Slashdot Mirror

You don't get it: when I purchase a copyrighted book, I still own the copy that I purchased, and am free to do with it as I wish, save for making more copies of the book and selling them for profit; see First Sale doctrine. A car or house is the same: it doesn't matter whether the design and implementation processes can be copyrighted, I still own the car and house by virute of paying for them, and am allowed to do what I wish with them short of making copies.

To avoid a lengthy session of screaming at a wall - I don't think that word means what you think it means.

Fortunately, Dictionaries are for everyone:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/affection

Please tell me why I can't have a fondness for a game.

Best features and new features may not mean exactly the same thing but a feature is 'a prominent or conspicuous part or characteristic'. So if it is not new it is less prominent. We don't really talk about preemptive multitasking being a feature anymore even though is a pretty good thing.

Economics is not a science

Wrong. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics

"Economics is the social science..."

Don't like wiki? http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/economics?s=t

economics [ek-uh-nom-iks, ee-kuh-] Show IPA noun 1. ( used with a singular verb ) the science

So you're completely, irrefutably wrong on that one. You can dislike it all you want, it changes nothing. And medicine ISN'T science? What? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicine

Medicine is the field of applied science

You're wrong. That you think your attempt at pedantry had merit doesn't make you any less obviously and irrefutably wrong.

Perhaps the solution is to educate people as to what science is

As long as it's not you doing the educating, since you're completely wrong on what is and is not science. Educator, educate thymotherfuckingself.

1. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/scientific+method

2. Reproducibility means exactly that - if you follow the method set out in the paper can you reproduce the results that the paper claims? There's no "system" for testing reproducibility because there doesn't need to be one - you simply do what the authors of the paper did and either it works or it doesn't. If you haven't been given enough information to reproduce the paper's results then the paper is invalid and needs to be corrected.

3. Studies are a particular tool of science, and are one of the most abused, misunderstood and mistrusted tools we have, for all of the reasons you mentioned and more. A huge number of studies are conducted poorly for a large number of reasons. Analysing and critiquing the study itself is large part of peer review.

4. This is just nonsense rambling. I'm sure there are some "career development for PhD's" that is not "science" but it hardly describes the majority of science being doing that is funded by means other than the taxpayer. This just reads like an anti-science talking point with nothing to substantiate it. You know if you're reaching for character attacks on scientists themselves you've run out of arguments.

5. This is definitely true. The media's reporting and (often wilful, most times ignorant) misunderstanding of what scientific studies are reporting is rife and it is one of the main reasons science is so misunderstood by the general public. Quoting scientists out of context, or just plain making stuff up is also widespread. "Scientists say....", "some experts believe...." etc etc.

Also, consider this, can you trust the findings of a scientist without a moral compass?

That's a bit of a non-sequitur. You can replace "scientist" in that sentence with almost any profession. Lawyer, politician, police officer, doctor etc... How does it relate to the issue under discussion, unless you're claiming that *all* scientists have no moral compass?

stop saying throwback. throwback is a marketing term coined by cola companies and snack food conglomerates to gin up their respective markets and attract new customers to the same unhealthy vapid product theyve sold for 50 years.

Nope, though abused by those companies, "throwback" is a word that's been around a very long time. Taking a gander at Google's Ngram viewer shows the term in use back to the early 1800's. Other sources indicate it's origin as being 1855 or 1888.
 

second, until makerbots start employing millions of people in well paid, safe factory conditions with competitive pay and honest retirement options, theres absolutely zero equivalent measure between a CnC factory that gets a building permit and a tax break from the city of brooklyn and the 1960's manufacturing explosion that dominated the northeast and ushered in american prosperity for hundreds of millions of people.

Wait, what? By the 1960's, the "explosion" in the Northeast was over - and manufacturers there were already feeling the cold touch of winter as production (and consumers) fled to other part of the country and overseas to avoid rising land and labor costs. Manufacturing was running on inertia not "exploding".

VAXes, not VAXen.

Actually, "Vaxen" is acceptable and I have actually heard it used - yes, I'm that old. Furthermore, from (1) Vaxen and mentioned on (2) VAX:

(1) The plural canonically used among hackers for the DEC VAX computers. "Our installation has four PDP-10s and twenty vaxen."
(2) ... systems include the "BVAX", a high-end ECL-based VAX, and two other ECL-based VAXen: "Argonaut" and "Raven".

No, because of very subtle advertising, like many companies now employ on social sites such as this one?

This may help you understand. . . .

It's funny that you can't even spell incompetent.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/profit?s=t

Pretty simple really. Offload more cost to the end user, more profit for the producer.

steal

[steel] Show IPA ,verb, stole, stolen, stealing, noun
verb (used with object)

2. to appropriate (ideas, credit, words, etc.) without right or acknowledgment.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/steal

I think it's more of a hypergolic headline.

Wrong - "can" implies an ability to do something, "will" implies a desire or need to do something.

Just because you can have sex with a man, doesn't mean you will.

Even if you could walk [at some point in the future], it doesn't mean you will.


Have we really fallen so far as a society that people no longer know the difference between basic words like can and will? Shit, no wonder I can't understand half the garbage people put online - they themselves have no idea what they're actually saying.

Wrong - "can" implies an ability to do something, "will" implies a desire or need to do something.

Just because you can have sex with a man, doesn't mean you will.

Even if you could walk [at some point in the future], it doesn't mean you will.


Have we really fallen so far as a society that people no longer know the difference between basic words like can and will? Shit, no wonder I can't understand half the garbage people put online - they themselves have no idea what they're actually saying.

I suspect you don't really understand the purpose of a corporation. By definition: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/corporation they're set up to be distinct.
How that is achieved varies from government to government but the basic principle is the same.

First off censoring a corporation doesn't censor an individual because the individual is still perfectly free to say whatever it was the corporation was.

You seem more interested in simply taking left vs right pot shots including rather poor assumption about my view of corporations than truly grasping the issue. This is more complex than a simple of freedom of speech argument. For centuries we created a series of laws which hinged around the idea that corporations were distinct in terms of liability, financially and politically from their members. There are a lot of good reasons for this, most of which protect the corporation so they can get on with their job.

The problem here is individuals leveraging those protections with the sole purpose of using those protections, they're not a production entity they're simply an entity hiding behind a loophole. The supreme court is free to strike down all part or none of a law. They could have reached a consensus that didn't abridge any individual freedom of speech while still retaining the long held standard that corporations were not people. Now there's a can of worms and there will be a steady stream of cases challenging that interpretation in other arenas (liability for instance).

    Consider who the terrorists are.

terrorist

1. a person, usually a member of a group, who uses or advocates terrorism.
2. a person who terrorizes or frightens others.

terrorism

1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.
2. the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.
3. a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.

You'll find that the terrorists in this situation aren't nameless faceless Arabic speaking people with binary explosives in their luggage, or underwear made of C4. Those who inspire terror are present in every airport, every border, and throughout the US. They arrest people off the streets because they may not have the right papers (4th amendment). They can take you for dissenting opinions (1st amendment). They can arrest and hold you indefinitely (8th amendment). They conduct wars on the other side of the world in the name of stopping terrorism, yet they are the terrorists. How many sovereign nations are now occupied by US troops, with continuing operations there?

    This is not intended to be negative in any sort of way to our troops. It is negative to the terrorism leaders, who continue to conduct these operations.

    For those that say the government are not terrorists, think about it a little. Who forced themselves on a 4 year old girl? Who feels it is appropriate to molest anyone who wishes to travel? Who makes you file papers under the threat of seizing your income, property, and possibly putting you in jail, and the threat stands if you did file them, but made mistakes? Ask the hundreds of thousands world wide who have lost loved ones in the last decade at the hands of US troops. Ask that little girl if she's scared of the big scary people in blue shirts.

    I'm scared of the US Government. They concern me more than gang bangers on the corner, or people making noise on the other side of the world.

    The TSA, DHS, and ICE are the largest terror groups in the United States. Branches of the DoD and their associates are the largest terror group world wide.

    I intentionally left the FBI and CIA out of the above references. They do excellent work, although it doesn't make the news frequently.

    I honestly don't understand why we continue to stand for it.

    Consider who the terrorists are.

terrorist

1. a person, usually a member of a group, who uses or advocates terrorism.
2. a person who terrorizes or frightens others.

terrorism

1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.
2. the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.
3. a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.

You'll find that the terrorists in this situation aren't nameless faceless Arabic speaking people with binary explosives in their luggage, or underwear made of C4. Those who inspire terror are present in every airport, every border, and throughout the US. They arrest people off the streets because they may not have the right papers (4th amendment). They can take you for dissenting opinions (1st amendment). They can arrest and hold you indefinitely (8th amendment). They conduct wars on the other side of the world in the name of stopping terrorism, yet they are the terrorists. How many sovereign nations are now occupied by US troops, with continuing operations there?

    This is not intended to be negative in any sort of way to our troops. It is negative to the terrorism leaders, who continue to conduct these operations.

    For those that say the government are not terrorists, think about it a little. Who forced themselves on a 4 year old girl? Who feels it is appropriate to molest anyone who wishes to travel? Who makes you file papers under the threat of seizing your income, property, and possibly putting you in jail, and the threat stands if you did file them, but made mistakes? Ask the hundreds of thousands world wide who have lost loved ones in the last decade at the hands of US troops. Ask that little girl if she's scared of the big scary people in blue shirts.

    I'm scared of the US Government. They concern me more than gang bangers on the corner, or people making noise on the other side of the world.

    The TSA, DHS, and ICE are the largest terror groups in the United States. Branches of the DoD and their associates are the largest terror group world wide.

    I intentionally left the FBI and CIA out of the above references. They do excellent work, although it doesn't make the news frequently.

    I honestly don't understand why we continue to stand for it.

Given that the article described the little girl as having nightmares for the next several nights:

Croft said that for the first few nights after coming home, Isabelle had nightmares and talked about kidnappers. She said TSA agents had shouted at the girl, telling her to calm down and saying the suspect wasn't cooperating.

doesn't that make the TSA agents, by the dictionary definition of the word, terrorists? Dictionary.com has as the second definition for the word "a person who terrorizes or frightens others" and it sounds like this girl became extremely frightened or even terrified.

(I hate that term, is there an less biased term that doesn't give them undue credibility like "skeptic" does)

Anyone who thinks the word "skeptic" lends credibility is a dolt who fails at English, and should be treated as such.

you even provided a link to the meaning of the word yet you failed to grasp how your meaning isnt correct.

1. a person who questions the validity or authenticity of something purporting to be factual. 2. a person who maintains a doubting attitude, as toward values, plans, statements, or the character of others.

Anyone who thinks the word "skeptic" lends credibility is a dolt who fails at English, and should be treated as such.

I'm skeptical of your understanding of the English language.

(I hate that term, is there an less biased term that doesn't give them undue credibility like "skeptic" does)

Anyone who thinks the word "skeptic" lends credibility is a dolt who fails at English, and should be treated as such.

What you described IS a republic.. which is exactly what the US is. Here's the dictionary definition:

1. a state in which the supreme power rests in the body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by representatives chosen directly or indirectly by them.

In other words, we all vote people into office, then those people do whatever the hell they want as our representatives.

If you don't like the morons in office, then why do you (we) keep putting them into office?

What they did was wrong. What they did was possibly morally unethical. But evil? No. Evil is reserved for a special breed of person/organization/action. What they did was not evil.

morally wrong or bad; immoral; wicked: evil deeds; an evil life.

So no, the label of "evil" is not reserved for especially bad acts.

All you're doing by branding them "evil" is utterly watering down the meaning of the word and completely weakening your stance.

Frankly, I think that this weird notion that you need to start murdering people before your actions qualify as "evil" is doing far more harm than any "watering down" of the term would. What possible goal would rising the bar that high accomplish, besides letting people excuse their inexcusible actions?

but the article didn't make a claim about the absolute number of projects using the GPL. It made a claim about the usage of the GPL

So you didn't make a claim about using - you made one about usage? There is no difference between those words in this context.

tl;dr You're a fucking idiot, so I am most pleased to see that your comments start at 0 (or is it -1 now?)

but the article didn't make a claim about the absolute number of projects using the GPL. It made a claim about the usage of the GPL

So you didn't make a claim about using - you made one about usage? There is no difference between those words in this context.

tl;dr You're a fucking idiot, so I am most pleased to see that your comments start at 0 (or is it -1 now?)

They are a republic. They're not an independent nation, but they are a sovereign state organized as a republic.

What an absurdly general definition. My children are not my employees when they do the washing up for me, and my neighbour isn't my employee when he helps fix the road. The roadside assistance guy isn't my employee, even though I pay his company to put him at my disposal. It would be a stretch for me to consider my plumber as an employee, or the builders who rebuilt my garage. They're, well, contractors. It's different.

Fundamental aspects of employment involve "payment" (as this definition observes), and any modern useful definition should include the employee's contracted agreement to operate generally for the benefit and under the direction (and code of discipline) of the employer. Without that, all you have is a contract, like my I had with my builders and my plumber.

FFS, people, just because you can use an online dictionary doesn't make you smart.

Basically, you are a fucktard making a fucktarded argument. You are not worth the effort of responding to, but I will solely for the benefit of anyone else reading this tread, so they see how fucking stupid and wrong you are:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship#Types http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/censorship http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/censoring http://gilc.org/speech/osistudy/censorship/ http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/censor http://www.thefreedictionary.com/censorship http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/Censorship

Now, please go eat the bag of dicks you came in on, asshole.

Apparently what the MAFIAA does isn't monetizing either then as it doesn't fit the definition I find online any better. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/monetize So, monetizing is a word without meaning then, great let's forget it ever came up.

You should read the definitions of republic and democracy. You might find them informative.

Democratic republics are the best form of government yet tried. But pure democracy is impractical when you have hundreds of thousands of citizens.

You should read the definitions of republic and democracy. You might find them informative.

Democratic republics are the best form of government yet tried. But pure democracy is impractical when you have hundreds of thousands of citizens.

So you think paying someone worth $75k $60k isn't exploitation?

Well, sure it is; the real question is, what's wrong with that?

The very first definition for "exploit" as a verb is "to utilize, especially for profit; turn to practical account." The word has acquired a secondary, derogatory, understanding, but at it's core, it just means to put something to use.

Consider a programmer working as a solo contractor. He has knowledge--programming--that his client needs. Is the client exploiting him? Absolutely: his skill is a resource laying fallow when he's not working, and when the client employs him, it's put to constructive use. Here's the rub--he's exploiting the client, too: the client has money (or accounts receivable, or what-have-you), and the contractor values that money more than he values the time he could spend not working. Who is exploiting whom? The client, profiting from the use of the contractor's skill, or the contractor, withholding that skill from all except those who pay his ransom? The answer is that both are exploiting the resources of the other, in the first definition, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. The exchange of resources (and labor is just as much a resource as capital or physical resources) is the basis of all commerce, and fundamentally, the basis of all human advancement.

Furthermore, yes, I expect to make a profit on my exchanges. That doesn't necessarily mean a straight dollar profit. I work for, say, $60,000 per year. I generate much more than that for my employer. However, I also get other things from my employer, starting with not having to establish my own client base, to engage in day-to-day management, and a whole host of other things. My skill may generate $150,000 worth of income to my employer, but there's no way I could realize that working on my own--the other functions of the company enhance my own value to the point that the sum is considerably greater than the whole of its parts. Is the company exploiting my talent? Sure (again, see the first definition). Is the company somehow being underhanded? Not at all--I know the deal, I'm free to walk away from it at any time, and I've decided that it's more profitable to stay here. I've been an employer, too, and you can bet that I didn't pay everything I made to the employees. If I don't get to keep a dollar, why should I even bother doing the work it takes to employ him? If I can walk away with $0 in my pocket by not employing him, or $0 in my pocket by employing him--and doing all of the work associated with that--why in the world would I bother? If I can contribute extra effort and make nothing, or sit on the beach and make nothing...what kind of stupid question is that?

So--I acknowledge that yes, it's exploitation. Show me where 1) that's a bad thing, and 2) preventing employers from taking profit wouldn't result in massive unemployment as employers get out of the business of hiring.

Please explain to me how you can be intolerant of a bigot, but claim to be tolerant in general. Bear in mind that refusal to tolerate intolerance does meet the definition intolerance, so you definitely need to elaborate beyond simply restating the parent's (logically fallacious) argument.

Trojans and virsuses, at least their definitions, only differentiate the behaviour and are not mutually exclusive.

A virus is "a segment of self-replicating code planted illegally in a computer program, often to damage or shut down a system or network." Source: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/virus?s=t

A trojan is a program that gives remote access to a compromised machine. There's nothing to say that Viruses and Trojans can't do both. Of course, many people will say that the difference between virsuses and Trojans are that Trojans do not spread by themselves, but at the same time there's nothing to say that a Virus has to grant remote access to any machine it infects - so does that mean that a trojan is a virus that doesn't spread? That wouldn't make sense, given the name.

Viruses spread by themselves, they are self replicating. A virus that has no other payload other than to spread itself further is still a virus.

A Trojan grants remote access to a machine. It may download other malware, but the principal is there - it gives compromised administrative access. If it didn't give this access, it wouldn't be a Trojan, it would be some other form of malware.

So what if you have a virus that downloads other viruses, or grants remote access? Or a trojan that spreads itself? Wait, aren't they now the same thing?

More significant is that there is absolutely no consensus over the Oxford comma.

Indeed - not even on the name

Hmm, I've got mod points but I can't find the -1, Wrong entry on the menu. So I'll just point out here that you're wrong. The internet has not magically caused everyone to use your particular dialect of English.

Er, thanks for the reply instead of down-mod. And, apologies to orig. poster; I was a bit harsh.

However, I was also correct. And misuse (on the internet or elsewhere) has not (yet) made drug mean dragged.

Drug tr.v.:

1. To administer a drug to.
2. To poison or mix (food or drink) with a drug.
3. To stupefy or dull with or as if with a drug: drugged with sleep.

Or here:

transitive verb
1: to affect with a drug; especially : to stupefy by a narcotic drug
2: to administer a drug to
3: to lull or stupefy as if with a drug

This site is also in agreement.

It's rather clear that orig. poster was meaning dragged.

Hmm, I've got mod points but I can't find the -1, Wrong entry on the menu. So I'll just point out here that you're wrong. The internet has not magically caused everyone to use your particular dialect of English.

Er, thanks for the reply instead of down-mod. And, apologies to orig. poster; I was a bit harsh.

However, I was also correct. And misuse (on the internet or elsewhere) has not (yet) made drug mean dragged.

Drug tr.v.:

1. To administer a drug to.
2. To poison or mix (food or drink) with a drug.
3. To stupefy or dull with or as if with a drug: drugged with sleep.

Or here:

transitive verb
1: to affect with a drug; especially : to stupefy by a narcotic drug
2: to administer a drug to
3: to lull or stupefy as if with a drug

This site is also in agreement.

It's rather clear that orig. poster was meaning dragged.

allot /lt/ Show Spelled[uh-lot]
verb (used with object), -lotted, -lotting.
1. to divide or distribute by share or portion; distribute or parcel out; apportion: to allot the available farmland among the settlers.
2. to appropriate for a special purpose: to allot money for a park.
3. to assign as a portion; set apart; dedicate.
I'd guess you meant "a lot", as in much.

Guessing it's both: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/gaol

they also demand French people to adapt to Muslim costumes

Calling it a costume makes you a fashionist bigot.

Refined that for you.

Well, I don't see why they would try to activate a phone made out of bread! http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/stollen

The dictionary shows common usage, not correct usage.

As has been pointed out in countless threads on Slashdot -- by the time it's been in common usage long enough, it is the correct usage.

Since you're talking about a word which originated with the Roman Army, it's had a lot of time to change its meaning. In fact, it's apparently been in use like this since the 19th Century. So, well over 100 years by now.

In fact, in my lifetime, I've only heard it in its modern form. So, sorry you're all bummed out that the usage of the word has changed over time ... but I'd suggest getting over it. :-P

Hell, even Oxford says:

Some traditionalists argue that this is incorrect, but it is clear that it is now part of standard English.

Language evolves over time. This is just one instance.

But, hey, cling to your pedantry if that makes you feel better.

Evolution is a theory. Like the theory of relativity or the theory of flight it is a tested explanation of observations. It is just that most people think theory, speculation and hypothesis all mean the same thing. It may be pedantic but I hate the argument that a theory somehow means it is just speculation.

Qi
Just sayin'...

Maybe it's not a right, but it's what AT&T agreed to sell these people.

Unlimited, def:
1. not limited; unrestricted; unconfined: unlimited trade.
2. boundless; infinite; vast: the unlimited skies.
3. without any qualification or exception; unconditional.

If it has a limit, tier, cap, or threshold, it's not unlimited. Unlimited is not newspeak for limited.

Islamist
Islamism
islamist

While it is highly charged, and there may be some disagreement about the precise definition of the term, it most certainly is a word. You're free to dislike its usage all you like, but that won't change the fact that it is a word.

Negative, ghost rider. The pattern is full!

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/buzzword

buzzword [buhz-wurd] noun
a word or phrase, often sounding authoritative or technical, that is a vogue term in a particular profession, field of study, popular culture, etc.

It's definitely a buzzword on Slashdot lately... 3 articles in just over 30 days proclaiming "whateverthefuck" is np-hard.
Tomorrow we'll probably read about Ron Jeremy's cock being np-hard.

"Irony" is defined as "poignantly contrary to expectation". If you find the hacking of any "compusec" company ironic, the problem is in your unrealistic expectations.

If you must have a dictionary definition, perhaps you would read this link and see Number Five.

And yeah, I expect a "security company" to have a basic level of security. They accomplish at least that much, or they fail in a way I find comical. This one failed. It is possible for others to be more successful. This is determined solely by a given company's performance. "Unrealistic?" Only if you assumed I was shocked or surprised that some company somewhere failed at something. But you see, I never said that; I indicated amusement, not shock, making this false assumption of yours your very own realism FAIL.

That shouldn't be hard to understand, so what's the problem? That I got a laugh out of it? That perhaps you didn't? I hope you're just trolling, or maybe having a bad day, and aren't actually this much of a bitch.

Way things are set up, you could quite legally, totally loose access to the airwaves at any time for a verity of reasons.

I don't think that sentence says what you meant to say. Typos aren't that bad until they completely change what you're trying to communicate.

I hope you're not a programmer, if so it explains all the bugs I see. Those errors got past the compiler and now you have a bug. The program runs, but it doesn't do what you wanted it to do.

* I * am being obtuse? Hahahaha. Look up the word "legion", dumbass. It isn't known to have existed until approximately the year 1000 A.D.!!!! And I'm being generous, giving it a good 100 years or more leeway.

OK, even I am getting bored by this, but try to follow this.

When a word like legion has a dictionary entry that says "Origin 1175-1225", that's when the word entered the English language, not when it first popped out of the mouths of humans. Legio (Latin) and Legiwn (Greek) have both existed for well over 2000 years. Legio came to Greece and became Legiwn, came through Old French as Legion and entered English through Old French/Norman. Same word, with slight changes to pronunciation, century after century. And when it came into English, it was used in the sense of a "Roman Legion" (band of soldiers), not as a synonym for "many".

I was pretty clear in my posting that I doubted that Anonymous was purposely quoting the Bible. But you said:

The use of the word "legion" to mean "many" is approximately 1000 years old, and it originally referred to a "legion" of Roman soldiers. It did not come from the Bible at all. Remember that the Bible is a translated work.

Look up the etymology (word origin) of legion. Here's the very first hit from Google.

Generalized sense of "a large number" is due to translations of allusive phrase in Mark v.9.

Which is pretty much all I said. That you continue to get your dander up over it is bizarre...