Slashdot Mirror

Error at F14B:00G7. Returned 5123 ( div by 0). Core dump(Y/N)?

~ ahem! ~ Persistence. ~ cough ~

Get it to gether.

Gether

I'm learning all these new words. Give me a break (brake?).

"extreem"? extreme.

There is no English word that ends in "reem."

"shread" is short for "shreaded whet" which is what all the groovy people say.

Shredded Whet? Shredded What?

"shread" is short for "shreaded whet" which is what all the groovy people say.

Shredded Whet? Shredded What?

He ended the sentence with a preposition

A young man from the South did well in school and earned a scholarship to Harvard. His first day on campus, he was walking across the quad, and came upon a cluster of preppies. He stopped to ask directions:

'Scuse me, folks, but can y'all tell me where the library's at?

At Hah-vahd, one does not end a sentence with a preposition!

Let me rephrase that:
Can y'all tell me where the library's at, asshole?

All you grammar nazis point correct me when I use affect as a noun, or effect as a verb, but I don't think even most grammar nazis really understand the difference.

Check some definitions. Both words can be used as nouns or transitive verbs. It's complicated.

The first definition of "affect" is "To have an influence on or effect a change in."

Anyway. I guess not that complicated. But not the stupidest mistake someone could make.

Get a FUCKING CLUE.

WHOOPS!


Here's the link

-uso.
Karmawhoring

Unfortunately this list is politicaly charged, in many cases blatantly made up, and frankly, a list of non-stories. As someone quite opposed to censorship, I was very dissapointed to not see any censored stories. These people are giving the anti-censorship movement a bad name.

My counters are not to the poster that put them here for /. reader usage, but to the list creators. I realize I am harsh here, but to use the mantle of censorship exposure to touts personal political opinions that have nothing to do with censorship ticks me off.

#1: Is this any different than the "Progressive" plan for global dominance? Second Superpower ring a bell to anyone? All political idealogues want to dominate everyone's politics, laws and morals.
#2: This is censored? Most days I have trouble finding news coverage that doesn't cover "Homeland Security".
#3: Which Iraqi report? I'm fairly sure with the war and all that the US has probably had hundreds, if not thousands of reports generated on Iraq. Chances are pretty good that most of them have been edited, just like my own reports for college were.
#4: How this can be anything other than propaganda I don't know. Are we supposed to go back to ignoring them like we did under Clinton? USS Cole, Embassies in Africa, Apartment buildings, 9/11 were all results of non-action about terrorists.
#5: We finally have something that has a gain of credibility. Unfortunately this story is out of date by over a century. Since anti-union measures have been reported by the media, it's not censorship.
#6: This is so ambigous as to be meaningless. Are we referring to library filters? That was certainly reported. What about DRM attempts by big business? Disney's attempts were promptly squashed in Congress when the people got hold of that attempt.
#7: Hm, the only treaty we "Busted" was the one that kept us from developing an anti-missle defense. And that one was busted with full notice to Russia. It also made worldwide news for months - thus not censored. Perhaps there referring to Kyoto which we have never approved?
#8: These are illegal? Says who? Not only that, but I certainly heard about their use, so it's not censored.
#9: West of China, North of Pakistan, East of Iran, South of Turkmenistan, South of Uzbekistan, and South of Tajikistan. Perhaps they need an atlas?
#10: Really, near as I can tell most of the world is content to ignore Africa, and I can't think of anybody who would want to invade it. I'm also not aware of any countries setting up colonies anywhere, much less Africa. I will give though that a story broke about China and India talking about colonizing the moon in a decade, but that's a pretty long ways from Africa.
#11: What massacare? We seem to be giving them pretty good treatment compared to the other countries they could face and they know it. Even the ones released from Guantameno have told people that.
#12: There have been some stories about corporate right to free speach that made the news (Telemarketers are suing over do not call list), so how is this censored? As for Corporate Personhood, that story is more than a few years old, and certainly made the news.
#13: Would this be the green self deactiving landmines they are developing or the lead free bullets that are being developed? How about the next generation HUMVEE which will be a hybrid - our best chance of getting real Hybrid technology researched for the masses?
#14: I've heard of a lot of unwanted refugess trying to get into Britain, Australia and the US - hey aren't those the evil bad repressive countries?
#15: Really, I recall the failed military couple making worldwide news. Bush was behind it? Is this like the CIA distributing crack in poor neighborhoods to make sure Blacks are repressed?
#16: We finally have a real reference. I hope they have some facts to back this up, their not batting very good so far, and

If you are referring to the word "Bated" as which some controversy has already started over, see below.

bate1 1. To lessen the force or intensity of; moderate: "To his dying day he bated his breath a little when he told the story" (George Eliot). See Usage Note at bait1. 2. To take away; subtract.

Usage Note: The word baited is sometimes incorrectly substituted for the etymologically correct but unfamiliar word bated ("abated; suspended") in the expression bated breath bated on dictionary.com

according to this it is

;)

A few helpful links from Google.

If you check out dictionary.com's definition of steal, it seems clearer. "To steal" is broader than "you have the item, now I do not." The first definition is "to take (the property of another) without right or permission."

Again according to dictionary.com, the 3rd definition of property is "Something tangible or intangible to which its owner has legal title: properties such as copyrights and trademarks." So, I think steal applies, at least according to dictionary.com, because to steal is to take property, and property can be somethign intangible like a copyright.

With all of that said, saying steal is, if not inaccurate, at least confusing. According to this article on O'Reilly, copyright infringement would be a much better way to say what SCO is claiming (IMO, this would apply to the RIAA as well).

So, I guess the short answer is that "theft" doesn't necessary mean that I no longer have it, only that you do, and the longer answer is that "infringed my copyright" would be a perhaps more useful choice of words.

Well, useful for people who want to have rational, non-emotional, thinking conversations. What gets more attention in the court of public option: 1) "You infringed my copyright !" or 2) "You're a thief!"? IMHO, that is why they use the word "steal."

farrago Ok, now I'll admit ESR has a bigger vocabulary than I do!

us Aren't many of you /.ers also software developers like me?

Yes. I, for one, am.

...then why is it acceptable for people to take my product w/o compensating me?

I think this is how you are using the word take:
Take:
11. To appropriate for one's own or another's use or benefit; obtain by purchase; secure or buy: We always take season tickets.
27. To remove from a place: take the dishes from the sink.

Appropriate:(v)
To take possession of or make use of exclusively for oneself, often without permission

Exclusive:
3. Not divided or shared with others: exclusive publishing rights.

Remove:
1. To move from a place or position occupied: removed the cups from the table
2. To transfer or convey from one place to another: removed the family to Texas.

Semantics, I know, but you are using obviously tainted words, intended to draw an emotional reaction, by linking a non-physical item to actions that, when taken with physical items, have a completely differant effect (duplication vs. appropriation).

Would you support a company protecting its rights if there were only dozens of thieves instead of scores of millions?

There is no natural right to profit, nor is there a natural right to "prevent other people from using my ideas" (copyright).

Remember why we have copyright in the first place: At the time of the founding of this country, there was a very real barrier to innovation: Cost of Communication! In order for your great idea to be used & accepted, people have to get it (the idea). This requires distrobution, and (at the time) a very real cost was involved in the physical media necessary to allow this distrobution.

As such, someone with more funding than I, who heard my idea, could easily take advantage of that fact, by producing many times more "physical couriers" for "my" idea, and therefore could beat me to the punch, or even take complete credit & financial gain by being there first, or more cheaply (due to high volumes of medium purchased), etc.

I submit that there is no longer the need for this type of exclusive protection anymore.

Information can now be distributed to society without the need for a physical medium.

Since copyright is not a natural right, instead it is a social contract (We give you limited monopoly, then you MUST release all information and all claims to all information to ANYONE who wants it, so that THEY can build upon YOUR ideas like YOU built upon someone else's), and the contract is not being upheld by the "other" party.
Furthermore, I (and many others) find that this contract is being abused in horrible ways, even to the point of prosecution and extortion. As such, I cannot in good consience allow this to continue. I do everything I can to oppose this.

Let me take this opportunity to say, although I author a p2p program, I myself have not bought a RIAA CD or downloaded an RIAA MP3 in years (at least 3).
Believe it or not, it's true.

Remember: The usefulness of copyright was To Get Information (art, science, inventions, etc) to the PEOPLE of society.

Wait a minute, are you sure? Wasn't it to give those artists/inventors/musicions/whatever a livelihood? NO NO NO a thousand times NO!

Everything that a human being produces, in terms of information or art or stories or whatever, has has (implicit

us Aren't many of you /.ers also software developers like me?

Yes. I, for one, am.

...then why is it acceptable for people to take my product w/o compensating me?

I think this is how you are using the word take:
Take:
11. To appropriate for one's own or another's use or benefit; obtain by purchase; secure or buy: We always take season tickets.
27. To remove from a place: take the dishes from the sink.

Appropriate:(v)
To take possession of or make use of exclusively for oneself, often without permission

Exclusive:
3. Not divided or shared with others: exclusive publishing rights.

Remove:
1. To move from a place or position occupied: removed the cups from the table
2. To transfer or convey from one place to another: removed the family to Texas.

Semantics, I know, but you are using obviously tainted words, intended to draw an emotional reaction, by linking a non-physical item to actions that, when taken with physical items, have a completely differant effect (duplication vs. appropriation).

Would you support a company protecting its rights if there were only dozens of thieves instead of scores of millions?

There is no natural right to profit, nor is there a natural right to "prevent other people from using my ideas" (copyright).

Remember why we have copyright in the first place: At the time of the founding of this country, there was a very real barrier to innovation: Cost of Communication! In order for your great idea to be used & accepted, people have to get it (the idea). This requires distrobution, and (at the time) a very real cost was involved in the physical media necessary to allow this distrobution.

As such, someone with more funding than I, who heard my idea, could easily take advantage of that fact, by producing many times more "physical couriers" for "my" idea, and therefore could beat me to the punch, or even take complete credit & financial gain by being there first, or more cheaply (due to high volumes of medium purchased), etc.

I submit that there is no longer the need for this type of exclusive protection anymore.

Information can now be distributed to society without the need for a physical medium.

Since copyright is not a natural right, instead it is a social contract (We give you limited monopoly, then you MUST release all information and all claims to all information to ANYONE who wants it, so that THEY can build upon YOUR ideas like YOU built upon someone else's), and the contract is not being upheld by the "other" party.
Furthermore, I (and many others) find that this contract is being abused in horrible ways, even to the point of prosecution and extortion. As such, I cannot in good consience allow this to continue. I do everything I can to oppose this.

Let me take this opportunity to say, although I author a p2p program, I myself have not bought a RIAA CD or downloaded an RIAA MP3 in years (at least 3).
Believe it or not, it's true.

Remember: The usefulness of copyright was To Get Information (art, science, inventions, etc) to the PEOPLE of society.

Wait a minute, are you sure? Wasn't it to give those artists/inventors/musicions/whatever a livelihood? NO NO NO a thousand times NO!

Everything that a human being produces, in terms of information or art or stories or whatever, has has (implicit

us Aren't many of you /.ers also software developers like me?

Yes. I, for one, am.

...then why is it acceptable for people to take my product w/o compensating me?

I think this is how you are using the word take:
Take:
11. To appropriate for one's own or another's use or benefit; obtain by purchase; secure or buy: We always take season tickets.
27. To remove from a place: take the dishes from the sink.

Appropriate:(v)
To take possession of or make use of exclusively for oneself, often without permission

Exclusive:
3. Not divided or shared with others: exclusive publishing rights.

Remove:
1. To move from a place or position occupied: removed the cups from the table
2. To transfer or convey from one place to another: removed the family to Texas.

Semantics, I know, but you are using obviously tainted words, intended to draw an emotional reaction, by linking a non-physical item to actions that, when taken with physical items, have a completely differant effect (duplication vs. appropriation).

Would you support a company protecting its rights if there were only dozens of thieves instead of scores of millions?

There is no natural right to profit, nor is there a natural right to "prevent other people from using my ideas" (copyright).

Remember why we have copyright in the first place: At the time of the founding of this country, there was a very real barrier to innovation: Cost of Communication! In order for your great idea to be used & accepted, people have to get it (the idea). This requires distrobution, and (at the time) a very real cost was involved in the physical media necessary to allow this distrobution.

As such, someone with more funding than I, who heard my idea, could easily take advantage of that fact, by producing many times more "physical couriers" for "my" idea, and therefore could beat me to the punch, or even take complete credit & financial gain by being there first, or more cheaply (due to high volumes of medium purchased), etc.

I submit that there is no longer the need for this type of exclusive protection anymore.

Information can now be distributed to society without the need for a physical medium.

Since copyright is not a natural right, instead it is a social contract (We give you limited monopoly, then you MUST release all information and all claims to all information to ANYONE who wants it, so that THEY can build upon YOUR ideas like YOU built upon someone else's), and the contract is not being upheld by the "other" party.
Furthermore, I (and many others) find that this contract is being abused in horrible ways, even to the point of prosecution and extortion. As such, I cannot in good consience allow this to continue. I do everything I can to oppose this.

Let me take this opportunity to say, although I author a p2p program, I myself have not bought a RIAA CD or downloaded an RIAA MP3 in years (at least 3).
Believe it or not, it's true.

Remember: The usefulness of copyright was To Get Information (art, science, inventions, etc) to the PEOPLE of society.

Wait a minute, are you sure? Wasn't it to give those artists/inventors/musicions/whatever a livelihood? NO NO NO a thousand times NO!

Everything that a human being produces, in terms of information or art or stories or whatever, has has (implicit

us Aren't many of you /.ers also software developers like me?

Yes. I, for one, am.

...then why is it acceptable for people to take my product w/o compensating me?

I think this is how you are using the word take:
Take:
11. To appropriate for one's own or another's use or benefit; obtain by purchase; secure or buy: We always take season tickets.
27. To remove from a place: take the dishes from the sink.

Appropriate:(v)
To take possession of or make use of exclusively for oneself, often without permission

Exclusive:
3. Not divided or shared with others: exclusive publishing rights.

Remove:
1. To move from a place or position occupied: removed the cups from the table
2. To transfer or convey from one place to another: removed the family to Texas.

Semantics, I know, but you are using obviously tainted words, intended to draw an emotional reaction, by linking a non-physical item to actions that, when taken with physical items, have a completely differant effect (duplication vs. appropriation).

Would you support a company protecting its rights if there were only dozens of thieves instead of scores of millions?

There is no natural right to profit, nor is there a natural right to "prevent other people from using my ideas" (copyright).

Remember why we have copyright in the first place: At the time of the founding of this country, there was a very real barrier to innovation: Cost of Communication! In order for your great idea to be used & accepted, people have to get it (the idea). This requires distrobution, and (at the time) a very real cost was involved in the physical media necessary to allow this distrobution.

As such, someone with more funding than I, who heard my idea, could easily take advantage of that fact, by producing many times more "physical couriers" for "my" idea, and therefore could beat me to the punch, or even take complete credit & financial gain by being there first, or more cheaply (due to high volumes of medium purchased), etc.

I submit that there is no longer the need for this type of exclusive protection anymore.

Information can now be distributed to society without the need for a physical medium.

Since copyright is not a natural right, instead it is a social contract (We give you limited monopoly, then you MUST release all information and all claims to all information to ANYONE who wants it, so that THEY can build upon YOUR ideas like YOU built upon someone else's), and the contract is not being upheld by the "other" party.
Furthermore, I (and many others) find that this contract is being abused in horrible ways, even to the point of prosecution and extortion. As such, I cannot in good consience allow this to continue. I do everything I can to oppose this.

Let me take this opportunity to say, although I author a p2p program, I myself have not bought a RIAA CD or downloaded an RIAA MP3 in years (at least 3).
Believe it or not, it's true.

Remember: The usefulness of copyright was To Get Information (art, science, inventions, etc) to the PEOPLE of society.

Wait a minute, are you sure? Wasn't it to give those artists/inventors/musicions/whatever a livelihood? NO NO NO a thousand times NO!

Everything that a human being produces, in terms of information or art or stories or whatever, has has (implicit

Folks...errr...we might need to slightly modify our previous "emission-free, clean" statements. The statements are still true, but for a slightly smaller value of "true" than we'd used originally.

Folks...errr...we might need to slightly modify our previous "emission-free, clean" statements. The statements are still true, but for a slightly smaller value of "true" than we'd used originally.

speel chekas for controversial Adrian Lamo case!

ReiserFS is bullshit.

Bout this OSS thing ... does it run on Linux?

That's exactly the sort of thing central planners do--and that's exactly why they fail. We love our cars (most of us; the exceptions are just so much statistical noise). The central planner will spend a shitload of money on a little-used system. Gosh, that was efficient.
That's the whole point. People will not love their cars, unless they have them. For you the efficiency of the market is an axiom. Forget about it for a moment. There isn't only one optimal solution. And public transportation system will be used if there is no alternative in the form of expensive and polluting personal cars. And people will be happy. As one of the Murphy's laws says, "Left to themselves, things tend to go from bad to worse." That is often true about market. Just look at American music and movies. The fact that they are made in a free market doesn't mean they are the best possible. Countries where movie and/or music production was controlled (planned) had higher quality products. Of course, let to themselves, people will consistently choose crap over quality product in this area, that's precisely why free market fails.

Nope--as wealthy as he and Warren Buffet are, their net worths are a mere drop in an enormous economic bucket.

Sorry, I chose wrong words, it's not the most important thing, given the cumulative wealth of other people. What I meant is that BG's happiness is many times more important than the happiness of any other person. This indeed is easily proven.

And what's so wrong with someone's value being approximate to his wealth?

Do you think that Bill's job was hundred thousand of times more important than creation of penicillin or invention of WWW? Than Ghandi's work? Than MLK's job?

That's because Russia's market wasn't free.

Because free market has absolute efficiency by definition. If any market is not efficient and people starve there this is not a free market. Very useful logic to defend the free market. :)

Russia is a text-book example of how not to be free.
In many aspects Russia is freer today than the US. And Americans better do something now, or they might be become the next example in the 2020 textbooks. :)

Fine--that means you'd rather be a slave than a free man.
Bullshit. You have no idea what slavery is. Waiting in line to buy something is not slavery, otherwise we can consider Americans to be slaves during WW2. If you want to call it slavery, I can simply call your mother a whore and end this discussion.

Jeez!

PVR is an acronym, not an abbreviation. For the purposes of popping up some little help text describing the expansion of "PVR", either would work, but for non-visual user agents, or user agents that want to do something a little more intelligent than this, it's important to distinguish between the two, as they are fundamentally different.

PVR is an acronym, not an abbreviation. For the purposes of popping up some little help text describing the expansion of "PVR", either would work, but for non-visual user agents, or user agents that want to do something a little more intelligent than this, it's important to distinguish between the two, as they are fundamentally different.

There is no longer such a country as Burma. It is now called Myanmar.

-uso.

This is how it is done on Slashdot.

>Just because one is monoglot^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hanglophone it doesn't mean one shouldn't try to write accents when necessary... nee doesn't mean anything, the French word meaning born being nee in the feminine, masculine ne.

When a foreign word is anglicized, it typically loses its accents. See resume (the paper kind), for example. If you don't like how english operates in general, I humbly suggest you don't use it.

FYI: Nee is certainly a valid english word without the accents. Look it up before flaming next time. To REALLY bug you, noel requires no accent, also.

>Just because one is monoglot^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hanglophone it doesn't mean one shouldn't try to write accents when necessary... nee doesn't mean anything, the French word meaning born being nee in the feminine, masculine ne.

When a foreign word is anglicized, it typically loses its accents. See resume (the paper kind), for example. If you don't like how english operates in general, I humbly suggest you don't use it.

FYI: Nee is certainly a valid english word without the accents. Look it up before flaming next time. To REALLY bug you, noel requires no accent, also.

>Just because one is monoglot^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hanglophone it doesn't mean one shouldn't try to write accents when necessary... nee doesn't mean anything, the French word meaning born being nee in the feminine, masculine ne.

When a foreign word is anglicized, it typically loses its accents. See resume (the paper kind), for example. If you don't like how english operates in general, I humbly suggest you don't use it.

FYI: Nee is certainly a valid english word without the accents. Look it up before flaming next time. To REALLY bug you, noel requires no accent, also.

copywrite

attach

copywrite

attach

copywrite

attach

asshole

Please review the dictionary before stating that distribution of copywrited material is not piracy. Definition number 2 according to Dictonary.com is "The unauthorized use or reproduction of copyrighted or patented material: software piracy" Here is a link for you in the future Piracy

..and what about people who just leech? This couldn't be considered 'sharing':

From http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=sharing:

3 entries found for sharing.
share1 ( P ) Pronunciation Key (shar)
n.
A part or portion belonging to, distributed to, contributed by, or owed by a person or group.
An equitable portion: do one's share of the work.
Any of the equal parts into which the capital stock of a corporation or company is divided.

v. shared, sharing, shares
v. tr.
To divide and parcel out in shares; apportion.
To participate in, use, enjoy, or experience jointly or in turns.
To relate (a secret or experience, for example) to another or others.
To accord a share in (something) to another or others: shared her chocolate bar with a friend.

v. intr.
To have a share or part: shared in the profits.
To allow someone to use or enjoy something that one possesses: Being in daycare taught the child to share.
To use or enjoy something jointly or in turns: There is only one computer, so we will have to share.

Idiom:
go shares
To be concerned or partake equally or jointly, as in a business venture.

Emphasis mine.

So, don't offer any downloads & you're not 'sharing'.

Here's some logic, following dictionary.com.

Property, definition 2: The right of ownership; title.

Steal, definition 1: To take (the property of another) without right or permission.

Take, verb, definition 1: To acquire possession.

RIAA has the right of ownership to the songs. A person distributes through a P2P, which according to copyright law requires ownership or title to do so. Therefor, the person aquired possession of the ownership and distribution rights without permission of the rightful owners (RIAA.)

Ergo, distributing songs in which you do not have ownership from is in fact stealing.

That was a lot of fun.. I'm a touch too bored right now.

Here's some logic, following dictionary.com.

Property, definition 2: The right of ownership; title.

Steal, definition 1: To take (the property of another) without right or permission.

Take, verb, definition 1: To acquire possession.

RIAA has the right of ownership to the songs. A person distributes through a P2P, which according to copyright law requires ownership or title to do so. Therefor, the person aquired possession of the ownership and distribution rights without permission of the rightful owners (RIAA.)

Ergo, distributing songs in which you do not have ownership from is in fact stealing.

That was a lot of fun.. I'm a touch too bored right now.

Here's some logic, following dictionary.com.

Property, definition 2: The right of ownership; title.

Steal, definition 1: To take (the property of another) without right or permission.

Take, verb, definition 1: To acquire possession.

RIAA has the right of ownership to the songs. A person distributes through a P2P, which according to copyright law requires ownership or title to do so. Therefor, the person aquired possession of the ownership and distribution rights without permission of the rightful owners (RIAA.)

Ergo, distributing songs in which you do not have ownership from is in fact stealing.

That was a lot of fun.. I'm a touch too bored right now.

I know this was modded funny, but the poster is absolutely right!

The downside, however, is that it's a slow process. That cup of sugar could take weeks to digest. Still, a slow but steady trickle of electricity can be used to charge up a battery, which can then discharge large amounts of power when needed.

Obviously stacking a large cluster of these in a battery type configuration would solve the voltage/current supply issue.

Did you miss the citation on that particular definition?

Source: Jargon File 4.2.0

How did I know some ignorant Slashbot would come along and call me a racist.

From dictionary.com, racism is either a belief that one race is superior and that "race accounts for differences in human character and ability" or "discrimination or prejudice based on race." What I discussed was the second definition of racism, it's one that most people understand to be racism, and it's in the dictionary.

There's no requirement for racism to be systematic, organized, or intentional. For example, not interviewing minority candidates for a job would be considered racism. A waiter in a restaurant, even without thinking about it, seating a minority family towards the back could be considered racism. And what do you think the term "racial slur" means, if it's not about racism?

I take the issue of race very seriously and we ought to understand it for what it is. That means not being afraid to call something racism when it is, and not mis-using the term on something that isn't racism.

My point still stands.

Definition of defnestration from dictionary.com

"defenestration

n. [mythically from a traditional Czech
assasination method, via SF fandom] 1. Proper karmic retribution for
an incorrigible punster. "Oh, ghod, that was _awful_!" "Quick!
Defenestrate him!" 2. The act of exiting a window system in order
to get better response time from a full-screen program. This comes
from the dictionary meaning of `defenestrate', which is to throw
something out a window. 3. The act of discarding something under
the assumption that it will improve matters. "I don't have any disk
space left." "Well, why don't you defenestrate that 100 megs worth
of old core dumps?" 4. Under a GUI, the act of dragging something
out of a window (onto the screen). "Next, defenestrate the MugWump
icon." 5. The act of completely removing Micro$oft Windows from a
PC in favor of a better OS (typically Linux)."

Is dictionary.com run by /.?

There exist what appear to be semi-trailers in GTA, but they're like buildings- shooting at them or running a vehicle into them doesn't do anything. Whatever vehicle it is just bounces off and the semi-trailer doesn't move. You can't attach one to a tractor (by tractor I mean the sort which appears suited for the purpose, like the Linerunner in game someone posted a picture of earlier or the tractor portion of the truck picture above.)

There are no trailers in GTA, the engine can't handle the articulation.

There exist what appear to be semi-trailers in GTA, but they're like buildings- shooting at them or running a vehicle into them doesn't do anything. Whatever vehicle it is just bounces off and the semi-trailer doesn't move. You can't attach one to a tractor (by tractor I mean the sort which appears suited for the purpose, like the Linerunner in game someone posted a picture of earlier or the tractor portion of the truck picture above.)

There are no trailers in GTA, the engine can't handle the articulation.

And If it is true, what's so hard about writing 200 Billion?

Probably the whole UK/US billion thing (although the UK billion = 10^12 is only rarely used now, as far as I've seen)