Slashdot Mirror

Technology by definition _is_ understanding.

However, most people don't understand that :)

You're confusing the definition of the word spam with the definition for the word advertising. Spam is a specific subcategory of advertising, the qualifier being that it intrudes into email. Not all ads are desired, but they are nowhere near as intrusive, time consuming, or resource consuming as spam.

You're confusing the definition of the word spam with the definition for the word advertising. Spam is a specific subcategory of advertising, the qualifier being that it intrudes into email. Not all ads are desired, but they are nowhere near as intrusive, time consuming, or resource consuming as spam.

Prescribed. Not proscribed.

HTH

Prescribed. Not proscribed.

HTH

Well, shit. Now his post wasn't nearly as funny. Thankyouverymuch.

So you'd vote for Sadaam, someone who wants to destroy America, over Bush.

Actions speak louder than words. Bush has done more to destroy this country that Sadam ever could hope to in a million years.

I fail to understand those who want Bush dead or find electing the mentally ill or foreign-born sponsors of terrorism preferable to reelecting Bush.

Then you need a better dictionary. By the way, I never suggested that I wanted Bush dead. I'm not sure where you got that idea. Or are you just putting words in my mouth? I just want him to go back to Texas permanently.

republic:
n.
1.
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.
2.
1. 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.
2. A nation that has such a political order.
3. often Republic A specific republican government of a nation: the Fourth Republic of France.
4. An autonomous or partially autonomous political and territorial unit belonging to a sovereign federation.
5. A group of people working as equals in the same sphere or field: the republic of letters.

democracy:
n.
1. Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives.
2. A political or social unit that has such a government.
3. The common people, considered as the primary source of political power.
4. Majority rule.
5. The principles of social equality and respect for the individual within a community.

according to our friend the dictionary, a republic has a head (monarch or president) and a representative body (house, senate), while a democracy has every citizen voting on everything directly or through elected officials (house, senate).
so far, republic wins.

republic:
n.
1.
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.
2.
1. 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.
2. A nation that has such a political order.
3. often Republic A specific republican government of a nation: the Fourth Republic of France.
4. An autonomous or partially autonomous political and territorial unit belonging to a sovereign federation.
5. A group of people working as equals in the same sphere or field: the republic of letters.

democracy:
n.
1. Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives.
2. A political or social unit that has such a government.
3. The common people, considered as the primary source of political power.
4. Majority rule.
5. The principles of social equality and respect for the individual within a community.

according to our friend the dictionary, a republic has a head (monarch or president) and a representative body (house, senate), while a democracy has every citizen voting on everything directly or through elected officials (house, senate).
so far, republic wins.

It doesn't have to be--although rarely used,pedantical is a perfectly acceptable adjective meaning the same thing. I like using it--would-be pedagogues can learn that I'm not "stupid," but rather a "stupid-ass."

Umm... do you actually know what sustainable means?

Did you mean this?

I personally reject everything that is obvious as bourgeois and petty

or this...

I personally reject everything that is obvious as bourgeoise and pretty

probably the latter right;)

merde!

Did you mean this?

I personally reject everything that is obvious as bourgeois and petty

or this...

I personally reject everything that is obvious as bourgeoise and pretty

probably the latter right;)

merde!

Fraud (n)

1) A deception deliberately practiced in order to secure unfair or unlawful gain.

Hmm , now given 2 companies , IBM and SCO ... and given the evidence - who do we think the dictionary definition of fraudulant bastards best describes ?

It's called a joke

nice word, but i think you meant gaggle http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=gaggle

> "Economical" ???

I hope you aren't suggesting that Economical isn't a real word.

Humor

(Sorry, I'm not trying to be insulting)

I think the word you're looking for is "specious"

Enjoy

Short of seeing into the future and stopping it, people are going to kill people, deliberatly and accidentally no matter what religion, law or punishment you enact about it. Blaming it on religion or society is a moot point, but understanding that someone else has had a few hundred or even thousand years of functioning society without our passing (Western) judement on them will take us alot farther about how to integrate them them into a collective, functioning society.

My point in reference to age wasn't that he was unitellegent, I'll give anyone the benefit of the doubt until they do something to prove otherwise--it was more an expression of frustration at being patronized by someone too cowardly to put his own thoughts out there for criticism, or at the very least offering some form of rebuttal rather than simply finding the best flaw in his understanding of what I've said.

As I've asked him, is your expectation that in a good anarchy, everyone is going to mass murder, pilliage and rape and then try and justify it. Is this because if there was no laws about it you would cross these lines? Is your own sense of ethics is dictated to you by the state? Is this univeral motivation to do wrong the flaw in my logic? Should you be voting if you can't decide what's right and wrong for yourself?

nor so I speak Latin, so I didn't know that Quid Pro Quo means "An equal exchange or substitution." ( American Heritage )

Religion is about picking an idea about the way you think the world works and.....NEVER CHANGING IT...

Funny, but I consider myself religious, and I constantly change my views, on everything. From the Nature of God, ( I don't even like the term "God"), to the true Nature of Jesus of Nazareth, (I don't like calling the man Jesus "Christ"). Those are just some that are off the top of my head.

Its funny that you say that religion traps you into only thinking one way, when, in fact I have always thought the opposite. Check out my post earlier, I mention that it is key to have an open mind as a requisite to acquiring ANY knowledge.

Jesus of Nazareth himself, as Joseph Smith puts it:

...received not of the fulness at first, but continued from grace to grace, until he received a fulness...

D&C 93: 13

Granted the thought that even Jesus of Nazareth sinned will start a Mormon crying blasphemy, still, I hold to the belief that we (inclusive of Jesus of Nazareth), are here on Earth are here to learn from our experiences, and better ourselves.

In many ways I am a Mormon Atheist, Deist. I see the terms "God", "Heavenly Father", and "Jesus Christ" as elitist references, and in believing whole heartedly that not only are with co-eternal with what we claim to be "God", we are also co-equal, (This one belief alone was the main reason the Jews wished to kill the man Jesus of Nazareth, because he claimed himself equal with "God").

For the most part I believe in the definition of a Deist, that "God", "...created the universe and then abandoned it, assuming no control over life, exerting no influence on natural phenomena...". Obviously I disagree with the last part that "God" gives "...no supernatural revelation."

That's spacious reasoning, Dad.

I don't wanna be to anal, but it's specious reasoning, not spacious.

And that's one to grow on.

Dictionary.com offers:

corporation, n. A body that is granted a charter recognizing it as a separate legal entity having its own rights, privileges, and liabilities distinct from those of its members.

Which is essentially what your dictionary says but with more words.

While everything you say may be true, my objection was to the use of the term "intricate" to describe RAM chip design. The layout isn't intricate at all. It is a highly regular structure. Not convoluted. Not intricate.

To bolster my point, let's look at the definition of the word intricate: "1. Having many complexly arranged elements; elaborate. 2. Solvable or comprehensible only with painstaking effort. Complex."

The physical structure does not satisfy the definition of "intricate." The complexity of RAM development stems from the inherent problems of solid-state physics that must be gotten around to pack the bits ever more densely. The economic drive to be competitive forces innovations in increasing bit density, but once the design work is done and the production process has been tweaked... that's it. The end result might be a marvel of engineering, but it's not intricate as the word is defined, sorry. Maybe the engineering process could be described as intricate (though I would consider this a stretch), but not the end result.

and you should check your dictionary. "Debatable" is a perfectly valid word (look it up).

It's the size of a credit card, one watt, and can transmit 40 miles line of site

Its not the size of credit card, doesn't transmit power and is spelled in a dictionary

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

Do you not know what the fucking word retail means?

Here

I even copied it for you so you don't have to click: The sale of goods or commodities in small quantities directly to consumers.

No where does the definition say a website doesn't qualify. Just because you were an EE for Intel doesn't mean you understand english or understand business worth beans.

Why not spend 10 seconds finding out?.

lmao. That is what I call a great guilt trip. Even if you're an athiest, it still would work since you know there is truth in the definition and harm of theft, even if the bible is just a story in your view. And if you're worried about athiests (or any non-Christian religion), you can always quote dictionary definition of theft.

The plural of virus is viruses you fuckwit.

It's not a technical issue, it's a financial issue masking itself as a legislative issue. The US isn't a Democracy or a Republic, at least, not where it counts. We are a Plutocracy [1]. When the "you CAN-SPAM" law was put into play, it was written largely by the DMA (Direct Marketing Assocation). They wanted to ensure there was a feasible business model - then through in opt-out to avoid too much backlash by the users and losing everything. Unfortunately, something equally as distasteful is a "Do Not Email" list - see "Do Not Call List" for phones.
I agree about phishing. If it's used to prime the pump and enough people make enough noise that phishing is dangerous because of anonymous email and legislation which cures it can be used to cure spam, it would only take a couple of people running for office to get vocal about it (and start the momentum), even if they are sitting on the wrong side of a 75%-25% poll going into the election. IOW, if someone's running for office at the Congressional level and they hold some type of town hall meeting (in office) or a rally taking questions during a campaign, that's probably a good time to start pushing this simple agenda.
What should exist is "I'll accept business email" and "I'll accept telemarketing calls." The problem with that is those who believe they have something to lose from that philosophy (or those philosophies) would say, "But no one would sign up!" and the appropriate response is, "Exactly."


[1]Or: "He who has the gold makes the rules." "Life is like a sh%t sandwich: the more bread you have, the less sh%t you have to eat."

Once again...
______________________________________
My Trunk Monkey can beat up your Trunk Monkey.
http://www.suburbanautogroup.com/ford/trunkmonkey. html

Actually it was. Spam is defined as unsolicited e-mail (or a type of meat). What you are thinking about is just normal junk advertising.

Uh, what?

Extortion involves the comingling of two things, extraction of something (the person's e-mail address, in this case), and doing so by force, or unfairly.

Since nothing is being forcibly requested (give me your address and I'll give you a key...tit for tat, no preemption), and it's evident to a reasonable person that the request is not unfair, it's highly unlikely that this would be considered extortion.

Usage Note: Principal and principle are often confused but have no meanings in common. Principle is only a noun and usually refers to a rule or standard. Principal is both a noun and an adjective. As a noun, it has specialized meanings in law and finance, but in general usage it refers to a person who holds a high position or plays an important role: a meeting among all the principals in the transaction. As an adjective it has the sense of "chief" or "leading": The coach's principal concern is the quarterback's health.

Dark matter has got to be the most flimsy piece of science that has come about since the idea of space being full of ether. (How else could light travel from the Sun to the Earth?). It's like inventing truth for the sake of making the world make sense to you or your paradigm.
Dark Matter is a bunch of bull crap invented to make physicists feel better about not believing in God and His creative powers.

state-enforced monopoly sounds a lot like this to me.
Welcome to the new America!

Hi, I'm your friendly neighborhood grammar-nazi correcting jerk.

Effect is also a verb (scroll down towards the bottom). Where's your overly clichéd rules of thumb now?

what definition would that be? in fact, by almost every definition home has little to do with where you live at any given moment.

Uh... first, what do you think "home" means?

For some common definitions, check out dictionary.com

redundant
adj.

1. Exceeding what is necessary or natural; superfluous.
2. Needlessly wordy or repetitive in expression: a student paper filled with redundant phrases.
3. Of or relating to linguistic redundancy.
4. Chiefly British. Dismissed or laid off from work, as for being no longer needed.
5. Electronics. Of or involving redundancy in electronic equipment.
6. Of or involving redundancy in the transmission of messages.

The United States is a federal republic. Canada is also a republic (a confederate republic, to be exact), but a republic with a parliamentary democracy.

However, if Baby Bush is to be believed, then we are more in line with a theocracy. I'm joking, of course (mostly).

Kidding aside, considering the power of corporate lobbyists and political corporate apologists, I wonder if we're not actually on the road to a plutocracy.

Just my morning mid-coffee thought for the day.

I'd call Moore's documentaries "political science fiction". Facts intermingled with fiction does not make a documentary.

If you want to consult a dictionary definition for all matters of fact vs fiction, then you are a nutcase.

from dictionary.com

promiscuous adj.
1. Having casual sexual relations frequently with different partners; indiscriminate in the choice of sexual partners.
2. Lacking standards of selection; indiscriminate.
3. Casual; random.
4. Consisting of diverse, unrelated parts or individuals; confused: "Throngs promiscuous strew the level green" (Alexander Pope).

So while the promiscuous part actually makes sense that whole sentence is straight from the press release i.e. it's a load of crap

Oshii knows how to do exactly 1 movie and he's been doing it for 20 years or so (Actually that's not the case but as soon as you give him a big budget that's the kind of stuff he'll produce)

the fact that a militia can have a millitary like structure is not to be confused with the militia being an institution (like the Army). Militia merely refers to a body of 'unprofessional soldiers' which at the time equated to citizens with guns. So appearant conflicts in the 2nd suddenly disolve. 'Well-regulated' can not be taken to mean 'controlled by the state' because it explicitly cites uprising against the state as reason for the amendment. Rather I'd think http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=regulated number 3:
To adjust (a mechanism) for accurate and proper functioning.

Also, it serves well to inspect the mindset of the writers. Those people basically lived through violent revolt agains their government and it's army. You expect them to recommend the US Army (a state institution itself) as protection against tyranny? No one in their right mind would expect an army to safe guard liberty and surely not the people that just had to fight one which was oppressing them.

Wow, you are so completely wrong that I'm amazed you can feed yourself. Well, maybe you don't...

You're off to a great start into an argumentative comment there. I really don't understand why you feel you need to be so rude.

It has been used BY YOU to mean that.

No. Neither I, nor you, nor any single other person really has any saying on what a word means. They typically have more than one meaning, which I explicitly said.
Nevertheless, often there is one predominant interpretation people have when hearing a word, and I argued, and still firmly believe, that when people hear filesharing, they typically associate the sharing of copyrighted materials, because that's the kind of filesharing that made the news recently and generally brought up the P2P hype.
Now, what I or you personally associate with the word is, frankly, irrelevant, but for what it's worth, I actually would agree with you. And I guess mostly everyone on Slashdot would agree that the term filesharing also applies to sharing free material - that does not change the fact that most people in general, and probably most people on Slashdot first think of copyrighted materials when they hear the word out of context.
Which is why it's really a good idea to qualify the term when you use it to describe the sharing of free material, simply to prevent misunderstandings from happening.

Note that generally, dictionaries serve as a tool to determine the various meanings of words. If a word has more than one common meaning, so does the dictionary entry for the word, sorted according to the regularity of the meanings usage. A good example, sometimes brought up (by me and others) here on Slashdot is democracy - according to some (fairly formal) meanings of the word, the USA are not a democracy, but according to the popular meaning, it is, which correctly reflects the majority notion which of course you'd get if you asked people on the street.
Of course, this is difficult and sometimes controversial for well-established words, and extremely hard for words such as file sharing, which haven't even made it yet into most dictionaries. Also, connotations like the one in questions probably wouldn't make it into a dictionary anyway (which would be an argument for your case - I still think the connotation is there, without a doubt).

Again, just because YOU view the world so narrowly, don't assume everyone else does as well.

I wasn't even talking about me in the previous post, when I said nobody and anybody and such, it typically was just shorthand for "nearly nobody", which I leave out because in such regards I just take that for granted. Of course there are people who care about sharing free files, that's really extremely obvious since that's what this Slashdot story is about. And I certainly care about it, just like assumedly most people on Slashdot do to some degree. But the majority of Internet users, I think, does not, just like the majority in general.

Which goes contrary to your previous statement that "filesharing" means only "distributing copyrighted material illegally."

Exactly, except I never made such a statement. I think that's the predominant meaning. There is no word with strictly only one meaning.

And yes, I am a linguist.

But you want to raise moral?

But you want to raise moral?

HTML can be used as a layout language

No, it really can't. HTML has no definitive visual rendering.

Of course it has statements.

A statement, in the context of computers, is an instruction. Look it up. HTML has no instructions, it doesn't "do" anything. It's a data format, nothing more. You might as well say that plain text "has statements" because it contains newlines.