition this could not increase the pre-release hype.

1) apparently you've never heard of an analogy

2) so is it honest to ignore, or at least pretend to ignore, overwhelming evidence that is contrary to your position just to save face? does blind faith earn your trust? even MS admits mistakes and releases patches, although often too late.

3)tis better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt. hopefully enough people don't have any doubt in dubya's case foolishness

well i guess it is because the bush administration keeps saying their first and formost job is to "protect america".

if you can't protect americans from americans saying bad things about their government then who can you protect?

i suppose it's the terrorists who want us to excercise our "free speech" to complain about our government...

i myself welcome our fascist overlords!

Fascism:
A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.

Panurgism...umm i was wondering what this word meant too...but i couldn't find it either. I did find the word Paneulogism though, and after reading http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=Paneu logism ...i was able to put it in context.

Recent linguistic fieldwork, however, has confirmed the existence of a word gangurru in the northeast Aboriginal language of Guugu Yimidhirr, referring to a species of kangaroo.

See the word history here, or The Word Detective. (The latter is a great site if you're interested in words.)

If you possess something you have no right to possess, the item or thing in question is stolen. It doesn't matter if it's a song, a software package, or a hammer.

Steal: To take (the property of another) without right or permission.

I can almost hear you say it... But intellectual property isn't really property!

Wrong again: " Something tangible or intangible to which its owner has legal title: properties such as copyrights and trademarks."

It doesn't matter whether or not everybody who downloaded a cracked copy of a game actually intended to buy it. The point is, they have something that they have no right to have.

What is relevant is that the purpose of copyright, to encourage the authoring of quality works by ensuring a method of compensation, so that such works can be turned to the public interest after a limited period of time has been effectively hijacked. There is no effective limited period of time, and extensions have been applied retroactively.

Wasn't there some law somewhere about an "Ex Post Facto Law"? Oh yeah, the US Constitution! Article 1, Section 9/10!

If you possess something you have no right to possess, the item or thing in question is stolen. It doesn't matter if it's a song, a software package, or a hammer.

Steal: To take (the property of another) without right or permission.

I can almost hear you say it... But intellectual property isn't really property!

Wrong again: " Something tangible or intangible to which its owner has legal title: properties such as copyrights and trademarks."

It doesn't matter whether or not everybody who downloaded a cracked copy of a game actually intended to buy it. The point is, they have something that they have no right to have.

What is relevant is that the purpose of copyright, to encourage the authoring of quality works by ensuring a method of compensation, so that such works can be turned to the public interest after a limited period of time has been effectively hijacked. There is no effective limited period of time, and extensions have been applied retroactively.

Wasn't there some law somewhere about an "Ex Post Facto Law"? Oh yeah, the US Constitution! Article 1, Section 9/10!

See Also:
SLAPP (extended definition)
Slapp-back

You sir are a fascist and I mean that in the most literal of sense per the definition of fascism. More over, your statements fall in line with the ideals of the neoCons and thus I take it you are a whole-hearted supporter of Bush and a Fox News educated brownshirt. I'll stretch is a bit, but not far, and suppose you consider anyone who would question the President or voice dissent of the US Government to be a traitor.

By calling for the end of the Democratic party in part or in whole, you are saying America should be a dictatorship, And by calling for the destruction (speedy exit -- same as destruction?? I think so) of all non-democratic, non-judeo-christian societies, I think you would have fit in quite well in Nazi Germany. It seems you share our current Governments Totalitarian and Nationalistic doctrines. Hence, my referring to your beliefs as Fascist and my wanting to back hand you.

You see, unlike you, I am a patriot. I believe in freedom, personal choice and the fact that as long as there is more than 1 person alive on this earth you shall have conflict. Moreover, I believe in the right to disagree but I accept violence as a possible outcome of any dispute. I do not fear violence nor do I care to give up essential liberties for a false sense of security. You and I have EXTREME conflict. You see, I believe in the ideals that founded this country, I believe in the Freedom of the individual to think and share his own thoughts without fear of persecution, imprisonment and death. I believe that all people should be allowed to worship any god or no god at all, I believe in my inaliable rights and that people have the right to act against their government should the need arise. While you on the other hand support the annihilation of all you fear or do not understand. Your mind set much like Bushco's is that all people not like you should either conform or perish. That in my mind is treason to the our Democratic charter and to your fellow American. For it betrays the very essence of Democracy and Liberty. You and all neoCons like you are nothing but brownshirts who thrive on fear and hate and practice violence to make your case. And that's why if we ever did met up, there would be blood. Because as an American I understand who the enemy is, it's people like you who would attempt to take away my rights and the rights of all americans and to subvert that to a fascist regime of endless war to impose it's views of right/wrong unto the world.

You may think I'm taking it out of context, but I'm only taking your argument to it's logical conclusion. Because once Fascism starts it will not stop until defeated in an act of great bloodshed.
The neoCon ideal is for a controlled Police State where corporate self interest reigns supreme over the rights of the people and all people are monitored by their peers, all dissent quelled and diversity of thought excised. Already America has been agressive in confiscating the rights of Americans to speak and travel freely in the name of "terrorism". Already we have seen politicians call each other "traitors" for speaking in dissent, already we have seen the ignorant citizen who confuses Nationalism with Patriotism. Nazi brownshirts were no different, they thought themselves to be patriots as well. So we see it again, the brownshirts such as yourself eating it all up on Fox and goosestep to the Ashcroft war against civil liberties applaud the war on terror and think your actions Patriotism. The natural outcome of the Patriot Act legislation, the war on terror and the NeoCon ideal is to transform America, if not the whole world into a Police State in the name of "National Security". Don't believe me? Then look at the Patriot Act.... Secret warrants, secret arrests, secret imprisonment with secret charges for indefinate periods of time, secret trials and secret convictions. When I was a child, that is exactly exactly what I was told were the policies of America

Take it easy this article is a lot more correct then most of the ones I read here!

It is unclear what your goal is with that message. Just to clarify for those who don't know (and who want to learn), the correct version of that sentence is:

"Take it easy: this article is a lot more correct than most of the ones I read here!"

Take it easy this article is a lot more correct then most of the ones I read here!

It is unclear what your goal is with that message. Just to clarify for those who don't know (and who want to learn), the correct version of that sentence is:

"Take it easy: this article is a lot more correct than most of the ones I read here!"

1. An entity, an idea, or a quality perceived, known, or thought to have its own existence.

Yes, I will second the notion that a digital copy of a music recording is a thing.

From the first entry, notice in particular:

1. In definition #1, the word "idea."
2. Definition 9a.
3. Definition #10.
4. Definition #12. While sometimes this could refer to something concrete, it doesn't have to.
5. Definitions 13 through 16.

Also see the idiomatic usage found after that entry.

Yea, this got me thinking if this was the second reason they choose "Google", as "go ogle" is a damn good one too! Maybe there's a future Windows -vs- Lindows-esque lawsuit in that one?!

>I assume the purportedly non-sexist English language allows for this?

Unfortunately, you've used it incorrectly in that case.

If you'd like to take a look at the dictionary one more time, you'll find no sexless definitions for the word "woman". In fact, the word "woman" could be considered sexist, as some definitions mean it to be a female servant.

>Actually, I would have said "person" rather than "man" or "woman", but I don't think it's safe to debate pronoun usage with a woman such as yourself, as you seem to have taken my joke very seriously.

I take "jokes" like that seriously because I do tire of seeing certain groups corrupt not only our language (I consider it a corruption when a simple shortening of the word "human" can somehow become an insult), but worse yet, corrupt our legal system. IMHO, a man without a hate crime law is like a fish without a bicycle. Interestingly enough, that law is now used to eject certain non-mainstream media from Canada.

Yeah. I'll just go in a corner and chill out now. That's ok. Don't worry about anything.

>What about a 5 woman business? Would Quasar still be enough?

I thought I already said that. A 5 man business could consist of only women. The english language does allow for that. In fact, you'll find the same or more sexless definitions for the word in the dictionary than you will find sexed definitions, and common usage still allows for "man" as a very genderless word. I would point to a certain government organization in the UK that uses that word, but you may have heard of them already, anyways.

I don't intend to adjust my usage of the word until the major dictionaries tell me to.

Yes, Carolyn Jacobson must have a poor dictionary indeed; her suggestion that dictionaries have a clear preference towards using the word "man" to mean male is provably incorrect.

It is sad that an english department of a prominent university cannot afford a quality dictionary. I would have donated one to them at the time, had I known they lacked one. Since now said quality dictionaries are online, I except I needent do so and that such unintentional ignorance should wash itself away in time.

Of course, if you choose to use an alternative word, such as "their" or "they", I shan't correct you. It isn't my place. Besides, common usage of such words makes their once incorrect usage now correct.

Sure he does, but not his spelling

Now, if we could get him to lay off the funky color schemes in the sub-sections we'd be getting somewhere!

A lot of the information was incorrect, but not unexpected, your own response proved your are just as much an ignorant ass and idiot.

Okay, we're off to a rocky start but maybe you will prove your ad hominum point...

if libel is not pertinent in this case then what situation does it apply to? please educate me.

This is what libel means. "A false publication, as in writing, print, signs, or pictures, that damages a person's reputation." As the guy proved, it is not so much a false publication, because anyone intelligent would be abide to abide by the rules. Certainly not break the rules as he did and then try to smart-ass his way out of his own stupid breach of conduct.

Also, it can be noted that the undertone of the remark directed at the former employee is not all that serious. To be honest, I don't even think of it as an insult, more as a rather direct and cynical joke. How can a phrase such as the one Mr. Hayes said be taken so seriously anyways?

it is a direct statement against people who think life may be present on other planets

Well, no. Let's disect his remark toward the former employee:

"I understand his desire to search for intelligent life in outer space, because obviously he doesn't find it in the mirror in the morning"

It clearly refers to HIS desire to search and HIS inability to find it in the mirror in the morning. Now, if the guy would have commented on THE desire ( thus, in general ) to search and that THEY would be unable to find it in the mirror, then it would be aimed at all of the SETI@home community, indeed at all who search for life elsewhere in the universe. Such isn't the case though. Of course, it is possible to find offense in just about anything these days...

On a different note, it's saddening to know that a drunk person types better then I do... Want some aspirines for next morning? :)

No. Just... no.

This is not a mistake. This moron knew the consequences, knew what he was doing and was careful enough to try and make it look okay. He got sacked for doing it in the first place and he got a well-deserved public humiliation for trying to be self-righteous by trying to be clever with the rules.

As for the insult against all SETI users... What the hell are you thinking? Tom Hayes clearly intended for his remarks to be aimed at the offending ex-employee, not all of the SETI@home project. I don't really think Mr. Hayes could give a damn about SETI@home OR it's users, apart from the bullshit he had to remove from the servers and department he was responsible for.

All these reactions in the article are a clear example of one of the things that is so wrong with the world today. Political correctness these days is more important than common sense or freedom of speech. In this case, some ex-employee gets a public scorning, warning all possible employers that this guy tends to do stupid stuff. And it serves him right, for he most likely knew the consequences of his actions, as evident by his attempts to make it look harmless. Instead, we get a knee-jerk reaction spree here on Slashdot, claiming that the public insults are unjustified and uncivilized. Think about it, that fool would now think TWICE before doing something stupid like this again, as would anyone else who'd try the same thing. Yeah, he might be upset or hurt about this, but he'll get over it. Of course, in the real world he can sue Mr. Hayes for slander and get away with a few hundred thousand dollars worth that he cheated of his former employee because of "emotional damages". Maybe I should sue the people who are going to mod this down because of uhm... Well, let's say "emotional damages".

I will accept my financial reimbursements in euros, thank you!

No, you're wrong

Stories in the holy books are myths. By definition, religions are based in mythology.

Please, try and contradict my point. I'd like a laugh.

Secondly, (and I am saying this as an atheist), there is absoultely no conflict with believing in separation of church and state and voting according to your religious principles.

I am pro-life (somewhat), and an atheist (and a Libertarian). I see the fetus (though not until later stages of development) as a viable entity and as deserving of the same protections of Life, Liberty, and Property as anyone else.