Slashdot Mirror

The prosecution must prove that you committed a crime

Such as "conspiracy to commit"

Do you even have a clue? Just one. I'm waiting...

Well, since you are clueless, I'll let you in on a well kept secret. Conspiracy requires that two or more people agree to act together to commit a crime. By acting alone, he is not in any way engaging in a conspiracy, even by unsecuring his network and announcing it.

You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means.

You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means.

The spelling is different.

Speaking of which, I think you mean "Niggardly" in your title. Your misspelling is, ahem, a bit suspect.

It's simpler than that. You are a professional when the activity in question is your profession.

Given the things that are (successfully) sued over in the US, this may not be that outlandish. First of all, "the use of a trademark in connection with the sale of a good constitutes infringement if it is likely to cause consumer confusion as to the source of those goods or as to the sponsorship or approval of such goods" (cyber.law.harvard.edu). Google is certainly using the name to make money. However, this may fail because, other than the book containing the word "googol," I don't get the impression that the Kasner family is trying to sell anything using this name. However, ever since I started using Google, I haven't been able to remember the correct spelling of googol -- so there is a case to be made for some confusion. Might one not reasonably assume some connection between the company and Kasner?

I don't know if the inclusion of the term in a book counts. According to cyber.law.harvard.edu again, "A trademark is a word, symbol, or phrase, used to identify a particular manufacturer or seller's products and distinguish them from the products of another." So it may not be trademark infringement -- but what about copyright? From the Copyright office, under "What is not protected by copyright?" we find "Titles, names, short phrases, and slogans". My assumption would be that the made-up word would could fall through this crack. Probably depends on the quality of the lawyers.

Dictionary.com DOES suggest a connection, saying that "The site's name is apparently derived from 'googol', but note the difference in spelling." wordorigins.org also suggests that Google "is a deliberate variant of the mathematical term...They altered the spelling for trademark purposes" (not that I know how the authors at wordorigins know what Page and Brin were thinking at the time).

So. Money grubbing? Yes. Ridiculous given the things that the US system has granted copyright protection? Maybe not.

And, of course, the obligatory IANAL.

The World-Wide Web search engine that indexes the greatest number of web pages - over two billion by December 2001 and provides a free service that searches this index in less than a second.

The site's name is apparently derived from "googol", but note the difference in spelling.

The "Google" spelling is also used in "The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy" by Douglas Adams, in which one of Deep Thought's designers asks, "And are you not," said Fook, leaning anxiously foward, "a greater analyst than the Googleplex Star Thinker in the Seventh Galaxy of Light and Ingenuity which can calculate the trajectory of every single dust particle throughout a five-week Dangrabad Beta sand blizzard?"

I'm sorry but this is fucking retarded. Why would anyone think it would be okay to sue a company named Google for using a possible variant of the un-trademarked word Googol to describe a business that creates a data searching system? If there is a connection, why doesn't dictionary.com show one in the google definition? I could see perhaps a case if Google was called Googol, but this appears to be nothing more than a cash grab by a family of broke twits. Besides, the guy didn't invent the word! His 9 year old nephew did! From that link: The american mathematician Edward Kasner once asked his nine-year-old nephew to invent a name for a very large number, ten to the power of one hundred; and the boy called it a googol.

I suppose it depends what you take "illuminate" to mean. I took it to mean something similar to "provide answers"......

Many definitions, so I'll just link to it.

Where I come from, illuminate is the word that represents the thought "to make visible or understandable". So if the light turns on, the room as become illuminated. Similarly, if I see a pile of shit on the floor and my wife tells me that a dog was seen in the house recently, then she has illuminated the source of the shit. She has *not* answered the question "Why is there shit on the floor?" She has only provided me with facts that enable me to draw a logical conclusion which will help me to understand why there is shit on the floor.

An alternate explanation may still exist and be true, rather than the obvious one, in light of her facts. Perhaps one of my kids shit on the floor, perhaps the cat that the dog chased out of the house shit on the floor but nobody saw the cat, and so forth.

Philosophy, like science in some ways, is based on inquiry, theorising, logical deduction and to some extent testing those ideas as to how well we can apply them to our world. Philosophy doesn't so much seek to give us definitive answers. Rather it seeks to give us answers that are useful in interracting with the world.

I find philosophy to be very interesting. ;) It's not religion, but religion has always influenced it (just like it has regular science). If I were to try to define philosophy without the aid of a dictionary, I'd have to say that philosophy is the application of the scientific method to the observed world in an attempt to understand why the world is what it is, and more importantly, how we should interact with it. So I suppose we're on the same page, here, but philosophy does tend to attempt to provide morality, and more and more it has attempted to do so without the help of religion.

But in the case of science, philosophy, and religion, all require you to accept certain things without proof, whether they're called postulates, axioms, or observations. All three of them currently call for peer review, as well! Jesus doesn't dictate that God exists, he challenges you to find God yourself (or so I've heard, and I've read enough of the Gospel to see that interpretation present in the writings). Science requires your peers to have the same observations in order to review your experiment. What good is it if you say you discovered electrons based on the observation of electricity and some experimentation if nobody else ever observed electricity? That, of course, leads right into philosophy, and if nobody else observes it, did it really happen? ;)

On a final note, Confucius say "Man who go through turnstile sideways going to Bangkok".

Many Atheists really should be called something else. ... A truer definition of the word, "atheist", could then be, "Could care less if there is or is not a God..."

No, having no particular belief in the existence or nonexistence of any god or gods is agnosticism. Specifically believing that no god or gods exist is atheism. Considering your use of "could care less", which is both hackneyed and grammatically incorrect, I'm not surprised you mixed them up.

Many Atheists really should be called something else. ... A truer definition of the word, "atheist", could then be, "Could care less if there is or is not a God..."

No, having no particular belief in the existence or nonexistence of any god or gods is agnosticism. Specifically believing that no god or gods exist is atheism. Considering your use of "could care less", which is both hackneyed and grammatically incorrect, I'm not surprised you mixed them up.

It's called a followup story (see sense 3 in the definition there).

It was published 4 years after 1984!

Well, if it had been published before 1984, it would be considered proto-Orwellian.

HTH

I think you meant 'Un*x'

"It has been suggested that there may be a psychological connection to practice in certain religions (especially Judaism) in which the name of the deity is never written out in full, e.g. "YHWH" or "G--d" is used." - Dictionary.com

Er, in his defence, he did say "stollen," not "stolen." Stollen is a bread with raisins and nuts. Quite popular here in England.

Who knows WTF he meant by saying that it was "literally stollen...." ;-)

Why is he a token muslim? Or he does not follow islamic rehtoric?

I'm not certain what the original poster meant, but usually, in American English at least, "token" in this sense is not used to mean "insincere". Rather, "a token something" means "one something among many other otherthings, kept around to keep up appearances." [sort of like definition 6 for the noun or 2b for the adjective here]

Dr. Abdul Kalam may be a paragon of Muslims (by whatever standards you choose), but if he's the only Muslim in a room full of Hindus, he can be called the "token Muslim."

gravity causes atraction, not deflection

Btw, in Sweden we call this "kardborreband" (kardborre is a flower, look here: http://www.lysator.liu.se/runeberg/nordflor/pics/4 .jpg, and "band" means, hmm, eh, band. A quite logical name for it.). Don't know what that flower is called in english but I guess most of you have got one of those stuck in your clothes or on your dog... :)

Here in the Great White North, they're generally referred to as "burs", as from the burdock plant.

Little one, then it's not "morality". Being moral is about not having double standards, it's about not being a bigot.

If you're not being coherent and act according to one standard towards similar things/situations in life - then you are not behaving morally, but are being two-faced, a turn-coat, a hypocrite, etc.

Essentially, you are then being immoral .

Little one, then it's not "morality". Being moral is about not having double standards, it's about not being a bigot.

If you're not being coherent and act according to one standard towards similar things/situations in life - then you are not behaving morally, but are being two-faced, a turn-coat, a hypocrite, etc.

Essentially, you are then being immoral .

Perhaps slightly off topic, but good info nonetheless... I see this so often, yet it never ceases to bug me. The definition of volatile is NOT "likely to react" it's "likely to evaportae." At least, as far as chemistry is concerned, that's the definition. Dictionary.com agrees with me. Although "Tending to violence" is the third definition, this definition does not pertain to chemistry.

The branch of mechanics that studies the motion of a body or a system of bodies without consideration given to its mass or the forces acting on it.

Mechanisms are defined as (dictionary.com again):

An instrument or a process, physical or mental, by which something is done or comes into being: "The mechanism of oral learning is largely that of continuous repetition" (T.G.E. Powell).

To be quite honest with you the press release doesn't seem to make a definite distinction between these two very real and different concepts. I think that they are studying mechanisms, because the article compares human mechanisms and the robotic mechanisms and claims that studying the robot will help us understand human mechanisms better. . . and they are using kinematics to do this. But to say that the kinematics is the study of mechanisms is a gross mistake unworthy of even a seventh grade English student.

I can think of many mechanisms (mental mechanisms for example) that have no kinematic element to them.

The branch of mechanics that studies the motion of a body or a system of bodies without consideration given to its mass or the forces acting on it.

Mechanisms are defined as (dictionary.com again):

An instrument or a process, physical or mental, by which something is done or comes into being: "The mechanism of oral learning is largely that of continuous repetition" (T.G.E. Powell).

To be quite honest with you the press release doesn't seem to make a definite distinction between these two very real and different concepts. I think that they are studying mechanisms, because the article compares human mechanisms and the robotic mechanisms and claims that studying the robot will help us understand human mechanisms better. . . and they are using kinematics to do this. But to say that the kinematics is the study of mechanisms is a gross mistake unworthy of even a seventh grade English student.

I can think of many mechanisms (mental mechanisms for example) that have no kinematic element to them.

I appreciate your points. However, other countries have done it. If we'd gone through with it back in the 70s then I bet dollars to donuts that the pain would be over.

The construction industry would now have the benefit of a larger pool of suppliers. American producers would have the benefit of a more homogenous market.

(Sessile. Awesome word choice. I had to look it up.)

You mean violated. See the first definition According to the second amendment if I want to own and responsively posess military hardware, the government can't interfere. They do. I recall a TV show about airspeed records. Somebody bought (legally) all of the parts and put together his own jet fighter. The Air Force had a fit. The only reason that his plane wasn't confiscated really was the fact that he crashed and destroyed it.

Hmmm...you must be some kind of genius:

Yes in fact, but only because the offical psychological threshold of "genius" is embarrassingly low.

To help you out, in English

To help you, compare this with this. Done. Discussion over, I win.

On a more serious note: the connection between sharing of truth as fundamentally being a form of organiSation should be obvious.

No, it's not obvious, because it's not true. (I recently watched an unorganized mob of violent rioters who nonetheless shared emotional energy with each other). But as that point is irrelevant, I'll grant you it.

It doesn't matter because there is nothing about "belief" that implies "sharing", as you stated. Your claim that "organized belief" is redundant (or conversely that "disorganized belief" is an oxymoron) is untrue.

That is trivially demonstrable by a counter-example mental exercise: can you imagine somebody coming to a belief on his own, neither hearing it from someone else, nor relating it to another? If so, this is not "shared", and not (by your own definition) "organised".

Hmmm...you must be some kind of genius:

Yes in fact, but only because the offical psychological threshold of "genius" is embarrassingly low.

To help you out, in English

To help you, compare this with this. Done. Discussion over, I win.

On a more serious note: the connection between sharing of truth as fundamentally being a form of organiSation should be obvious.

No, it's not obvious, because it's not true. (I recently watched an unorganized mob of violent rioters who nonetheless shared emotional energy with each other). But as that point is irrelevant, I'll grant you it.

It doesn't matter because there is nothing about "belief" that implies "sharing", as you stated. Your claim that "organized belief" is redundant (or conversely that "disorganized belief" is an oxymoron) is untrue.

That is trivially demonstrable by a counter-example mental exercise: can you imagine somebody coming to a belief on his own, neither hearing it from someone else, nor relating it to another? If so, this is not "shared", and not (by your own definition) "organised".

Hmmm...you must be some kind of genius:

organise


To help you out, in English, the "-ed" suffix means that the subject is in a state of being in which the suffixed verb has already been applied.

So, in this case it becomes "brought order and organisation to".

Or, was it the "Z" to "S" transposition that confused you?

You see, a long long time ago in a land far away there was this place called "Angland"--it was inhabited by the Angles [the first half of the Anglo-Saxons] . . . what the heck am I wasting my time on this for?

On a more serious note: the connection between sharing of truth as fundamentally being a form of organiSation should be obvious. Proof of which, in this median, is too large to contain.

Hmmm...you must be some kind of genius:

organise


To help you out, in English, the "-ed" suffix means that the subject is in a state of being in which the suffixed verb has already been applied.

So, in this case it becomes "brought order and organisation to".

Or, was it the "Z" to "S" transposition that confused you?

You see, a long long time ago in a land far away there was this place called "Angland"--it was inhabited by the Angles [the first half of the Anglo-Saxons] . . . what the heck am I wasting my time on this for?

On a more serious note: the connection between sharing of truth as fundamentally being a form of organiSation should be obvious. Proof of which, in this median, is too large to contain.

I'm curious, do you mean American English? Because according to the dictionary defining American English, you are wrong. You are also wrong according to Dictionary.com. You are also wrong according to Wikipedia. The correct plural of virus, in American English (I don't have a copy of the official Oxford English Dictionary, which defines British English), is viruses. The use of the term virii originated in the 90s on warez sites/forums.

virus n. pl. viruses

Yes, it is ironic. SCO behaves as though illegal copying is a moral sin, yet they do it themselves. See meaning 2 here.

That brings up this word.

Fair Use isn't not-infringement. It's justifiable infringement.

Sorry, but that's not correct either. The act is homicide, the crime is "justifiable homicide". In the case of copyright law, the act is copying, the crime is "copyright infringement".

Please, read the Title 17, Ch 1, Sec 107 of the US Code where it defines fair use. The very definition of the term in US law states that "fair use of a copyrighted work... is not an infringement of copyright."

It might help you to see the definition of infringement. There is no such thing as "legal infringement", as the phrase essentially means "legal lawbreaking".

I see you've started thinking, but you need to work on your follow-through. Example:

NYT's doing the work and Slashdot's leeching off it.

Leeching, such a harsh word. Let's look at it this way. They (in this case) produced content that podunk.com (or whoever) made a deal (of some kind) to reproduce and post online. At that point the NYT has all the reward it needs and negotiated. There is no courtesy involved as the NYT, Inc. is not a person.

But throw that out, ignore it, I'll give you that point. Because it isn't germane. The person who made the original complaint NEVER mentioned the NYT, you did entirely. The original complaintant wants syndicated stories to be registration-free, that's all. That the article has a NYT byline is irrelevent, if you want to bring it up irrelevancies you should at least introduce them instead of just foaming at the mouth about something someone didn't do (and I'm assuming you saw the byline rather than just blowing up for no reason at all).

Now although I wouldn't agree, it would seem logical for you to say "anytime there is a syndicated link it should be followed back to its source and the original link posted" but you didn't say that. You just bitched and stamped your feet (prettily I'm sure) about something unrelated to what the original complainer was saying.

Also, here is a link for you so you can learn what words mean:

Hypocrite.

Clearly, if I were using that definition, then yes, it is a religion. However the meaning of words change over time. The definition I was using was this: Philosophy.

Anyway, I guess this is kind of a silly arguement. Every word can mean so many things. Ask 100 different people what religion is and you will probably have 100 different answers. And if we can't decide on a definition, then we certainly can't decide if something is or is not that. I tend to think Buddhism(my brand) is not a religion, however some people think of it as such. Some people also practice Buddhism and animism/Taoism/Hinduism/Christianity/whatever together, but call themselves Buddhist. So it is very confusing.

Oh, I have absolutely no issue with people worshipping God. My point was simply that worshipping God is a central part of Christianity. Can you be a Christian if you don't worship God? I don't think so, although I don't feel like digging up any verses to support this at the moment. Please note, there is nothing wrong with this. I was merely responding to the OP who said that "ass-kissing is not required," I responded that worship IS required if you want to be considered a Christian. Of course, ass-kissing and worship can be different things, I was mostly playing devil's advocate.

I suppose it's either/or, then. Either obey the Law perfectly, or trust Jesus. That's the requirement.

So non-Christians have to obey the Christian laws, while Chrisitnas do not? Seems just and fair. Does this mean that it's okay for Christians to sin? Can you be a Christian homosexual as long as you ask forgiveness every week? BTW, what about sacraficing clean animals to gain forgiveness for sins, why doesn't that work anymore?

I don't know, but trust God to be merciful about it.

Once again, please re-read the Old Testament before commenting on God's mercy.

Now THAT is quite the parenthetical. Centuries of apologetics, theology and philosophy, brushed aside in just four words (six if you expand the acronym).

Apparently you are confused by the definition of faith. Try definition 2: "Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence."

Peace be with you,

And also with you. Go in peace, serve the Lord. ;)

Perhaps you meant voila
(yes, there should be an accent on the a - too lazy to look it up).

If your atheism were falsifiable, you would be someone who might be pretending to believe that there is no god. Agnostics doubt the existence of a god but are willing to change their minds, so controvertible agnosticism is actually redundant, but still sounds good - and is still a more accurate way of putting it :)

If your atheism were falsifiable, you would be someone who might be pretending to believe that there is no god. Agnostics doubt the existence of a god but are willing to change their minds, so controvertible agnosticism is actually redundant, but still sounds good - and is still a more accurate way of putting it :)

If you belive that there is the possibility of a supreme being but don't belive in religio your agnostic not atheist

...invest it in something that would generate more than the paisley sub-one-percent interest the banks like to give us...

I think you meant paltry or measly, not paisley.

Also, banks are giving low returns specifically BECAUSE the interest rates for borrowing are really low. That's a bank's traditional income source (except in Muslim countries, where Shari'a prohibits lending at interest - there banks can only invest in your business & share the profits/losses), so when interest rates on borrowed funds are low they give you less and find ways to take more.

Btw, PAISley is also an operational specification language invented in '82 at Bell Labs.

...invest it in something that would generate more than the paisley sub-one-percent interest the banks like to give us...

I think you meant paltry or measly, not paisley.

Also, banks are giving low returns specifically BECAUSE the interest rates for borrowing are really low. That's a bank's traditional income source (except in Muslim countries, where Shari'a prohibits lending at interest - there banks can only invest in your business & share the profits/losses), so when interest rates on borrowed funds are low they give you less and find ways to take more.

Btw, PAISley is also an operational specification language invented in '82 at Bell Labs.

...invest it in something that would generate more than the paisley sub-one-percent interest the banks like to give us...

I think you meant paltry or measly, not paisley.

Also, banks are giving low returns specifically BECAUSE the interest rates for borrowing are really low. That's a bank's traditional income source (except in Muslim countries, where Shari'a prohibits lending at interest - there banks can only invest in your business & share the profits/losses), so when interest rates on borrowed funds are low they give you less and find ways to take more.

Btw, PAISley is also an operational specification language invented in '82 at Bell Labs.

Modipodio, I've followed down thru some of your argument here, and, while I do disagree with your assertion that "Windows is a democracy", I applaud the strong argument you make for the interpretation of the 2nd Amendment Right to bear arms as a Right to keep and bear fully automatic weapons, shoulder-to-air missiles, grenades, and tactical nukes. I agree 100%!

The Second Amendment, iirc, is the basis for postulated Right to Keep and Bear Arms that we all talk about; futhermore, the Amendment itself also provides a basis for such a broad interpretation.

For reference:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. - U.S. Constitution: Second Amendment

Additionally, it is my understanding that, in part, at least, the intent of this "well-regulated militia" is to allow the citizens to unseat and replace any government to which they may find themselves subjected which becomes tyrannical. There is the definition of tyrannical to consider, and the acceptance of that definition as applying (or not) to any particular government at a given time, nevertheless, I think the intent is clear: It is not for the purpose of self-defense or taking game that the arms are to be kept and borne.

In short, I would say that I would agree with you insofar as the idea that the people's right to keep and bear such arms as may be required to overthrow any particular tyrannical regime must not be infringed.

Note that the phrasing of the 2nd Amendment doesn't seem to require prior membership in a well-regulated militia as a condition for keeping and bearing. The idea seems to be that I should personnally keep and bear my own cruise missiles against the need to mobilize my local, well-regulated militia in defense of Liberty. Since I'm probably the only person on my block who can afford my own cruise missile (not sure about the crack dealers across the street; they seem to have a lot of disposable income, even compared to me), I (for now) can only afford one cruise missile, so I should not be constrained from keeping and bearing other, miscellenous small arms as I might need, but ... where do you find a constitutional argument that my right to keep and bear a cruise missile should be infringed?

The only real argument against it is the idea that some people might not trust me with it, might be afraid of my intent with said missile. And what is it that we are supposed to be resisting in this "War on Terror?" Last time I was forced to listen to Dubya's blathering, he was rambling (agonizingly, I might add; must the man speak as though he just swallowed a fistful of Quaaludes?!) on about not giving in to FEAR and TERROR. The phrase "we must be strong" comes to mind, although I don't know if he actually said that. Anyway, I agree, in principle. We should should stand up against the fear of the citizen's right to keep and bear whatever weapons they might need to fulfil their duty to defend their Liberty.

Now, in the real world: How many cruise missiles did my taxes pay for over the last 10 years, and when do I get to start keeping and bearing them pursuant to my duty to overthrow whatever tyrannical govt may be oppressing my community?

Actually I think you'll find that it fits the defintion of Trojan Horse perfectly.

[mithras ~/src] alias cc="complimentary_compiler"
[mithras ~/src] cc myprog.c

myprog.c:7: In function `main':
myprog.c:7: compliment: Wow, great job with those open and close braces!
myprog.c:7: compliment: They really look wonderful, perfectly indented.

myprog.c:83: In function `calculate_stuff':
myprog.c:83: compliment: Ingenious coding here.
myprog.c:83: compliment: Your use of the unused high bits of this array is pretty sweet, nice work.

myprog.c:125: In function `foo':
myprog.c:125: error: This line looks like it will be very powerful,
myprog.c:125: error: but I can't quite figure it out. Perhaps you forgot a semicolon?
myprog.c:125: error: Don't worry about it, I do that all the time.
myprog.c:125: error: You've already been so productive today, you deserve a break!

I wouldn't consider any kind of weapons work to be benign, and that certainly applies to nuclear weapons.

Pick one

I'm not trying to defend communism here, but the ideology behind communism does not imply totalitarian governing methods.
The fact that most communistic governments has resolved to said measures is a sad fact that just proves that communism doesn't work

The only places communism truly works, are in anthills and termite nests. ;)

I think it might have been something like a dual DECT/GSM phone.

DECT
GSM