Slashdot Mirror

According to Dictionary.com extortion is:

1. The act or an instance of extorting.
2. Illegal use of one's official position or powers to obtain property, funds, or patronage.
3. An excessive or exorbitant charge.
4. Something extorted.

$300,000 is definately an excessive charge for the bandwidth and even his work. My website gets around three million hits too but it only costs a whopping $6/month for hosting. That pretty much means he wanted $10,000/month for his work. Only the courts will be able to decide whether it was an illegal use of one's official position or powers to obtain property, funds, or patronage or if it's just plain capitalism.

Oh, I'm very familiar with North American 'news.' My original post employs what is called sarcasm. It's actually quite useful, but may sometimes be misinterpreted in media which are lacking the ability to convey tone of voice.

I generally tend to ignore American media.

I thought it was called a lien.

Donate. You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. ;)

3. Abusive or improper treatment; violation: a rape of justice.

Your degree of offense seems to indicate that you have some direct experience with rape, and we're all sympathetic to that, but the word was used in a proper sense. People tend to abuse the word "definitely" and use it improperly.

Take your crusade elsewhere.

Now if someone reads about an idea, digests it, and is able to communicate the idea BETTER, is that plagiarism?

Actually, yes. Yes it is.

I'm sorry, but the idea that plagiarizing refers only to use of copy and paste is actually the understanding that comes from grade school. Believe me, I do understand the situation and have a nuanced opinion (I've been deeply involved with an academic integrity board at a research university for several years). There are different degrees of plagiarism, some blatantly wrong and some blurring the line of acceptibility, but they are all plagiarism.

I've written several conference papers, and am finishing a master's thesis now. In the process of my research, I've read a number of papers, I've digested them, and I'm now expanding on them in new ways. I don't have any direct quotes, but I do have many, many references in my papers. Why? Because many of the ideas are not mine. So what if I digested them; I didn't create them independently. Not referencing the works that gave me my understanding, but instead passing it off as having sprung full-form from my head, would indeed be plagiarism.

Just because an idea has been considered by the person who re-tells it doesn't mean that the place that gave them the idea doesn't deserve credit. Granted, an academic environment is much stricter about these things... but that's a difference in tolerance of plagiarism, not of the definition of what plagiarism fundamentally is.

Look! I'm linking to a blog in a discussion about blogs!

Isn't that ironic?

No, in fact it is not.

This one is free

Genious
Genius

Genious
Genius

You forgot, he has a oxigen bottle with him... It's dangerous... Wanna have 3th degree burns? Either he burns with you or he just lauches the oxigen propelled canister againts you... Now... Gimme the money or I'll just wack you with the oxigen!!

3 a (1) : incongruity between the actual result of a sequence of events and the normal or expected result (2) : an event or result marked by such incongruity

Hell, amigo! An mere incongruity between my expectation and the actual result could just be my being wrong.

An irony requires a poetic twist (not Chubby Checker reciting a sonnet), or as this online dictionary notes, an aspect of poignancy:

ironic
adj.

1. Characterized by or constituting irony.
2. Given to the use of irony. See Synonyms at sarcastic.
3. Poignantly contrary to what was expected or intended: madness, an ironic fate for such a clear thinker.

ironically adv.
ironicalness n.

Usage Note: The words ironic, irony, and ironically are sometimes used of events and circumstances that might better be described as simply "coincidental" or "improbable," in that they suggest no particular lessons about human vanity or folly. Thus 78 percent of the Usage Panel rejects the use of ironically in the sentence In 1969 Susie moved from Ithaca to California where she met her husband-to-be, who, ironically, also came from upstate New York. Some Panelists noted that this particular usage might be acceptable if Susie had in fact moved to California in order to find a husband, in which case the story could be taken as exemplifying the folly of supposing that we can know what fate has in store for us. By contrast, 73 percent accepted the sentence Ironically, even as the government was fulminating against American policy, American jeans and videocassettes were the hottest items in the stalls of the market, where the incongruity can be seen as an example of human inconsistency.

Source: The American Heritage(R) Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright (C) 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

- - -

Now, if the document had been in OpenOffice format, the irony would have been the contradictory revelation of SCOldera's attacking open-source software while using OSS because they can't afford Microsoft Office. (Actually, having seen their results, I'm sure they can't.)

It's called barraty.

Hmm. That would not be irony, it would simply be a funny coincidence. Irony is a colour, like goldy or bronzy, but greyish instead...

Everyone uses it. It's a perfectly valid word: dictionary.com

So far as buying cells without showing ID, there are several prepaid plans both in Europe and America which will ask you to fill out a form of identification and sell you the phone/minutes without verifying that your information provided was true. Perhaps we will see this go away soon, but when I was looking at phones over Christmas break, this was still the case and my friend also saw them in England.

Terrorism is "the systematic use of violence as a means to intimidate or coerce societies or governments" dictionary.com The Boston tea party was undoubtedly terrorism. The participants were criminals and knew they were (shown as that they went in disguise). Right and wrong are not necessarily related to legal and illegal. I don't desire to discuss here the justifications for hatred.

Attempting to intimidate someone into sumbission through fraudulent legal threats is EXTORTION.

No... attempting to intimidate someone with legal threats you have no intention to follow through with is called BARRATRY.

I can see why Raper might be a problem. Do they block Felcher too?

You should go look up "Joke"

A-R-T-I-C-L-E

I knew you could!

.

Lameness filter encountered. Post aborted!
Reason: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING.

.

Lameness filter encountered. Post aborted!
Reason: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING.

.

Lameness filter encountered. Post aborted!
Reason: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING.

.

Lameness filter encountered. Post aborted!
Reason: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING.

.

Lameness filter encountered. Post aborted!
Reason: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING.

.

Lameness filter encountered. Post aborted!
Reason: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING.

.

Lameness filter encountered. Post aborted!
Reason: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING.

KDE will never be taken seriously because its name is a TLA? I guess we'd better tell IBM, the FBI, the CIA, the DEA, CBS, the NFL and thousands of other organizations that they're doomed to failure because of their names.

Maybe they should all rename themselves with words with meanings like "One of a fabled race of dwarflike creatures who live underground and guard treasure hoards." Then they'll be taken seriously.

Well, that's a little shady. See, the physical console itself is phanstasmal. So, you can't really see it. It's just sort of vaporish.

according to the definition they are NOT uniform... they have similar burn patterns.
similar != uniform


uniform adj.
1) Always the same, as in character or degree; unvarying.
2) Conforming to one principle, standard, or rule; consistent.
3) Being the same as or consonant with another or others.
4) Unvaried in texture, color, or design.

if you wanna start a flame war for mod-poins go somewhere else

What is it with /.'ers not being able to spell animal names today? It's "koalas."

Ask Mr. Webster.

Both are correct these days. It's short for "microphone," but "mike" is a common alternate spelling for it. I've even seen it on the packaging from some microphones I've bought. Dictionary.com lists both spellings as legit, too.

Sort of like how "Coke" is short for "Coca-cola" but is not spelled "Coc," is it?

Railing against it is as useless as complaining about "catsup" being spelled "ketchup." Language evolves with usage, and "mike" is becoming the more common spelling than "mike", mainly because it works better when you verb it (as in "Miking" or "Miked".)

Good insights, well put.

My small devices for contemplating the free/OS model:

1. Programmer ex machina.
2. a) Software as (continuous) process = value creation,
   b) Software as artifact = commodity.

If you were clever, you presumably could set the elevators up like funiculars to minimize the energy necessary. Use the energy from a car in the top part to help pull up the car in the bottom part (with the bonus part of keeping the top car at a controlled speed).

Lables? How about "labels"?

That would be a good thing. Up till now, Mars has been rather feckless.

Sadly, no he's not... cf. reference.com...

Actually, yes he did.

You, however, are using entirely wrong words: "To, Too, and Two" are different words with different meanings. So are "There, Their, and They're", as well as "Your and You're".

Likewise, you dont even know what is and isnt a word, as we see in your statement-

"cant" is not a word, it's spelled "can't".

Im still not going to use punctuation, if for no better reason than to piss you off. But, your (not you're) bullshit excuse of 'posting in a hurry' is completely nonsense. You are just some semi-literate slob who doesnt know the correct way to use words. But dont let that get in my way of posting your ignorance on slashdot- around here, you just fit right in.

I wonder if you supported Dean before

No, I supported Senator Kerry right from the start.

Notice I can spell prenuptial correctly, which you spelled as "prenupual"

Wow, so you can spell prenuptial, but somehow the correct spellings of "they're" and "you're" escape you. Congraduations! (1)

IMO, dropping capitalization and punctuation is a far lesser offense than actaully getting a word WRONG. Given that I had no other misspellings, its pretty obvious that "prenupual" was a hurried mistake. Your (not you're) writing (not righting) is rife with mistakes. Im sure your (not you're) post caused much time to be spent next to a dictionary.

For a long time I ran a dual-boot Windows/Linux machine so I could evaluate them both, before eventually moving to Linux.

Who gives a shit? What does this have to do with the price of tea in China?

My guess is you've only ever run MS products, and refuse to try anything else, and likely are even hostile toward them. Why make an informed decision when you can just pick a popular one and attack anyone who suggests possible alternatives, right?

Hmm, another uninformed troll. No, I have used plenty of other OS's besides MS, because when I started using computers, MS was just another company making BASIC.

My hostility is saved for stupid people making comments rooted in ignorance, much like yourself.

Fools like yourself need to use an alternative OS as some way of defining yourself as a person: if that werent what you were trying to do, than why bring up your Linux usage in a political discussion? Face it, you are just some rube who needs to point out the fact that you are using Linux to anybody who will listen. Your grasp of politics is vapid at best, and you sound to be an ignorant slob who barely made it out of high school. BUT, you use Linux, so you are morally superior than everyone else!

(1) yes, I know how to spell congratulations (as well as a great many other words). I was making a joke based on irony.

Mire

The reality is that value of your smarts to society as a whole is entirely fungible (your word-of-the-day) and largely determined by that image, for better or for worse. You may have your own internal compass of self-worth; bravo! it's a wonderful thing and I don't begrudge you it. But it won't buy you a cup of coffee.

The mass media is simply a reflection of a greater collective value assertion on your community and indirectly on you personally. You (like every other human being) have limits to your brilliance, power and control. One of those limits is on how you are valued in terms of economic and social resource allocation. Your allocation of those resources (aka Jobs, Mates, Favors, Respect, etc.) are solely dependent on your value to others as that value is perceived by others. Your only means of control is to be aware of and exert influence on that perception (sometimes called "marketing yourself" - yes, I know, despicable).

Is it unfair that people may judge your value as a person based on a stereotype of "the nerd"? Yes and no. They have a right to decide how to allocate the resources they possess; with that includes the right to decide the means for testing and assessing the value of what will be exchanged (you, your personality and your skills) for those resources. A lot of people might think justifications for case-modding and overclocking are unfair and foolish ways of valuing resources. But it's your money, your case and your CPU, and thus your right to decide how you chose to make your value decisions.

People use stereotypes and perceptions to avoid thinking too much. This is anathema to nerds since we do a lot thinking, enjoy thinking and respect thinking. Nonetheless, thinking takes time and energy. An entirely rational strategy followed by most humans is to "play the numbers" and use heuristic substitutes for detailed analytic thinking. If the heuristic is right 80% of the time but you spent only 20% of the effort that thinking would require, aren't you ahead of the game? Absolutely. But we nerds do it also.

Ask yourself this: do I rationally analyze every purchase I make or do I mostly just buy a brand I know? I mean, absolutely every purchase; like every time I buy toothpaste do I send it out for analysis to assure quality control? Of course not. You buy <insert your familiar brand> rather than intensely investigate what you're buying each time you make a purchase. This is what "branding" is: sidestepping the cost of rational economic analysis by relying on a symbolic representation and promise of a product that meets a need. You choose (explicitly or implicitly) to hold a belief that the product does what you expect, for example, due to the presumption that manufacturing is performed according to familiar, rational practices and processes so that the next time you buy a Coca Cola or an Athlon, it will probably be just as good as the last one. This is reasonable, but not a strictly rational belief or axiom. You are playing the odds on it, using your own stereotype (aka a brand perception) to convince yourself that you don't need to think about it. Go to some developing nation some time and you'll see product quality variance that may force you to question that assumption.

So why do I (you) need to worry about what the mass media thinks about me? Well, I won't say "worry" is the right word. Specifically, your value to society is on the line with how you and your profession is perceived. Economic, social and romantic decisions are being made right this minute based on it! You should be aware of the implications of what a negative image means in terms of your career and personal satisfaction. How important those are to you is your privilege to decide how important you decide they are

Let's check the dictionary

The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

Nope, no force or violence, no real intimidation (annoyance perhaps), no attempt to coerce. Seems fairly straightforward. Since not even one person was intimidated, coerced, or threatened, it doesn't matter how many it takes - it still wasn't reached.

Also, if we make the definition of terrorism apply to one person, we make pretty much all major crimes (murder, extortion, rape, etc.) into terrorism. This is not the way it should work. Sometimes there is no logical place to draw the line, and it's up to the law (or the judges) to find a reasonable one.

Or a fishing net....

Or a ....

Anecdotal? Are you fucking kidding me?

Yes, anecdotal. No, I'm not fucking kidding you. You're being an idiot for making such blanket assessments about the security industry on the basis of "what you've heard in the news". Look it up. (Hint: Based on casual observations or indications rather than rigorous or scientific analysis)

Your assessment that security people are stupid is based on anecdotal evidence - i.e. NON-SCIENTIFIC

Were it non-anecdotal, you would include, along with your 'counter-view', the observation that, in fact, countless thousands and thousands of 'potential battery-bomb incidents' actually get correctly assessed as being non-threatening.

You would include the hundreds and thousands of times when cameras and film are actually put through the machine, and do actually survive. It might surprise you, but technology has changed. There are safe scanning machines on the market, and in active use, pretty much everywhere.

Your system of logic is flawed, and derived from a society driven by controversy and conflict, tabloid-idealized notions. That is not the way life actually is...

And in fact, yes, I do happen to know quite a few travelling photographers, many of them businessmen (as I am myself), and I have also filled 4 passports in my life, in my travels. So yes, in fact, I do have a lot of experience in this matter and I do know what I'm talking about.

Your ideal is flawed.

Here's a link that might help make his post more clear to you.

No it's not.

Uhh... I think he was being sarcastic.

The Nazis systematically murdered millions of people in death camps.

You just tried to correct someone about grammar.

Furthermore, you got it wrong:

disconnect: n. A lack of connection; a disparity: "There is a cosmic disconnect between what the voters want and what the party of the corporate interests can give them" (Bob Herbert).

Wrong.

Licence Defintion

KFG

They store that fuel down at the coal/nuclear/hydro/methane/solar plant.

Fuel is by definition a consumable. (OK, you could argue that all means of energy production use the hydrogen of the sun as fuel, but that would be a pretty silly argument.)

What does some city is GA have anything to do with comic books?

Unurned Grecian

KFG

i agree, even more the more appropiate term would be dissection. "A Detailed examination or analisys."
On the other hand,autopsy, "Examination of a cadaver to determine or confirm the cause of death".
So unless he was trying to find out why his ipod died, is a dissection(which by the way doesnt imply the subject must be alive afterwards).

i agree, even more the more appropiate term would be dissection. "A Detailed examination or analisys."
On the other hand,autopsy, "Examination of a cadaver to determine or confirm the cause of death".
So unless he was trying to find out why his ipod died, is a dissection(which by the way doesnt imply the subject must be alive afterwards).

>if(viscous.meansSameAs("oily") && !viscous.meansSameAs("adhesive")

Dictionary.com
Google

n.

The act or practice of cutting into or otherwise injuring living animals, especially for the purpose of scientific research.