Slashdot Mirror

vivisection

Only if the iPod was a human being. Check .
That is for the use of murder as noun. As a verb it might fit. So, you can't say it was murder, but you can sey the iPod was murdered.
English is funny that way ;)

>Actually, dissecting something while still alive is called a vivisection .
>But, yeah, you can call that murder.

Actually, murder is intentional. I'm sure the accused didn't intend to end the life of his iPod. Therefore I think this would qualify as negligent homicide or involuntary manslaughter.

Actually, dissecting something while still alive is called a vivisection .
But, yeah, you can call that murder.

you may want to hold off on your anti-MS diatribe

I agree. Glad you told phnork. Bill's had a bad week. Cut him some slack. It's not his fault Windows is so shitty.

BTW, what is a phnork?

But why do I have to explain this? It's all encompased by a single word I used in my previous post. If you didn't understand it, you can always look it up.

Without taking a political position, let me just point out that the English word marriage already has a definition: "The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife". Any attempt to redefine that word based on political correctness smacks of "whims and prejudices" to me.

What made the WTC destruction a threat to Liberty was that it scared the shit out of people in a way that they couldn't be soothed to ignore. Something that could reawaken their normal instinct to stock up on canned food, stay home this vacation and maybe put off buying that 42-inch TV for a while, because You Never Know.

Actually, the difference is that in the examples you mentioned, there is a level of choice. Choice == liberty and freedom to make that choice == liberty, and $OTHER_THINGS==liberty.

The people who died in the WTC and Pentagon didnt choose to have fully fueled aircraft flown into their buildings.

People who smoke (and I do smoke) made a choice to smoke. If we die because of smoking related illness, it was because we CHOSE to smoke.

If I get fat and die of a heart attack from all the artery hardening goodness of a fast food burger, it was my CHOICE to eat at McD's or BK instead of having something more healthy to eat.

No one forced me to eat the burger and fries, adn no one forced me to smoke.

Same with the alcohol. The only correlation you can make with alcohol consumption is that there ARE innocent victims in alcohol related accidents. BUT, conversely, the people who are responsible for the wrecks do pay the price (admittedly, thanks to lawyers being a dime a dozen, most DUIs get off with little more than a slap on the wrist).

Liberty means easy access to lots of shiny new stuff, and gracious companies willing to let you get in debt to them for the rest of your life, so you can't afford to quit your job.

Actually, this says different:
liberty ( P ) Pronunciation Key (lbr-t)
n. pl. liberties

1.
A. The condition of being free from restriction or control.
B. The right and power to act, believe, or express oneself in a manner of one's own choosing.
C. The condition of being physically and legally free from confinement, servitude, or forced labor. See Synonyms at freedom.
2. Freedom from unjust or undue governmental control.
3. A right or immunity to engage in certain actions without control or interference: the liberties protected by the Bill of Rights.

God, I'm so tired of hearing the term bias misused in this way (thank you Rush Limbaugh and all your under-educated, piglet followers and wannabes for abusing the term.) Bias isn't the same as a preference.

From the American Heritage Dictionary

bias n. 2.
a. A preference or an inclination, especially one that inhibits impartial judgment.
b. An unfair act or policy stemming from prejudice.

You may believe (as I do) that current copyright law is unethical, that is that it harms society as a whole. The correct way to fix immoral legal situations IS civil disobedience. However, the correct way to fix unethical legal situations is to change the law. One cannot enact sweeping ethical legal changes without changing the law. Therefore I believe that the correct action here is not to violate the law, but to ask the lawmakers to change it. FWIW, I have corresponded with all of my state senators and representatives on this matter and made my opinion known. Most of them were in agreement to some degree or another.

There's no way I'm going to accept that the definitions of immoral and unethical are anywhere near precise enough for the distinction you're making. The only examples I can think of that immoral would apply to that unethical would not would be religious sins--i.e., you could say "idolatry is immoral", but you certainly couldn't say "idolatry is unethical."

Now perhaps if you believe Utilitarianism is the only ethical system, your distinction would make sense. On the other hand, I happen to think current copyright law is immoral, because by default human communication should be unrestricted--any undue restriction thereof is tyranny, and any means necessary to overthrow or bypass (de facto law being my only concern) such restriction is justified. Few things are more offensive to me than telling a particular artistic work that it has no right to exist. The White Album, being rather aged and with half its performers dead, is ripe for civil disobedience.

There is also the issue of being unfair to creators while being fair to copyright holders--you can say "transferable" all you want, but if by making the right transferrable you have reduced the benefits to artists (highly probable), then transferability is wrong.

My point being, if I believe that pickpocketing should not be a crime, that doesn't give me the right to pick your pocket.

True, because rights come from neither beliefs nor laws. If you believed you had a right to pickpocket, surely you would also believe that everyone had a right to pickpocket, regardless of their beliefs on pickpocketing.

You may believe (as I do) that current copyright law is unethical, that is that it harms society as a whole. The correct way to fix immoral legal situations IS civil disobedience. However, the correct way to fix unethical legal situations is to change the law. One cannot enact sweeping ethical legal changes without changing the law. Therefore I believe that the correct action here is not to violate the law, but to ask the lawmakers to change it. FWIW, I have corresponded with all of my state senators and representatives on this matter and made my opinion known. Most of them were in agreement to some degree or another.

There's no way I'm going to accept that the definitions of immoral and unethical are anywhere near precise enough for the distinction you're making. The only examples I can think of that immoral would apply to that unethical would not would be religious sins--i.e., you could say "idolatry is immoral", but you certainly couldn't say "idolatry is unethical."

Now perhaps if you believe Utilitarianism is the only ethical system, your distinction would make sense. On the other hand, I happen to think current copyright law is immoral, because by default human communication should be unrestricted--any undue restriction thereof is tyranny, and any means necessary to overthrow or bypass (de facto law being my only concern) such restriction is justified. Few things are more offensive to me than telling a particular artistic work that it has no right to exist. The White Album, being rather aged and with half its performers dead, is ripe for civil disobedience.

There is also the issue of being unfair to creators while being fair to copyright holders--you can say "transferable" all you want, but if by making the right transferrable you have reduced the benefits to artists (highly probable), then transferability is wrong.

My point being, if I believe that pickpocketing should not be a crime, that doesn't give me the right to pick your pocket.

True, because rights come from neither beliefs nor laws. If you believed you had a right to pickpocket, surely you would also believe that everyone had a right to pickpocket, regardless of their beliefs on pickpocketing.

In simple terms, no. In not so simple terms, no. Would you allow car manufacturers to offer cars that were cheaper but lacked basic safety features such as seat belts? Would you like to be able to buy cheaper houses that used unshielded wires?
Every industry has standards there to define what we expect from the service/goods. VOIP is a telephony service regardless of the technology. Why should VOIP be different? I agree that technologically it is going to be difficult to implement, but that doesn't mean that they shouldn't have to comply with industry standards.

1. Lacking education or knowledge. 2. Showing or arising from a lack of education or knowledge: an ignorant mistake. 3. Unaware or uninformed.

'I didn't know that' is the sense that I used ignorant. In that sense I am ignorant about a lot of things. Society has pinned a negitive conotation on the word that it does not deserve. The parent of my post said that people expect 911 to just work. even over a VOIP phone. To expect this, is ignorance. They are simply ignorant of what a VOIP phone is, and to some extent POTS phones too. That does not make them stupid/uneducated/unable to understand, just ignorant. (ignorant and stupid often look alike:-( ) Next, your specific questions:

How many children or elderly people are going to think back to the Terms of Service of the phone they are calling 911 on?

If the elderly were the ones who signed up for it, they probably thought about it then, (assuming that it was required that they be told about it then, which was what I proposed). If so they would have either gone with a VOIP who provided the 911 location service, or made other arraingements for 911. To do otherwise would be really stupid, and most people aren't that dumb. The children? If you have children you should make sure they know how to properly dial 911 anyway. Moot point.

How many times will people call 911 on someone else's phone?

Wrong question, try this: How many times will people call 911 on MY phone? Depends on the phone. If this is likely, I would probably make sure 911 worked right. Failure to do this could be seen as a legal liability but begs the question, 'What right do others have to use my phone?' None, but it is a damn nice service to provide. If it is not likely, then it is MY phone, and I'll do as I please, privacy here should trump the small chance that someone may, in the future, break into my den, find my private phone and then need to call 911 for some obscure reason.

Also, you made an assumption, that I would still get the phone. What if, not being able to get a non-traceable second phone, I opted instead for no second phone. It is easier to get help in an emergency with an untraceable phone (phonebook, lookup police etc) than no phone.

But there is no reason in hell people should suffer just so you can be untraceable.

So, you are saying that I should suffer a gaurenteed (if small) loss in privacy, just on the off chance that others will need something from me that they did not (and could easily have) provide(d) for themselvs? Sounds like hell to me. Life is a right, 911 isn't.

I have a bit of a libertarian bent, If you disagree with libertarians, you will probably disagree with me. I think I have history on my side though.

Actually, it's not subject to the definition of 'slander', regardless of what you said. Well, unless you dictated it, of course, but who'd be so stupid as to dictate a comment on Slashdot? If I had a secretary with that little to do, I'm sure something pressing would pop up.

...it made me laugh at any rate! ;o)

Not wanting to be a word nazi, but actually: Ain't isn't a word, but it is a contraction that was first used in the 1700's. Quite an interesting read. :o)

"Veneer of civilisation"?? What's that? War is the key sign of civilization! No primitive culture has ever waged or even comprehended warfare.

You've got a severe reality-disfunction, it seems. Or is "patently" another word which, like "literally", has suffered a popular inversion of defined meaning?

From: dictionary.com "patently" is an adverb to mean unmistakably. Synonyms are obviously, evidently, manifestly, apparently, plainly. Seems I'm not the one with the reality dysfunction

Tee hee. Where do you think games come from?

the live recording of the event that is being produced for prosperity

of course the concert is for prosperity -- prosperity of the band and promoters...

I think you meant posterity.

That would jive with the "seems"

jibe intr.v. Informal jibed, jibing, jibes
To be in accord; agree: Your figures jibe with mine.

v. jived, jiving, jives v. intr.
To play or dance to jive music. Slang. To talk nonsense; kid.

That would jive with the "seems"

jibe intr.v. Informal jibed, jibing, jibes
To be in accord; agree: Your figures jibe with mine.

v. jived, jiving, jives v. intr.
To play or dance to jive music. Slang. To talk nonsense; kid.

WHat? You mean like this online dictionary?

here's a helpful link that might help clarify the original poster's question somewhat.

galled

Which, I imagine, makes this story not a dupe, but a triplicate!

Would that be a tripe? How appropriate.

"Mobile" is an adjective, not a noun. If you mean "mobile phone," say so.

Mobile what-phone? If you mean "mobile telephone", say so.

Language changes. Roll with it or prepare for regular pedantic frustration.

Dumbass probably thinks "female" is a noun, too. Sheesh.

Dumbass would be right.

"female":
n.
1. A member of the sex that produces ova or bears young.
2. A woman or girl.

you gotta share the benis.

Resemble, Resent.

Language is the primary tool of rational thinking. Learn to use it.

Daniel

Resemble, Resent.

Language is the primary tool of rational thinking. Learn to use it.

Daniel

That's a complete load of shit. You are the one who is wrong:

tr.v. tasked, task-ing, tasks
To assign a task to or impose a task on.
To overburden with labor; tax.

You've probably never seen a dictionary before, so I'll help you out. See that little 'v.' before the word? Imagine this: that 'v' stands for 'verb'! What are the odds? BTW, that little 'tr.' means that the word 'task' is not just any kind of verb, but that it's a transitive verb. But don't worry about what that means; there are probably too many syllables in that word 'transitive' anyway.

If you're going to be an asshole, at least make sure that you're right first.

• Accuracy (Conformity to fact)
• Precision (The ability of a measurement to be consistently reproduced.)

• Accuracy (Conformity to fact)
• Precision (The ability of a measurement to be consistently reproduced.)

You ignored the first sentence of my post.

The ABM Treaty had a clause in it that said that any party can withdraw from the agreement with six month's notice. Bush gave the six month's notice, and withdrew from the treaty.

To renege is to "To fail to carry out a promise or commitment." The U.S. obeyed that treaty perfectly. "We promise to not start testing nukes while the treaty is in force. We agree that we can withdraw from the treaty with six month's notice." And they did exactly that. Now then, if they had not given the six month's notice, then they would be guilty of reneging.

You have a cell phone. You have a contract with your cell phone provider that says you will pay them $X per month, and they will provide you with service. It also says that you can get out of the service agreement by providing thirty day's written notice. You decide you no longer want to use this cell phone company, so you give them thirty days notice, and terminate the service. Have you reneged on your contract? Have you done anything dishonest or unethical? Absolutely not.

What? When did the bible ever contain a dictionary? To "witness", according to the dictionary, definition #4, means "An attestation to a fact, statement, or event; testimony.". There aren't any forms of lying that involve you not witnessing something.

I thought a "drake" was a male duck?

1. A southern European plant (Mandragora officinarum) having greenish-yellow flowers and a branched root. This plant was once believed to have magical powers because its root resembles the human body.
   
2. The root of this plant, which contains the poisonous alkaloid hyoscyamine. Also called mandragora.
   

How about 'mandragora' as a replacement for 'mandrake'? According to dictionary.com, mandragora is the Old English version of mandrake. A Google search for "Mandragora the Magician" returned no hits, so it should be safe.

Human carbon dioxide emissions raise the overall temperature. It's proven, and it doesn't need more study. If you disagree, you are wrong, just as wrong as you are if you disagree with the fact of evolution (as opposed to the *theory* of how it happened.) There is no middle ground here, there is science, and there is expensive wishful thinking in the form of industry/government supported pseudo-science.

Human carbon dioxide emissions raise the overall temperature. It's proven, and it doesn't need more study. If you disagree, you are wrong, just as wrong as you are if you disagree with the fact of evolution (as opposed to the *theory* of how it happened.) There is no middle ground here, there is science, and there is expensive wishful thinking in the form of industry/government supported pseudo-science.

Calling copyright violators pirates IN COURT is simply an attempt to emotionally influence the jury.

You don't seem to understand the problems involved with your use of jury nullification. What you don't understand is that all government is broken into administrative and political branches.

You are mistaking your role as a juror for an aspect of the political branch when really it's an aspect of the administrative (all judicial rulings below the supreme court are considered administrative).

Now the reason for laws is to define which behaviors society wants it's citizens to follow. (I assume you live in a "democracy") it's basically the guidelines that everyone is expected to follow so we can all get along, these are set at diffrent times but they are not changed often because the government is concerned over the avarice of people. (ex. Everyone wants a new tv so tuesday they decide stealing tv's should be legal).

They don't have you in the jury box in order to decide policy, they have you in the jury box to decide whether the accused is guilty of a crime (law says a, accused did a = guilty a,b!=guilty). Emotions get in the way of factual judgements, whether they impact your understanding of what the law says or bias your opinion of what the accused did.

So why are you there? Well first there are twelve of you, this is to hopefully weed out an individual's emotional issues regarding an issue. Second it is so the government can't cover up crimes. Twelve people will have seen what the government is doing and be able to speak out against it.

In conclusion don't take advantage of your role as an administrator to accomplish political goals. History has shown that a society can rush to judgement (60 war/anti-war, 30's America almost went communist,45 America wanted Japan destroyed, ). Democracy's slow march has prevented as many disasters as it has caused. I am a firm believer that almost all information should be available for free. Know your rights, know how to be politically active, and if you have the majority behind you and the government doesn't listen, well there's always the second ammendment.

You missed my point. My point was that a radar return off the F-117 (or B-2) is more likely then not going to be bounced off the internal structure of the aircraft -- since the external structure either absorbs radar signals or reflects them back away from the intended receiver. My other point being that an RWS system could work in theory without external sensors by picking up the transmissions that weren't absorbed by the external structure -- since transmissions that were absorbed (or reflected elsewhere) are no threat. Try reading my statement before you jump all over it. Neither does ascribing fantastic capability to RWS (or is it ESM? How about BVR - Beyond Vague Ranging system?).

In that single comment you reveal your ignorance and arrogance about modern military technology. This has nothing to do with fancy Star Trek style technology. Most of this stuff has been around for decades. The concepts are nothing new -- they go all the way back to WW2.

To quote from this military site:

ESM is the area of Electronic Warfare (EW) that evaluates passive electronic devices used for signal intelligence (SIGINT) collection. These types of systems are RF based. ESM system evaluations include but are not limited to: SIGINT library validation, direction finding array calibration and validation, target fixing algorithm validation, intercept capability, and evaluation of special signals.

Here are some other interesting websites that you should consider reading. Google is your friend.

None of this is "fantastic capability" or 24th century technology. None of this implies mystical powers on the part of the F-117 (or any other modern aircraft or ship).

Now, unlike you, I don't pretend to be a know all expert on modern military technology. But I also don't pretend that just because I don't understand something or haven't heard about it that it must be magical Star Trek technology clearly beyond our current means.

I have no idea how playing Harpoon (whatever that is), Exocets and F-14's got into the mix.

Harpoon is an all encompassing sea-air battle simulation coined by Larry Bond that is played on paper rules or with PC software. If your interested (it's really quite good) I suggest you check it out. Exocets and F-14s got into the mix because you made the asinine comment about how realistic Top Gun was -- I was blowing this argument out of the water. Talk to any real Naval aviator (or Air Force for that matter) -- they think it's one of the funniest movies ever made. Though they would probably agree with you about the flight instructor sleeping with Tom Cruise part ;)

Modern weapons systems are limited by existing technology and the laws of physics, not magic not mysticism

No disagreement. You just don't seem to have an understanding of what modern technology is capable of. Read up on ESM/RWS technology sometime -- I think you'll be surprised at what it's capable of -- and it's hardly new -- it's been around (albeit in more primitive form) since WW2.

In the full and more illuminating form, from the 'open source' World English Bible (Daniel ch. 5)...

25 This is the writing that was inscribed: MENE, MENE, TEKEL, UPHARSIN. 26 This is the interpretation of the thing: MENE; God has numbered your kingdom, and brought it to an end; 27 TEKEL; you are weighed in the balances, and are found wanting. 28 PERES; your kingdom is divided, and given to the Medes and Persians.

In the passage, a hand has appeared and written this message on a wall during a royal feast; hence the origin of the phrase, the writing is on the wall.

Great quote for those big-picture technology meetings. Right up there with Well, I must defer to your greater schiolism on that point.

This sums it up rather well.

Trimesterly means every three months.

I could make an observation about spouting off on /. vs doing somthing productive, but I'm not in a self-depreciatingmood right now.

I am using the two terms interchangeably, to mean, well, information. I admire your commitment to precision in vocabulary, but I think you may be missing the point of what I'm saying--the point being that advances in computer technology make it easier to work with information/data.

It seems as though you are disagreeing with this point because you don't feel that the words I'm using are quite right for the job. This is semantic quibbling that does nothing to advance the conversation.

It seems as though you are defining "data" as "facts", and "information" as "interpretation of facts". You then proceed to refute my argument on the basis that people can make mistakes in interpeting the available information, and that people often jump to wrong conclusions due to a lack of information and the inability to analyze it effectively.

Fine, but human error will always be with us. Saying that advances in information techology are irrelevant to my argument because people still make mistakes is completely beside the point. Again, my point is that advances in information technology make it easier to collect more information, and easier to analyze it effectively. Therefore, advances in information technology improve the situation you complain about, where people make mistakes because they don't have enough information or the tools to analyze it effectively. Your hypothetical scenarios all present information failures based on a lack of information or proper analysis. This kind of failure is exactly what information technology works to prevent. I'll happily agree that these failures--which are partly human failures--will never be completely prevented, but they are reduced by the very technology whose utility you seem to deny.

Later you say that I should either choose to acknowledge that I want ease of _data_ use or stop asking for better technology (which is already a false dicotomy because I can at the same time NOT acknowledge that I want data ease-of-use AND ask for better computing because I want, for instace, to play video games)

I'll leave aside the semanting quibbling here, and address you main point: the technology that makes better video games and the technology that makes better information processing are the exact same technology. Whenever you play a video game, your computer is processing information--as much information as it possibly can. The fact that this information serves no practical purpose other than to amuse you doesn't change the fact that it is information, and that advances in videogames do require advances in information technology.

because , you say, we can't advance computer technology (whatever it means to you) without making getting and studying information easier ; but I can, for instace, increase the instruction per second a CPU can crunch and that would make data analysis faster, but not easier because fast doesn't mean easy, I could run 100 meters in 10 seconds or in 5 seconds , but it still would require an highly skilled runner not to stumble at such speeds. Same for data analysis, faster CPU is probably better , but doesn't make data analysis easier.

A faster CPU means that more information can be processed in the same amount of time. That is, in fact, the whole point of making CPUs faster. Of course, a faster CPU doesn't mean the quality of the information is any better--that's mainly a human decision to make. But a faster CPU means a human can work with the available information more easily, giving that human greater understanding of the information, and allowing them to make a more accurate evaluation of the information's quality. A faster CPU does make information analysis easier, by its very nature. It doesn't automatically make the human decisions based on that informatio

disagree that there should be a single rate, I think progressive taxes are fairer.

So you believe that the harder you work and the more successful you are, the less right you have to keep your own money. Interesting that the right to property diminishes with the amount of property possessed. I wasn't aware of that.

Or maybe you're just jealous, greedy, and resentful that others have more than you.

I'd agree that "the rich" should carry a larger portion of public responsibility by virtue of their ability to do so. But don't you think noblesse oblige should be voluntary? Or do you think it is just and right to force people to do things they don't want to, in a country that calls itself "free"? Charity compelled under threat of force is not charity.

The bigger flaw in your suggestion is that there is no way you can eliminate rules and loopholes.

How is there room for loopholes? "7% tax on every item sold, except food, clothing, medicine."

How would this system work for self-employed people?

That's the beauty of it. It works the same for everyone. It's not an income tax. It's a sales tax. You pay tax on what you buy. You are in control of what you buy. Rich people tend to consume more, both because they have more to spend in the first place and also because a larger share of their income is "disposable", so they pay more. It's self-regulating, and the individual citizen is in control. You would have a direct say in how big your government gets. If you don't want to it to grow, buy on the essentials (food, clothing, medicine) which are exempt from the tax as a matter of principle. If you want democracy, this is it - the free market in action in the political realm.

The tax rate is the easiest part of the tax system: figure out what bracket you are in and use the specified rate.

It's also the most tyrannical. What right does government have to any of my money? I earned it; it is mine. Once you believe gov't has the right to some arbitrary amount of your assets, what prevents it from taking more? Nothing! The amount is at the whim of legislators. You are forced to give up something that by right belongs to you, and if you refuse you are thrown in jail.

Do you believe in private property? Could I walk into your garage and say "I need 5% of your car, so I'll take this tire"? If this sounds ludicrous and idiotic, that's because it is, and that's precisely why this country had no income tax for 140 years.

You cannot give a right to government that you yourself do not possess. If you were my neighbor and you knocked on my door and asked me for $20 to help you pay for medicine (or whatever) you need but can't afford, I might (or might not) give it to you. This is fine. If you knocked on my door, put a gun in my face and demanded $20, you'd be an armed robber. You do not have the right to take my property by force, and neither does the government.

A sales tax sidesteps this issue. If you don't want to pay it, don't buy the goods. The tax is voluntary. Since food, clothing, and medicine are necessary for life, which is also an inherent right and government cannot take part in depriving you of, these items are exempt from the tax.

So ask yourself, what are your motives? What justifies seizing someone else's property? (Because a majority want want the minority has?) What justifies doing so progressively, in a manner that shows favoritism by damaging some more than others? (Because you can count on the votes of the 51% poor to support you giving them freebies?) People say my attitude is "greedy" for just wanting to keep (or dispensing as I choose) what I already have...I think it is truly greedy to want what someone else has.

I can see the marketing slogan already:

"Lintel: We're above Windows"

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

Actually humans is correct usage (in the US).

Microsoft sues dictionary.com for trademark infringement.

- (-) n.
An opening constructed in a wall or roof that functions to admit light or air to an enclosure and is often framed and spanned with glass mounted to permit opening and closing.

The bit that gets me is the use of the word innovation.

There's nothing fundamentally new here - and it's parroted press release crap like this that lets companies get away with 'innovating' pop-up blockers.

Anyway, I'm off to innovate some food for dinner...