Slashdot Mirror

You would look a lot more insightful if either you or your source, let alone both of you, could spell pus. (My search term was "puss", which is someone's face, a cat, or the female genitals, but not "A generally viscous, yellowish-white fluid formed in infected tissue, consisting of white blood cells, cellular debris, and necrotic tissue." which is pus.

note: All is to be taken sarcastically

Or, more to the point, facetiously.

One interesting quote released by the board is that they will, '...carefully consider any legitimate proposal...' Does this mean that they did not believe Comcast's offer to be legitimate?"

Is money the same color across the EU? (serious question, I've never seen any european money)

No problem, will just scan it and throw up a link for you...Oh, nevermind.

note: All is to be taken sarcastically

Obviously, you haven't checked the dictionary.

A GameBoy is a computer.

There's nothing wrong with that spelling . Maybe Mr. XaXXon prefers the obnoxious Mebibytes?

Dictionary.com. It is used when quoting, to indicate that the transcriber has faithfully reproduced a possible mistake in the source. This is because it is considered bad form to modify a quote, at least without indication through square parantheses, which are generally used for explanatory additions due to loss of context, not corrections. And if 'sic' wasn't put in, it would likely look like an error on the transcriber's part. It's certainly not a /. thing ;-)

Well, I was just about to post something pointing out that the word is "nostalgia" not "nostalgy" and sniff down at you. Before I did, though, I paid a quick visit to dictionary.com and lo and behold! Nostalgy is a word, meaning the "same as nostalgia". It's not as common but apparently still acceptable.

Now, I could have just swept this all under the rug and never made this post, but what kind of man would I be then?

# A specific mode of government: the socialist state.
# A body politic, especially one constituting a nation: the states of Eastern Europe.

"Copyright" is also a transitive verb, meaning to secure a copyright. It has a valid past tense. look it up if you don't believe me.

For the furriners, the original Holden Commodore design was originally an Opel (also Vauxhall in the UK and Chevrolet in RSA).

Not long (year or two) after they came out, a local newspaper (The Sunday Times) ran a radio ad (!) touting the quality of their transcription, in which a dude tries to sell his Commodore and gets it listed as a commode (which his friend informs him is "a kind of a toilet"), and within weeks I heard a send-up of it on a different radio station in which the advertiser is trying to sell his toilet and gets it mis-labelled as a Commodore (which his friend informs him is "a kind of a car").

They also have a reputation for being easy to steal, in case you hadn't guessed from my first par. (-:

All that being said, there are perfectly legitimate women's rights reasons why polygamy is wrong. No woman wants her husband to take a second wife...

I didn't know you could throw a gauntlet, or that anyone 'as' recently thrown one.

As for the article, I'll let the outsiders debate this back and forth - us insiders have work to do, thank you. Bye.

"cue: a signal, such as a word or action, used to prompt another event.")

I'm thinking of the transitive verb (it is slang, I guess), as in "Come on, quit sandbagging! You aren't even trying!"

It's when you do something (i.e., running a race) badly on purpose, often to trick your competitors into overconfidence (or just to get out of working hard).

By filming in Canada, the production companies don't have to pay union rates to the hordes of support personal required to make the films. This out sourcing significantly brings down costs, while still providing a location with white, English-speaking extras and close proximity to the US, to accommodate "name" US actors.

Not only can we speak English in Canada, we can even spell personnel. You're of English descent... learn the language!

Too late, Australia's got it now :-)

Or maybe these guys just beat them to it...

*Socialism, often confused with communism (i think you meant it negatively), is not a bad thing. Its the middle ground between capitalism and communism.

socialism

The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which collective ownership of the economy under the dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet been successfully achieved.

Wow, great company name. It's only one letter away from meconium.

Wonder if GE would kvetch if I registered the domain name GeneralEclectic.com

Macintosh, too, is a common noun.

I'm a software engineer. I have very deep technical skills at what I do. But I also have a life outside of the computer screen, both social and otherwise, and unlike a "geek" I'm not socially inept. I love computers but they're not the most important thing in my life. I'm a technical expert. Call yourself a geek if you want, but you're not doing yourself any favours.

You entirely miss the point. I am also a well rounded, physically fit, socially active technical expert, but none of that is as important to me as my love of computers. I do my fourty hours plus a week with the computers, then go home to spend more time on computers. I make time for social activities and exercise because I enjoy them, too, but my first love is computers and technology.

I wear the term "geek" with pride because that's who I am, not what I do. Your technical ability is just a path to more social experiences - my social experiences are a path to better, more interesting technical projects. When working for a company, I'm not just working for a paycheck, I happily dig into the details of my job simply because I enjoy it.

Part of the reason I wear the title of "geek" with pride is because the paycheck players are so annoying. While I'm trying to get the big project in shape for a release, they're musing about the fine details of golf or wondering how they're doing in the latest football pool. Those aren't geeks, they're just nerds.

No, tech isn't the most important thing about my life. That would be my wife and children. But it does rate a close second. It's all a matter of priorities. My priorites identify me as a geek, and yours seem to identify you as a socialite who happens to work with computers. If you think that you are cooler because your activities fit your own priorites better, then you should go look up the word "egocentrism".

What language is the word 'Ontology' in?

We obviously have radically different conceptions of what "political" means.

Firstly, slavery is a separate issue from economic status. Just because you have no money, does not mean you are a slave.

That's true in some political systems, because you have rights that can't be taken away from you (or spent on necessities like food). As I demonstrated before, in a pure capitalist system the only right a destitute person has is the right to work, and if he can't earn more than the price of his food (and why should anyone offer him more?) then he will remain a de facto slave. Bear in mind that if someone offers him the price of his food in return for his labour, his choice is to take it or starve. He is not coerced by the other party but by the biological necessity of eating.

In a democracy you can spend your last dollar but you can't spend your right to vote.

In fact you can. You spend it on an election, and then you're stuck with your (or rather, everyone else's) choice for an entire term with no "out".

That's spending your vote, not your right to vote. If you spend your vote you still have the right to vote at the next election.

A free market has a constant feedback, and response is near-immediate (compared to politics anyway).

I'm not disputing that the market is a very efficient economic mechanism. I'm just saying that a market system is not suitable for choosing governments, because governments can change the law and thus the rules of the market. This allows the current market leaders to distort the market in their own favour, ensuring their continued dominance. Although we disagree on many points I think we actually agree on this: market leaders should not be allowed to distort the market to their own advantage. But if you allow the rich to have disproportionate political influence, that is what will happen.

When is this stupid argument going to die? It's now totally pointless to try to force the definition of hacker to be someone who writes code and cracker to be what the mass media calls a hacker. Languages are living things and just because Eric Raymond would like to define hacker as it was at one point in time is irrelevant to current usage. Even conferences like H2K are more about hacking in the cracking sense than hacking.

This is similar to trying to argue that the word gay is not associated with homosexual men now; it's time to get over the old definitions of words (particularly slang words) and move on.

Otherwise we'd all be walking around using the word ace to describe things that are currently considered phat.

John.

When is this stupid argument going to die? It's now totally pointless to try to force the definition of hacker to be someone who writes code and cracker to be what the mass media calls a hacker. Languages are living things and just because Eric Raymond would like to define hacker as it was at one point in time is irrelevant to current usage. Even conferences like H2K are more about hacking in the cracking sense than hacking.

This is similar to trying to argue that the word gay is not associated with homosexual men now; it's time to get over the old definitions of words (particularly slang words) and move on.

Otherwise we'd all be walking around using the word ace to describe things that are currently considered phat.

John.

When is this stupid argument going to die? It's now totally pointless to try to force the definition of hacker to be someone who writes code and cracker to be what the mass media calls a hacker. Languages are living things and just because Eric Raymond would like to define hacker as it was at one point in time is irrelevant to current usage. Even conferences like H2K are more about hacking in the cracking sense than hacking.

This is similar to trying to argue that the word gay is not associated with homosexual men now; it's time to get over the old definitions of words (particularly slang words) and move on.

Otherwise we'd all be walking around using the word ace to describe things that are currently considered phat.

John.

When is this stupid argument going to die? It's now totally pointless to try to force the definition of hacker to be someone who writes code and cracker to be what the mass media calls a hacker. Languages are living things and just because Eric Raymond would like to define hacker as it was at one point in time is irrelevant to current usage. Even conferences like H2K are more about hacking in the cracking sense than hacking.

This is similar to trying to argue that the word gay is not associated with homosexual men now; it's time to get over the old definitions of words (particularly slang words) and move on.

Otherwise we'd all be walking around using the word ace to describe things that are currently considered phat.

John.

When is this stupid argument going to die? It's now totally pointless to try to force the definition of hacker to be someone who writes code and cracker to be what the mass media calls a hacker. Languages are living things and just because Eric Raymond would like to define hacker as it was at one point in time is irrelevant to current usage. Even conferences like H2K are more about hacking in the cracking sense than hacking.

This is similar to trying to argue that the word gay is not associated with homosexual men now; it's time to get over the old definitions of words (particularly slang words) and move on.

Otherwise we'd all be walking around using the word ace to describe things that are currently considered phat.

John.

i disagree. let's look at a dictionary definition: (ignore def. 5) "Something used in the performance of an operation; an instrument". i interpret Google as something which can be used in the performance of an operation (the operation could be, say, Finding a Certain Webpage). you may interpret it differently.

In the article they mention the 'Mori Uncanniness' problem- there is a point that is the 'most anthropomorphic' you can get, before the thing becomes about as pleasant as santorum. IANARS, but the RS's at CMU's Robotics Institute state in A Survey of socially interactive robots

[if a robot needs to portray a living creature,] it is critical that an appropriate degree of familiarity be maintained. Mashiro Mori contends that the progression from a non-realistic to realistic portrayal of a living thing is non-linear. In particular, there is an ?uncanny valley? (see Fig. 8) as similarity becomes almost, but not quite perfect. At this point, the subtle imperfections of the recreation become highly disturbing, or even repulsive...

FWIW There are many more issues than just cannyness, and that paper gets into a lot of em...

It's a common unword used in product names, and that's the only place it's ever used. And, like most such terms it's an abomination.

You're one of those people that still maintains that "ain't" is not a proper word, aren't you?

Lite is as proper a word as any other. Heck, two hundred years ago we wouldn't even be having this discussion.

Now, I'll grant that L-I-T-E isn't a preferred or formal spelling of "light", but it's an accepted one. (You could even go so far as to say that "lite" is really a suffix, and needs to be appended to an existing word for its spelling to be acceptable. I.e., "This isn't really a full burrito; it's more of a burrito-lite.")

"Wether" is a word, so a spell-checker won't catch it unless you've removed it from its dictionary. Which I would recommend for anyone who doesn't deal with sheep (and perhaps those that do as well).

A grammar checker though should point out the error.

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

I don't know what your definition of `geek` is, but most of the people I know, who call themselves one, use my definition. Not the one in Websters, and they don't feel like it's a limitation either.

Sounds like a school playground argument to me. If everyone calls you a "geek" and has the definition of "geek" as:
A person regarded as foolish, inept, or clumsy.
B person who is single-minded or accomplished in scientific or technical pursuits but is felt to be socially inept.

in mind, and you decide in your mind that you (and a bunch of other people who also get called 'geeks') define 'geek' as "a cool, technically oriented, talented, creative, attractive and seductive superman", that still doesn't change the fact that all these other people regard you as socially inept and wouldn't want to be hanging around with you.

Redefine all you want in your mind. It's the definition in other people's minds that you need to work on - or rather, a more realistic solution, you need to work on your behaviour so that instead of calling you a geek they call you an 'expert' or something similar which doesn't imply social ineptitude and general un-coolness.

This whole movement of 'geeks are cool' is just a very flagrant exercise in self-denial by a significant segment of the population.

I'm a software engineer. I have very deep technical skills at what I do. But I also have a life outside of the computer screen, both social and otherwise, and unlike a "geek" I'm not socially inept. I love computers but they're not the most important thing in my life. I'm a technical expert. Call yourself a geek if you want, but you're not doing yourself any favours.

Daniel

I don't know when the first Pentium came out with an on-chip clock, but that's probably not important anyway. I doubt if the patent is on the idea of an on-chip clock -- they can hardly claim to be the first people to have invented the concept of component integration! More likely they're claiming to have invented a design or manufacturing technique... oh well, might as well go look it up.

Yup, here's the 1995 patent application. It's too complicated for me, but they seem be claiming that their design manages to produce a steady clock signal even as temperature fluctuations play holy hell with the oscillations that produce the clock signal. Assuming I haven't totally mangled the concept, and that they really did think of this first, that's a pretty significant invention. It's certainly not on the same level as these business-process and software patents that we all love to hate.

"We're at an impasse and we can't be at an impasse and have this case remain at a standstill,"

I laughed a little when I read that the first time on Groklaw. Seems to me, if you're at an impasse, then you are at a standstill.

Not only can it happen, but that's what will happen.

"We're at an impasse and we can't be at an impasse and have this case remain at a standstill,"

I laughed a little when I read that the first time on Groklaw. Seems to me, if you're at an impasse, then you are at a standstill.

Not only can it happen, but that's what will happen.

1. A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood.
2. Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression.

Calling Bush a liar or claiming he tells a lie requires believing that he knew for certain the statements he made were false, but still went on anyways.

As David Kay said, we were all wrong.

Being wrong doesn't mean being a liar. The loony lefties like yourself still can't get over that.

illusive - adj.
elusive - adj.

illusive - adj.
elusive - adj.

Go expand your vocabulary.

irregardless is NOT A WORD

see for your self what Dictionary.com has to say
when you use it it makes you look like an ignoramus

other then that..good post

irregardless is NOT A WORD

see for your self what Dictionary.com has to say
when you use it it makes you look like an ignoramus

other then that..good post

What these people mean to say is "You have a strong influence over your own reality, and you tend to shape your life based on how you perceive it."

For example, I know one guy from an upper-middle class background. He's had plenty of opportunities, good parents, good education, etc. He's no movie star, but his looks certainly wouldn't count against him.

His problem is that he sees the absolutely bleakest intepretation of ay given event. A want ad for a dream job is Fate taunting him. A woman smiles at him and he's already experiencing the agony of a horrible breakup. The sun shines and he calculates the increased risk of skin cancer. If it rains, he's probably going to hydroplane out of control and die in a horrible car crash on the way home.

Needless to say, he botches job interviews, connects romantically mostly with head cases, and finds more and more people forget to return his phone calls.

This of course confirms his view of the world, prompting even more depression and the cycle spirals downward.

This is what most rational people mean by "creating your own reality." People who are generally friendly, confident and pleasantly outgoing tend to find more romantic and business opportunities than those who are generally morose, depressed and unpleasant.

To put it a mroe geek way, who would you rather work with -- Marvin the Paranoid Android or R2? Even though R2 is a far less powerful machine?

Rightwing Anonymous Coward, your orwellian newspeak betrays your agenda to pervert language to get what you want, without regard to meaning or integrity. I debunk your sloppy lies with facts:

conservative - limited government in all aspects
conservative: resistant to change
You refer to the myth of the "Conservative", like the liars in the White House, and their Republican Congress of lackeys. Where's the limit to this weeks $2.4 TRILLION budget? Only the truth is limited, when even that literally astronomical number hides the extra costs of the ongoing quagmire wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. In reality, it's a mafia of organized, murderous criminals, controlling the state to extract money and property from the people and transfer it to their mafia.

socialist - heavy economic control
Socialist: cf Socialism: central economic control and planning
In modern societies, like the "totalitarian" Canada, Mexico, Britain, France, Germany, hell, most every other modern society than the US, the government owns "natural monopolies" as a proxy for the people, rather than allow them to be neglected or abused by orivate owners.

facist - heavy social/behavior control
Fascist cf fascism: government control by fear
Today is Orange Alert! No, it's Yellow! Wait, there's credible chatter about a dirty bomb! Iraq has nukes on 45 minute alert! If you have nothing to hide, you'll submit to constant surveillance!

communist - both social/economic control
Communist cf communism: Either collective ownership of property, or the Soviet perversion of the theoretical economics in which a mafia state owns everything, and people own nothing, unless they control the mafia.
Gee, sounds like Cheney's corporate paradise.

So they're pretty similar, the "Conservative" and the "Communist", once the propagandic language is ripped away. It's no coincidence that the librarians of America are organized in unprecedented opposition to your orwellian masters: they've read the book!

moron - .... I will let you read this entry for yourself
I will be happy to read it aloud to you sometime, going slow for the hard parts, and even drawing you a picture if it makes you stop whining your lies

Rightwing Anonymous Coward, your orwellian newspeak betrays your agenda to pervert language to get what you want, without regard to meaning or integrity. I debunk your sloppy lies with facts:

conservative - limited government in all aspects
conservative: resistant to change
You refer to the myth of the "Conservative", like the liars in the White House, and their Republican Congress of lackeys. Where's the limit to this weeks $2.4 TRILLION budget? Only the truth is limited, when even that literally astronomical number hides the extra costs of the ongoing quagmire wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. In reality, it's a mafia of organized, murderous criminals, controlling the state to extract money and property from the people and transfer it to their mafia.

socialist - heavy economic control
Socialist: cf Socialism: central economic control and planning
In modern societies, like the "totalitarian" Canada, Mexico, Britain, France, Germany, hell, most every other modern society than the US, the government owns "natural monopolies" as a proxy for the people, rather than allow them to be neglected or abused by orivate owners.

facist - heavy social/behavior control
Fascist cf fascism: government control by fear
Today is Orange Alert! No, it's Yellow! Wait, there's credible chatter about a dirty bomb! Iraq has nukes on 45 minute alert! If you have nothing to hide, you'll submit to constant surveillance!

communist - both social/economic control
Communist cf communism: Either collective ownership of property, or the Soviet perversion of the theoretical economics in which a mafia state owns everything, and people own nothing, unless they control the mafia.
Gee, sounds like Cheney's corporate paradise.

So they're pretty similar, the "Conservative" and the "Communist", once the propagandic language is ripped away. It's no coincidence that the librarians of America are organized in unprecedented opposition to your orwellian masters: they've read the book!

moron - .... I will let you read this entry for yourself
I will be happy to read it aloud to you sometime, going slow for the hard parts, and even drawing you a picture if it makes you stop whining your lies

Rightwing Anonymous Coward, your orwellian newspeak betrays your agenda to pervert language to get what you want, without regard to meaning or integrity. I debunk your sloppy lies with facts:

conservative - limited government in all aspects
conservative: resistant to change
You refer to the myth of the "Conservative", like the liars in the White House, and their Republican Congress of lackeys. Where's the limit to this weeks $2.4 TRILLION budget? Only the truth is limited, when even that literally astronomical number hides the extra costs of the ongoing quagmire wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. In reality, it's a mafia of organized, murderous criminals, controlling the state to extract money and property from the people and transfer it to their mafia.

socialist - heavy economic control
Socialist: cf Socialism: central economic control and planning
In modern societies, like the "totalitarian" Canada, Mexico, Britain, France, Germany, hell, most every other modern society than the US, the government owns "natural monopolies" as a proxy for the people, rather than allow them to be neglected or abused by orivate owners.

facist - heavy social/behavior control
Fascist cf fascism: government control by fear
Today is Orange Alert! No, it's Yellow! Wait, there's credible chatter about a dirty bomb! Iraq has nukes on 45 minute alert! If you have nothing to hide, you'll submit to constant surveillance!

communist - both social/economic control
Communist cf communism: Either collective ownership of property, or the Soviet perversion of the theoretical economics in which a mafia state owns everything, and people own nothing, unless they control the mafia.
Gee, sounds like Cheney's corporate paradise.

So they're pretty similar, the "Conservative" and the "Communist", once the propagandic language is ripped away. It's no coincidence that the librarians of America are organized in unprecedented opposition to your orwellian masters: they've read the book!

moron - .... I will let you read this entry for yourself
I will be happy to read it aloud to you sometime, going slow for the hard parts, and even drawing you a picture if it makes you stop whining your lies

Rightwing Anonymous Coward, your orwellian newspeak betrays your agenda to pervert language to get what you want, without regard to meaning or integrity. I debunk your sloppy lies with facts:

conservative - limited government in all aspects
conservative: resistant to change
You refer to the myth of the "Conservative", like the liars in the White House, and their Republican Congress of lackeys. Where's the limit to this weeks $2.4 TRILLION budget? Only the truth is limited, when even that literally astronomical number hides the extra costs of the ongoing quagmire wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. In reality, it's a mafia of organized, murderous criminals, controlling the state to extract money and property from the people and transfer it to their mafia.

socialist - heavy economic control
Socialist: cf Socialism: central economic control and planning
In modern societies, like the "totalitarian" Canada, Mexico, Britain, France, Germany, hell, most every other modern society than the US, the government owns "natural monopolies" as a proxy for the people, rather than allow them to be neglected or abused by orivate owners.

facist - heavy social/behavior control
Fascist cf fascism: government control by fear
Today is Orange Alert! No, it's Yellow! Wait, there's credible chatter about a dirty bomb! Iraq has nukes on 45 minute alert! If you have nothing to hide, you'll submit to constant surveillance!

communist - both social/economic control
Communist cf communism: Either collective ownership of property, or the Soviet perversion of the theoretical economics in which a mafia state owns everything, and people own nothing, unless they control the mafia.
Gee, sounds like Cheney's corporate paradise.

So they're pretty similar, the "Conservative" and the "Communist", once the propagandic language is ripped away. It's no coincidence that the librarians of America are organized in unprecedented opposition to your orwellian masters: they've read the book!

moron - .... I will let you read this entry for yourself
I will be happy to read it aloud to you sometime, going slow for the hard parts, and even drawing you a picture if it makes you stop whining your lies

According to dictionary.com,

technophobe = Fear of or aversion to technology, especially computers and high technology

Aren't people who write with pens actually Luddites?