Slashdot Mirror

Washington Post -- "Moore has publicly indicated his goal is to impact this election."

CNN International -- "Of course it isn't a fair and balanced look at its subject matter, but it is good filmmaking."

The Guardian (UK) -- "According to legend, Fahrenheit 9/11 was made to topple George W Bush and thereby save America from the grip of an evil tyrant."

New York Times -- "Mixing sober outrage with mischievous humor and blithely trampling the boundary between documentary and demagoguery, Mr. Moore takes wholesale aim at the Bush administration, whose tenure has been distinguished, in his view, by unparalleled and unmitigated arrogance, mendacity and incompetence."

MTV -- "Are [the facts Moore presents] impenetrable on their own, or are they manicured to fit Moore's own motivations?"

"Bigotry"

Finally, if I am extremely lucky, I will never have to communicate anything to the suits other then the occassional grunt, glare, or "out of the way, you're between me and the coffee pot." I have no desire to learn their bizarre moon-language.

Here is another word for you: "Intransigent"

You can learn a lot from language. I suggest you use it...

"Bigotry"

Finally, if I am extremely lucky, I will never have to communicate anything to the suits other then the occassional grunt, glare, or "out of the way, you're between me and the coffee pot." I have no desire to learn their bizarre moon-language.

Here is another word for you: "Intransigent"

You can learn a lot from language. I suggest you use it...

europe

n : the 2nd smallest continent (actually a vast peninsula of Eurasia);
the British use `Europe' to refer to all of the continent except the British Isles

speling

Please note that "twitter" is a known fanatical psycophant whose obnoxious offtopic rants are legend here on Slashdot. It doesn't matter what the topic is, he'll find a way to scrape in some pointless Microsoft bashing. While nobody expects us to love Microsoft in any way, his particularly tepid style of calling anyone he replies to "troll" or "liar" or "fanboy" because he happens to disagree with whatever they're saying is well documented and should not be rewarded. If anything, twitter is the type of person that should not be part of the open source/free software community. He is an anathema to all that is good about free software.

Wow. You must have some TIME on your hands to put together such blather. Since it's obviously important to you, I'll take a few myself.

1) Your very first sentence is self contradictory, assuming that you meant "sycophant"... How can somebody be a sycophant and obnoxious/off-topic? Or did you not notice the word "flattery" in the definition?

2) This is slashdot. Here is where people spend leisure time and blather. Such as, for instance, your post. Get over it. Think of slashdot as the online equivalent of a bar. Some people talk too much. Some people really should shower more often. Some people wear clothes that were fashionable in the 80's. Get over it.

3) It's OK to not like Microsoft software. Probably 80% of my experience of cyberspace is done via Linux. I hate the worms, viruses, spyware, and general crap as much as the next guy. I love the clean, easy way Linux lets met at the guts of the system to result in a stable, secure platform.

4) Even if twitter is some lonely, desperate, delusional, megalomaniac karma whore, how is posting stuff on slashdot being "part of the open source/free software community."? Contributing software is "being part of the OSS community" - posting on slashdot is being part of the slashdot community!

Get off your high horse, dude. People are entitled to be a bit nuts - you'll probably figure that out (as most people do) when you get to be around 30.

Oftentimes, the nuttiest people are the most brilliant.

I remember a gentleman named "Gary". I won't give his last name. He was one of the strangest people I'd ever met. Remember "Revenge of the Nerds"? Well, the cast of that movie tried in vain to capture the spirit of Gary.

The kind of guy who really DID drive a mustard-brown, 20-year old station wagon at 35 MPH down the Interstate - stuffed to the gills with books, bird cages, a pet lizard, folding chairs, boxes of clothing obtained at a thrift store, and consumed Jolt cola bottles.

He attended community (There's that word, in this case, it was people in the area in which I lived meeting together) meetings that I often attended as well, meetings congressed to discuss legal and political issues.

Having talked briefly with Gary before, and figuring him for being partially mentally handicapped, it was a great shock when, during a speech on the history of the US Constitution, Gary raises his hand, and then spends several minutes giving a detailed, ornate, and incredible rendition of the history of an important event. (I could be wrong, but if I remember correctly it was the ending of the civil war)

I was shocked, and I wasn't the only one. Everyone I knew looked at each other in surprise and bewilderment. This? Coming from GARY!?

So, before you go knocking on twitter for having a good time mentally masturbating on slashdot, remember this old saying:

"There's enough good in the worst of us, and enough bad in the best of us, that it ill behooves any of us to thing the worst of any of us".

Actually, much of the rest of the world DOES believe that "Zero defects does not mean that the product does not have bugs".

bug: Computer Science. A defect in the code or routine of a program.

"Zero Defects" is marketing-speak. What they mean is zero undesirable or intolerable defects which is greatly affected by what they determine is undesirable or intolerable. What the industry means by "zero defects" is not what their customers mean by "zero defects" and they are using that difference in definition to their advantage. That makes it marketing-speak. It's little different than claiming unemployment is down when all you've done is change the definition of "unemployed".

> 13. Enrapture the customers.
> This is one of Microsoft's mantras, and
> it's where Microsoft and the Open Source
> community disagree, fundamentally.
> I think we have to examine this and
> discuss it.

Hm. "Enrapture" just means "to fill with delight". Why would that be a bad thing?

Hmmm.

I personally think to "architect" something 'sounds' right and it's obvious and unambiguous in what it means. The grammar nazi is right though and it is incorrect. Input *is* a transitive verb. However verbing sounds like something simply offensive and shouldn't be done in public.

The language evolves, but slowly as everyone needs to be able to keep up. This is the problem with Open Standards: creating a stable API can sometimes slow or stifle innovation

Phillip.

In recent years it has become common in English to "verb" nouns.

But "verb" isn't a verb, it's a noun! You can't "verb" something, or go around "verbing" things...check it out here.

OK, agreed, but only if the IM is used for legitimate business purposes, in which case, I would probably stick with the official client, just to avoid headaches such as these. I would call a service that does not cost you money free, that is the very definition, no? Of course the ads infect your subconscious, that is what they are there for. If you ask 95% of the population if ads affect them, or if they remember specific spots, they will say yes. Like it or not, advertising and sponsorship keeps a whole plethora of goods and services more affordable. You would notice if you were spending $100 on a ticket, rather than $20. Then you would be complaining about the prices. I think most people are getting desensitised to adverts anyway, they are usually so dull and unimaginative and insulting that I just tune them out. I suppose according to Time-Warner that I am "stealing", but I can live with that.

Generation X, the band, existed since 1976 The also shortened their name to Gen X and also documented here

An interesting repudiation of Gen Xers as slackers was listed by none other than David Schwimmer in 1995.

Douglas Coupland's Generation X dates from 1991 and is listed as the source of the term generation-x here

Now, I can't find a single source about Gen Xers, as in when the term was first used, but I seem to recall it being used for a long long time. Pre 1991? I can't tell you for sure. I can't even tell you for sure when the Baby Boomlet term was first used, nor when Gen-Y, what I consider the current youth generation to be, was first used. I can tell you that the "Gen-X" movement, attitude, etc, was already noticed as early as 1982. The media at the time just couldn't understand the punk movement at all. (Things got a little out of whack on a large scale right around then, teens wearing earings, dyed hair, spikes, etc.) It was also the time in the 80s that we noticed that gee, our economy wouldn't keep growing insanely, and thus the first of us to graduate college started looking at ever bleaker job prospects, getting paid barely enough to get by, with no real prospects of advancement if you happened to get a job. (Sort of one defining aspect of GenX)

But I want to say all 3 terms have been in use more than 10 years, and I would swear that Gen X was in use prior to 1991. I would love to have this nailed down, but who's to say for sure? It's been almost 15 years and predates most of the internet (there were only a couple of thousand USENET newsgroups around at that time, and the myriad BBS's, the survivors that eventually comprised FIDONET. But that's going down almost forgotten memory lanes...even the waybackmachine doesn't go far enough back for this.

Now having done the research, I do recall we were initially called the Post-Baby Boom generation, in the early 80s on some of the freakier stuff that got reported in the news. Oh well, at the very least, Coupland is not in my frame of reference when someone mentions Generation X. I always related it to the band, who's single, Dancing with Myself, was re-released on Idol's first solo album and was a big hit at my high school, anyways. So I've 100% dated myself now!:)

WTF does 'allot' mean? Try as you may, there is no such word in the (either) English language, and using it multiple times really, really, makes your point, well, pointless.

Allot.

Generally, it's a good idea to consult a dictionary before speculating on whether a word exists. As a bonus, you'll discover the proper spelling, usage tips, and even a quick stab at a definition. That last function, though, is somewhat limited

WTF does 'allot' mean? Try as you may, there is no such word in the (either) English language, and using it multiple times really, really, makes your point, well, pointless.

Allot.

Generally, it's a good idea to consult a dictionary before speculating on whether a word exists. As a bonus, you'll discover the proper spelling, usage tips, and even a quick stab at a definition. That last function, though, is somewhat limited

WTF does 'allot' mean? Try as you may, there is no such word in the (either) English language, and using it multiple times really, really, makes your point, well, pointless.

Allot.

Generally, it's a good idea to consult a dictionary before speculating on whether a word exists. As a bonus, you'll discover the proper spelling, usage tips, and even a quick stab at a definition. That last function, though, is somewhat limited

perfervid was word of the day July 14, 2000

"Emphasis added," indeed. Sorry if the wording was bad there-- I should have said "Our eyes have three types of color receptors" not "our eyes pick up three colors." Both are, however, true. Color does not equal frequency. We see millions of frequencies, but only three colors. Light falling into range for one of the receptor types, no matter what frequency, produces the same depolarization response from the receptor. End result? There are only three colors received by the brain from the eye. And "Some" was a poor choice, too. Sure, "millions" are "some," and the visible spectrum is a tiny part of the EM spectrum, but "infinitely many" is more descriptively accurate.

I know what misleading means. Are there three types of receptors in your eyes? Yes. Are they the reason we perceive color the way we do? Yes. Do they overlap significantly? Yes. I have looked at the graphs extensively. I have written colorspace conversion code.

I tried to be clear. It wasn't good enough for you, so I tender my humble apology.

Two of the peaks do overlap quite heavily. The third is significantly more isolated. If I simplified too much for you, I'm sorry. The whole point is that because there are three receptors, we can represent colors with just three colors chosen to fall into range for each of them, and that in addition to this-- because the receptors are not perfect single-frequency detectors, we also see the whole range of frequencies. This was my attempt to show 1. why RGB color works and 2. why it works imperfectly enough for ambient light to be an issue on a projector screen.

For the record, I don't think I was misleading. But I will try to be clear enough to appease even random nitpicking slashdotters in the future. While a few of my statements may seem misleading to you by themselves, I think that my post as a whole is quite clear.

Just in case you've misunderstood me... Definition: nitpicking

Also known as "frottage".

WTF? Did you even read what you just wrote there?

Yes, this is EXACTLY what I meant by misleading. The fact is we can see ALL of the frequencies across the entire visible spectrum. Millions of spectrally different colors. Not just "three" plus "some".

The color receptors are not perfectly isolated

Again that's misleading. They're not isolated AT ALL! They HEAVILY overlap.

I haven't objected to your overall post, just these seriously misleading statements. Have you ever looked at the actual frequency responce curves for cones in the human eye? Somehow I doubt it.

Just in case you've misunderstood me... Definition: misleading

If you remember what think tanks operate with, you are not quite right, Slashdot doesn't lack sophistry. It does lack logic though...

If you remember what think tanks operate with, you are not quite right, Slashdot doesn't lack sophistry. It does lack logic though...

Or perhaps it was supposed to be a "specie filter", i.e. an innovative device that actually separates you from your money.

Or maybe a specious filter, i.e. something to seperate the good slashdot stories from the ones that turn out to be dumb?

Nah, that would be pushing our luck....

Or perhaps it was supposed to be a "specie filter", i.e. an innovative device that actually separates you from your money.

Or maybe a specious filter, i.e. something to seperate the good slashdot stories from the ones that turn out to be dumb?

Nah, that would be pushing our luck....

I would not shut off the projector unless I was going to have it off for more than 2 hours.

Now that's what I call stamina!

Wow, imagine never again having to say "Not for dogs!" when a dog-inappropriate show comes on.

Or perhaps it was supposed to be a "specie filter", i.e. an innovative device that actually separates you from your money.

Replying to cancel my mis-mod...

This made me chortle.

You'll be hard pressed to find a "stink tank" that would agree with you. They do claim unbiased analysis. If they weren't trying to at least project the image of being unbiased agents of the truth, they wouldn't be much use would they? By witholding disclaimers in their articles as to who funds them, they're liars and they know it. I'm sure they'd even deny the watered down term of propagandist. Even Slashdot will conscientiously admit to the source of an article being from or involving a parent company to acknowledge the possibility of a conflict of interest. That shows Slashdot is a more honest than these loser "analists".

However, if they aren't for the truth, what are they for? I mean, has anyone stopped to ask what is a "think tank" anyways? Here's a couple definitions.

Incidentally, if you look at other large sponsors of these agencies, you'll see other funding sources they have in common besides Microsoft. It's not like MS is the sole, driving force behind these organizations.

Perhaps not, but it's absolutely clear they are the common funder. And, I bet they're the biggest fish in that scummy pond. It's also crystal clear that the less visibility Microsoft has as a funder, the less likely there will be questions of veracity regarding the "analysis" from these so called "think tanks". As Microsoft practices security through obscurity, so do these "stink tanks" claim unbiased authority by not announcing who paid for their "research". There's a reason why political Ads must have full disclosure as to who paid for what. That's because an uninformed public will make uninformed decisions, and often against their own interests. Paint it anyway you want, but I've got paint thinner.

= 9J =

Why, so that people would think they can't spell?

Villainous scum would probably be a better idea... (Villainous @ dictionary.com).

Mmmm, Villainous scum

There's lots of compelling arguments in your case here, but I think you could use some edits.

1.) " Like the dog that didn't bark in the night-time, these omissions are significant, because Microsoft marketing is thorough and ruthlessly opportunistic." The first part of this statement is rather confounding. I assume that you mean that that fact that they have dropped these arguments should be indicative of the thoroughness of the marketers.

2.) "Do I even need to point out that most of the factual claims are blatant lies brought to you by the same people who got caught faking video evidence in their Federal antitrust trial?". Unless you can show that the actual forger is at work here, refrain from painting all MS employees with the brush of a criminal. This only serves to undermine your objectivity.

3.) "Hammer them without mercy -- but do it in a quiet, reasonable voice and keep control of the terms of argument. " Do it "ruthlessly" perhaps? This also serves to undermine you credibility as it shows you too are playing the word game. Ruthless is a "charged word" even though it used to mean "without emotion" it implies some bitter, hateful vengence now. You used it to describe MS Marketing before but you don't use it now, but just be consistent. The rest of the statement is good though, stick to the facts and definitions, and keep the argument in your favor.

4.) "...higher Windows TCO is forever" Please quantify "higher" with a number.

5.) "Shared source is a poison pill." Shared Source may be a misnomer but calling it a "posion" pill is just imflamitory.

6.) "Can you explain why Windows IIS websites are cracked or defaced more often than Apache ones, despite the fact that IIS runs less than a third the number of sites Apache does?" Please quantify "more often". Also, attempt to separate this into 2 questions, as the answer will undoubtably be "Hackers hate Windows, hackers attack Windows" which will only be to their advantage because it implies that they are top dog. The top dog is perpetually being challenged. Saying that they are attacked often is handing them the opportunity to say that they are top dog.

Otherwise, this is good article and it's got some great questions for MS PR about the Shared Source == Open Source nonsense.

I have wanted to put a front projection system into my home, but have no way to control ambient light during the day.

Have you considered some of these?

Why not? Here's the link anyone could do for themselves:

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=erstwhile %20

I can only guess he thinks it means something totally random (to us).

Hmm. Her random son? ;-)

...but to extend that logic and say that if someone CREATES a new code based on the old, let's say for an apple that cures cancer, is ridiculous.

The problem with your argument is: nobody has done what you're describing for the very simple reason that the technology isn't at that level yet. With regard to living organisms, the best we can do, at this stage is move genes found in one species to another. That's it.

Nobody is out there assembling genes base-by-base like you or I assemble the letters that form the words (or the HTML code for example) that make up our posts. Instead, they are, at best, slightly modifying/transferring genes and then calling them their own. From an informational standpoint, it's plagiarism. A good /. analogy would be me taking bits and pieces from different open source community projects, modifying them to fit my needs, and then not only calling the resulting work completely my own but then copyrighting it.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that gene-patenting scientists' accomplishments are trivial or that the resulting combinations aren't interesting or innovative. What I am saying is that they shouldn't claim ownership to the genetic information which they did not (and could not at this point in time) directly create. This is, by definition, plagiarism.

Patents and "intellectual property", while of debatable legitimacy, hinge upon the author's creation of the information in question. Since this isn't possible given the infancy of genomics, why then do we see patents? It doesn't make sense, even by the patent's own standards. It doesn't make sense that somebody can patent the Hepetitus C or Escheria Coli genome--a sequence he or she did not create. It's akin to a physicist patenting the mathematical formula governing the laws of the universe.

That problem aside, even if one could create useful genetic information independent of nature, do we REALLY want it to be owned by profiteering companies who can't be expected to uphold ethical standards? Isn't the fact that some seniors have to choose between dying and paying hundreds of dollars for pills that take pennies to make already a big enough travesty? Do we really want to accept all of the risks mentioned in other posts that accompany the patenting of genetic information? This is a question we as a society need to answer NOW before it becomes too late.

I'm all for the advancement of genomics as a science. In fact, I'm planning a career in the field. However, this is yet another instance where a "free"-market via the use of restricting patents(see: "free") is doing more harm than good.

-Grym

...desire to create an easy to follow guidebook to installing, configuring and using Linux for his mom who, at 72, was on a fixed income. Her erstwhile son suggested giving her an old box of his with Linux installed....

"Two steps, true, but only one extra keystroke: [A HREF="paste"]paste[/a], as in:"

You mean like this?

http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/06/22/183920 7&mode=thread&tid=103&tid=126&tid= 99 for a link to this article.

Click here for more detailed information about your question.

And click here for still more detail.

"What do you mean, "next" ?"

Click here for more detailed information about your question.

Microgravity:An environment in which there is very little net gravitational force, as of a free-falling object, an orbit, or interstellar space. (emphasis mine)

Weightlessness: Not experiencing the effects of gravity.

Gravity is still very significant at those altitudes.

Therefore, you're not weightless.

because he was coasting freely along with it.

In other words, he was in freefall, and experiencing 'microgravity.'

Gravity is still very significant at those altitudes.

And you're right; in orbit, you're still very much affected by gravity; an 'orbit' is simply 'falling towards, but keep missing' sort of thing. You're not weightless, you're in freefall, and therefore experiencing 'microgravity.'

From a howstuffworks.com article:

Weightlessness is more correctly termed microgravity. You are not actually weightless, because the Earth's gravity is holding you and everything in the shuttle in orbit. You are actually in a state of free-fall, much like jumping from an airplane except that you are moving so fast horizontally (5 miles per second or 8 kilometers per second) that, as you fall, you never touch the ground because the Earth curves away from you.

Microgravity:An environment in which there is very little net gravitational force, as of a free-falling object, an orbit, or interstellar space. (emphasis mine)

Weightlessness: Not experiencing the effects of gravity.

Gravity is still very significant at those altitudes.

Therefore, you're not weightless.

because he was coasting freely along with it.

In other words, he was in freefall, and experiencing 'microgravity.'

Gravity is still very significant at those altitudes.

And you're right; in orbit, you're still very much affected by gravity; an 'orbit' is simply 'falling towards, but keep missing' sort of thing. You're not weightless, you're in freefall, and therefore experiencing 'microgravity.'

From a howstuffworks.com article:

Weightlessness is more correctly termed microgravity. You are not actually weightless, because the Earth's gravity is holding you and everything in the shuttle in orbit. You are actually in a state of free-fall, much like jumping from an airplane except that you are moving so fast horizontally (5 miles per second or 8 kilometers per second) that, as you fall, you never touch the ground because the Earth curves away from you.

1. Who is providing launch services for Galileo systems? Ariane? If so, was the contract bid competitively or is a juggernaut of NASA proportions (using semi-governmental agencies for semi-commercial purposes)?
2. Who is manufacturing the actual satellites?
3. What will the standard resolution ("PRS") of the Galileo system be?
4. Is this agreement a treaty? It's happening at a 'summit'. Does this mean it will need to be ratified and carry the force of law in both the EU and the US?
5. The article states they will 'cooperate' on 'standards' for timings, etc.
6. Which exact EU body handles their standards?
   
7. Where will Galileo operational control center be based (which country)?
8. From a technical perspective, will the accuracy of a hand-held receiver that gets both GPS and Galileo signals be more accurate than existing GPS systems?
9. Will they cost tons because of different technologies between the systems so unified handhelds are unlikely?
   
   If anyone can answer these questions, here is a good place to address them, methinks.
   
   -- Kevin J. Rice

Attitudeis the crafts orientation. The article originally said altitude control, I emailed CmdrTaco to fix it before the article went live.

If you choose to resist, then you are disturbing the peace and threatening the safety of an officer, therefore they have the right to subdue you - not kill or main you.

Wrong. See the definition of sovereignty . The Federal government has sovereignty over it's citizens, roughly translated, they can kill any number of them at their whim. They earned this sovereignty when our ancestors gave up their individual rights to a sovereign, or the United States government. This social contract is tenuously based on the idea that the state will provide basic protections. By living in society, we tacitly agree to keep our side of the agreement, by continuing to give the state its sovereignty.

Strategizing is a valid English word.

I believe the nonsense word recently heard used in its place is "Strategery."

Except for that it's not a true statement... Funny mods don't improve your karma.

Humous != Humorous. Post Humously. To post humously, you do need good karma. You misread and also missed the double entendre.

Of course, vim is also just a plain old english word, though sadly it's not used much anymore. About the only time you ever hear it is in the phrase "vim and vigor", which doesn't come up that often.

I personally think "vim" is a great name for the editor, whether it was intended to be a play on the word or not. It's always fun in that aloof sort of way when somebody's looking over my shoulder as I code, marvelling at how quickly I jump around files editing things. I use Vim with a great deal of vim!

> Irregardless: Not really a word, FYI.

Actually, it's something called nonstandard english coined early in the 20th century in America. I guess baby's baloney is all balled-up with claptrap, irregardless of the face stretchers who want us to talk all hoity-toity, dip 'n sugar, tip tip tip, sip and stare, above reason.

except a handheld is *by definition* not a console

By whose definition? I couldn't find any clear distinction between TV-top video game systems and handheld video game systems in this dictionary.

propoganda isn't even a word.
propaganda

\Prop`a*gan"da\, n. [Abbrev. fr. L. de propaganda fide: cf. F. propagande. See Propagate.] 1. (R. C. Ch.) (a) A congregation of cardinals, established in 1622, charged with the management of missions. (b) The college of the Propaganda, instituted by Urban VIII. (1623-1644) to educate priests for missions in all parts of the world. 2. Hence, any organization or plan for spreading a particular doctrine or a system of principles.

Here's a good link for people who don't know what people are.

You can't "imprison or enslave" source code.

As for "Liberty":

The condition of being free from restriction or control.

The rest seem to apply to people being free. It would be a stretch to use them for code.