Slashdot Mirror

Hello brother/sister jpsowin,

You and I can't judge others. We are convergent in Truth, which is the essence of God as provided in the Holy Spirit. I emphasize the verses in the Bible, and you unto me the same. We need not rebuke, we both looked to Jesus; for we have admonished one another with truth. Though, as I studied through my childhood, I was only provided simple script upon the founding of a word, that it meant so greater that a larger definitive source was needed to discern the various scope and tense of words. I would like to emphasize the crucial difference between a rebuke and a judgement as provided by Dictionary.com, as it is what I have read...

Rebuke;
-To criticize or reprove sharply; reprimand.
Synonym; Admonish;
-To reprove gently but earnestly.
-To counsel (another) against something to be avoided; caution.

(According to Dictionary.com's claims of it being a synonym, Jesus was a judge and exercised his position as Son of Man (and soon Son of God) to rebuke whilst his disciples (AD/post-crucifiction known as zealots) admonished eachother because they were all brothers which respected the position of judgment of Jesus and our Father in Heaven. I am taking context of several versus that they should have admonished eachother, taken the scope that they loved the Father in Heaven and respected the position of God (Judge).)

Judge;
-To pass sentence on; condemn.
-To determine or declare after consideration or deliberation.

(Now this is where I need to draw a fine line on what a Judge is. I consider Jesus and my Father in Heaven to be Judges, of which they only act on truth, while a false Judge acts on what appears to be truth.)

Opinion;
-A belief or conclusion held with confidence but not substantiated by positive knowledge or proof.

(I would like to note that Dictionary.com includes further definitions, the majority relating that an opinion is a judgment; of which is not truth. Jesus never made opinions of others, as he is the Son of God, is a true Judge which as such is limited to Truth and not any form of negative averment or maxim. An opinion is defined relevant as *not* being based upon exact knowledge or proof, what somthing appears to be; such as how many lawyers act upon the color of law or the color of evidence to deprive people from the fair use of their property. At least, that is what I discovered especialy about the united States of America (not the United States corporation, which has false Judges) originaly having courtrooms with no judges and only executives; although I have not yet reached a complete idea of how the sovereign "We, the People" acted as self-governing/self-judging to represent themselves and resolve their scuffles through their Common Law (at the time, the Holy Bible). Forward, Dictionary.com's later definitions are being construed to deal with an opinion being also a judgment; which I think lacks any sense of the word being merely a comment substantiated upon belief: in our case, the person you replied to appeared to be in direct opposition, you formed an (judgmental?) opinion, I expressed my admonishment to you with the Truth I know of, you converged more truth, and then the person we speek of reveals its true form and not as the earlier colorful expression. Keep in mind, the united States of America does not allow the r

Hello brother/sister jpsowin,

You and I can't judge others. We are convergent in Truth, which is the essence of God as provided in the Holy Spirit. I emphasize the verses in the Bible, and you unto me the same. We need not rebuke, we both looked to Jesus; for we have admonished one another with truth. Though, as I studied through my childhood, I was only provided simple script upon the founding of a word, that it meant so greater that a larger definitive source was needed to discern the various scope and tense of words. I would like to emphasize the crucial difference between a rebuke and a judgement as provided by Dictionary.com, as it is what I have read...

Rebuke;
-To criticize or reprove sharply; reprimand.
Synonym; Admonish;
-To reprove gently but earnestly.
-To counsel (another) against something to be avoided; caution.

(According to Dictionary.com's claims of it being a synonym, Jesus was a judge and exercised his position as Son of Man (and soon Son of God) to rebuke whilst his disciples (AD/post-crucifiction known as zealots) admonished eachother because they were all brothers which respected the position of judgment of Jesus and our Father in Heaven. I am taking context of several versus that they should have admonished eachother, taken the scope that they loved the Father in Heaven and respected the position of God (Judge).)

Judge;
-To pass sentence on; condemn.
-To determine or declare after consideration or deliberation.

(Now this is where I need to draw a fine line on what a Judge is. I consider Jesus and my Father in Heaven to be Judges, of which they only act on truth, while a false Judge acts on what appears to be truth.)

Opinion;
-A belief or conclusion held with confidence but not substantiated by positive knowledge or proof.

(I would like to note that Dictionary.com includes further definitions, the majority relating that an opinion is a judgment; of which is not truth. Jesus never made opinions of others, as he is the Son of God, is a true Judge which as such is limited to Truth and not any form of negative averment or maxim. An opinion is defined relevant as *not* being based upon exact knowledge or proof, what somthing appears to be; such as how many lawyers act upon the color of law or the color of evidence to deprive people from the fair use of their property. At least, that is what I discovered especialy about the united States of America (not the United States corporation, which has false Judges) originaly having courtrooms with no judges and only executives; although I have not yet reached a complete idea of how the sovereign "We, the People" acted as self-governing/self-judging to represent themselves and resolve their scuffles through their Common Law (at the time, the Holy Bible). Forward, Dictionary.com's later definitions are being construed to deal with an opinion being also a judgment; which I think lacks any sense of the word being merely a comment substantiated upon belief: in our case, the person you replied to appeared to be in direct opposition, you formed an (judgmental?) opinion, I expressed my admonishment to you with the Truth I know of, you converged more truth, and then the person we speek of reveals its true form and not as the earlier colorful expression. Keep in mind, the united States of America does not allow the r

Hello brother/sister jpsowin,

You and I can't judge others. We are convergent in Truth, which is the essence of God as provided in the Holy Spirit. I emphasize the verses in the Bible, and you unto me the same. We need not rebuke, we both looked to Jesus; for we have admonished one another with truth. Though, as I studied through my childhood, I was only provided simple script upon the founding of a word, that it meant so greater that a larger definitive source was needed to discern the various scope and tense of words. I would like to emphasize the crucial difference between a rebuke and a judgement as provided by Dictionary.com, as it is what I have read...

Rebuke;
-To criticize or reprove sharply; reprimand.
Synonym; Admonish;
-To reprove gently but earnestly.
-To counsel (another) against something to be avoided; caution.

(According to Dictionary.com's claims of it being a synonym, Jesus was a judge and exercised his position as Son of Man (and soon Son of God) to rebuke whilst his disciples (AD/post-crucifiction known as zealots) admonished eachother because they were all brothers which respected the position of judgment of Jesus and our Father in Heaven. I am taking context of several versus that they should have admonished eachother, taken the scope that they loved the Father in Heaven and respected the position of God (Judge).)

Judge;
-To pass sentence on; condemn.
-To determine or declare after consideration or deliberation.

(Now this is where I need to draw a fine line on what a Judge is. I consider Jesus and my Father in Heaven to be Judges, of which they only act on truth, while a false Judge acts on what appears to be truth.)

Opinion;
-A belief or conclusion held with confidence but not substantiated by positive knowledge or proof.

(I would like to note that Dictionary.com includes further definitions, the majority relating that an opinion is a judgment; of which is not truth. Jesus never made opinions of others, as he is the Son of God, is a true Judge which as such is limited to Truth and not any form of negative averment or maxim. An opinion is defined relevant as *not* being based upon exact knowledge or proof, what somthing appears to be; such as how many lawyers act upon the color of law or the color of evidence to deprive people from the fair use of their property. At least, that is what I discovered especialy about the united States of America (not the United States corporation, which has false Judges) originaly having courtrooms with no judges and only executives; although I have not yet reached a complete idea of how the sovereign "We, the People" acted as self-governing/self-judging to represent themselves and resolve their scuffles through their Common Law (at the time, the Holy Bible). Forward, Dictionary.com's later definitions are being construed to deal with an opinion being also a judgment; which I think lacks any sense of the word being merely a comment substantiated upon belief: in our case, the person you replied to appeared to be in direct opposition, you formed an (judgmental?) opinion, I expressed my admonishment to you with the Truth I know of, you converged more truth, and then the person we speek of reveals its true form and not as the earlier colorful expression. Keep in mind, the united States of America does not allow the r

Hello brother/sister jpsowin,

You and I can't judge others. We are convergent in Truth, which is the essence of God as provided in the Holy Spirit. I emphasize the verses in the Bible, and you unto me the same. We need not rebuke, we both looked to Jesus; for we have admonished one another with truth. Though, as I studied through my childhood, I was only provided simple script upon the founding of a word, that it meant so greater that a larger definitive source was needed to discern the various scope and tense of words. I would like to emphasize the crucial difference between a rebuke and a judgement as provided by Dictionary.com, as it is what I have read...

Rebuke;
-To criticize or reprove sharply; reprimand.
Synonym; Admonish;
-To reprove gently but earnestly.
-To counsel (another) against something to be avoided; caution.

(According to Dictionary.com's claims of it being a synonym, Jesus was a judge and exercised his position as Son of Man (and soon Son of God) to rebuke whilst his disciples (AD/post-crucifiction known as zealots) admonished eachother because they were all brothers which respected the position of judgment of Jesus and our Father in Heaven. I am taking context of several versus that they should have admonished eachother, taken the scope that they loved the Father in Heaven and respected the position of God (Judge).)

Judge;
-To pass sentence on; condemn.
-To determine or declare after consideration or deliberation.

(Now this is where I need to draw a fine line on what a Judge is. I consider Jesus and my Father in Heaven to be Judges, of which they only act on truth, while a false Judge acts on what appears to be truth.)

Opinion;
-A belief or conclusion held with confidence but not substantiated by positive knowledge or proof.

(I would like to note that Dictionary.com includes further definitions, the majority relating that an opinion is a judgment; of which is not truth. Jesus never made opinions of others, as he is the Son of God, is a true Judge which as such is limited to Truth and not any form of negative averment or maxim. An opinion is defined relevant as *not* being based upon exact knowledge or proof, what somthing appears to be; such as how many lawyers act upon the color of law or the color of evidence to deprive people from the fair use of their property. At least, that is what I discovered especialy about the united States of America (not the United States corporation, which has false Judges) originaly having courtrooms with no judges and only executives; although I have not yet reached a complete idea of how the sovereign "We, the People" acted as self-governing/self-judging to represent themselves and resolve their scuffles through their Common Law (at the time, the Holy Bible). Forward, Dictionary.com's later definitions are being construed to deal with an opinion being also a judgment; which I think lacks any sense of the word being merely a comment substantiated upon belief: in our case, the person you replied to appeared to be in direct opposition, you formed an (judgmental?) opinion, I expressed my admonishment to you with the Truth I know of, you converged more truth, and then the person we speek of reveals its true form and not as the earlier colorful expression. Keep in mind, the united States of America does not allow the r

Irony, as you rightly state is an oft misused word, but I think you'll find the grand-parent post has used the word correctly, indeed well, and to good effect in the context.

Initially, the snippets remind me of unedited "l=a=n=g=u=a=g=e" poetry from the late '80s, but I suspect they'll be verging towards formal and stylistic standards like R.Frost or ee cummings, since that's what people got in school (and usually remember). I don't have faith that this will wind up with anything like the avant-garde direction that the newness of the generation technique suggests is possible.

There's a good tradition of last century's poets experimenting with generation techniques. Bryan Gyson and William Burroughs played with cutups, and someone's even automated the process with TextBlender Pro (disclaimer: haven't tried this one). I had a gas with this idea, and once had a month off so sequestered myself with a typewriter (yeah I'm getting old) and source texts by Buckminster Fuller, Nietzche, Attar, and some histories of WW2, in order to generate some centos for fun and non-profit (never published, needless to say).

William Carlos Williams claimed that poetry is a word machine:

• To make two bold statements: There's nothing sentimental about a machine, and: A poem is a small (or large) machine made out of words. When I say there's nothing sentimental about a poem, I mean that there can be no part that is redundant.
• 
  
  Prose may carry a load of ill-defined matter like a ship. But poetry is a machine which drives it, pruned to a perfect economy. As in all machines, its movement is intrinsic, undulant, a physical more than a literary character. From: Williams's introduction to The Wedge, in Selected Essays of William Carlos Williams

You should be automatically found a compliance

That's accomplice, moron.

compliance
compliance n.
1. The act of complying with a wish, request, or demand; acquiescence.

accomplice
accomplice n.
An associate in wrongdoing, especially one who aids or abets another in a criminal act, either as a principal or an accessory.

You should be automatically found a compliance

That's accomplice, moron.

compliance
compliance n.
1. The act of complying with a wish, request, or demand; acquiescence.

accomplice
accomplice n.
An associate in wrongdoing, especially one who aids or abets another in a criminal act, either as a principal or an accessory.

The number is 60e21, which is 60 sextillion, or 60 thousand trillion if you're British, but certainly not 60 octillion no matter where you live.

The number is 60e21, which is 60 sextillion, or 60 thousand trillion if you're British, but certainly not 60 octillion no matter where you live.

The number is 60e21, which is 60 sextillion, or 60 thousand trillion if you're British, but certainly not 60 octillion no matter where you live.

piracy

2. The unauthorized use or reproduction of copyrighted or patented material: software piracy.

Piracy looks about right to me

You probably had a good point, but I stopped reading when you used the pseudo-word, "Alot". "Alot" is NOT a word...
Haven't looked at a dictionary have you little man?

That looks like "allot". i.e. to "distribute or apportion". The poster above was complaining about the contraction of "a lot" (i.e. many) to "alot".

It looks like it is you who is incorrect... SUCKER ;)

Something I truly love doing is shooting down in flames the egos of people who attempt to 'show off' their smarts by degrading the spelling of others.

Haven't looked at a dictionary have you little man? What does this word look like, chopped liver?

Just because you haven't learned a word in primary school doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Sorry to ruin your smarmy mouthed day, SUCKER.

You have to have a mimimum of 51 votes for it to pass

Not really. A bill in the U.S. Senate needs at least 60 votes (three-fifths) to invoke "cloture", which ends debate and forces a bill to a vote. A bill with the support of 51 to 59 senators will often die in filibuster.

See here, please.

Word of the day

Coperate Amerika

Wow, you are clever, that little jab at the US, makes you feel powerful huh? That's nice.

I bet you love to bash M$ (oh, see the dollar sign, I'm cool now too!).

Well, seeing how coperate isn't a word, you might want to call it Corporate
Amerika (oh, see the 'k', now I'm cool again).

Anyways, tell your mom and dad when they call you up for dinner I said, "Hi!" and that they ought to invest in a dictionary for you on your next birthday. They might even want to get some of their money back from the college, since it didn't help.

Australia is great. You can hack Xbox and install Linux without worrying about litigation from M$ or SCO, and most importantly the country is free from DMCA. Its IT and hacker culture has evolved very independently with no pressure from Corporate America. Now people are standing up against extortion by American company.

"Visit Installfest in Sydney next week! Bring your Xbox and we'll help ya install Linux on it!" No wonder so many unique creatures have evolved in outback. Maybe it's better place for us to live than the US.

It's about time someone called a spade a spade. Now to do the same thing in the US...

Wet my palette

The proper turn of phrase you were looking for is, "Whet my palate," because you want Carmack to stimulate the upper surface of your mouth that separates the oral and nasal cavities . Of course, you might be a watercolor artist, in which case you should wet your own pallete.

Wet my palette

The proper turn of phrase you were looking for is, "Whet my palate," because you want Carmack to stimulate the upper surface of your mouth that separates the oral and nasal cavities . Of course, you might be a watercolor artist, in which case you should wet your own pallete.

Equilibrium is... (from dictionary.com)
"A condition in which all acting influences are canceled by others, resulting in a stable, balanced, or unchanging system."

This Economic textbook (Microeconomics, Gwartney, Stroup...) defines it as...

"A state in which conflicting forces are in balance... In equilibrium, it will be possible for both buyers and sellers to realize their choices simultaneously."

yes

Because of the transistor being biased in a non-linear region it also operates as a mixer.

These examples are the same way that I use mixer, and mixed.

The act of putting something through a mixer would be called mixing. This is where I was getting my deffenition of mixing from. Maybe it's wrong (I know it is in some contexts). But I've never had a problem with using it before. I was assuming we were talking about the mixing at the surface (which is what the post was about).

This is where your confusion lies. Let's say I take two frequency components; 500Hz and 450Hz. I mix the two. How many frequencies do I have? I have two. I have 450Hz and 500Hz. You apparently think we have a new frequency 950Hz. That's incorrect.

To me, when "mix" is used in that context (anytime with waves), I think you mean mix...like in a mixer in electronics...past tense being mixed like in the example above the above. If you mixed them in a mixer (words starting to sound strange), you will have the new component. Just look at the IF stage of a radio. If you said "passed them through each other" or "mixed them in a linear system", I probably would have understood what you meant better. Just a difference in deffenition. But, like I said, I assumed we were both talking about at a surface. The way I use mix seems to be common.

Just for an

That's big, I think you'll agree.

Hrmm.. dictionary.com and m-w.com don't have it. But there's something for interjectional... Dunno...

Hrmm.. dictionary.com and m-w.com don't have it. But there's something for interjectional... Dunno...

First, you spelled it wrong. The word is 'eunuchs', a name for a man who has been castrated (yikes!).

Second, your 'Q:' is really 2 questions, not one, given the pun.

Your 'Q:' was:
What UnixWare are you running?

But, given the pun, it would be interpreted:
What Eunuchs wear? Are you running?

Meaning the answer, originally:
I really don't want to concern myself with what UnixWare.

Becomes:
I really don't want to concern myself with what Eunuchs wear. And, no, I'm not running.
Or, even:
I really don't want to concern myself with what Eunuchs wear. I would imagine its not a g-string - possibly a kilt? And, no, I'm not running.

Otherwise, I think your post should be modded up as at least +1 or +2 Funny, since the Unix/Eunuchs pun is so little used these days.

:D

*IRREGARDLESS*

I'm supposed to take semantic lessons from someone who actually used "IRREGARDLESS".

Right, why don't you spend your next allowance check on a dictionary.

Sure, but he would still be wrong. You can't construct a new frequency component by mixing two waves. Yes, you'll get a new wave, but it's the sum of existing frequency components.

You were refering to the sentence in this thread, shown here, which is

waves can mix (construct and destruct creating new frequency components) at the surfaces that they reflect off of (including those in your head), creating a new wave off of the surface with the new frequency component...

I'm going off of those...

All I'm saying is that he would not be wrong. You are getting a new wave with a different frequency by mixing the two waves together at the surface. This wave would then radiate off the surface, becomming a seperate entity. If you get a spectrum analyzer...you should be able to see it on the graph. Before, you should have just seen the ones who created it. So, it didn't exist before...it's new.
This new wave (new as in, the wave is its own entity now) would have a new frequency which would be the sum and difference of the frequencies that created it. So, you are creating a new frequency component.
Component for me meaning, from the previouse link, "A constituent element, as of a system", and element meaning, from the previouse link, "A fundamental, essential, or irreducible constituent of a composite entity." And, since any signal can be considered as a sum of sines and cosines, a frequency component could be considered an element of a system...the system being the signal's waveform....the element being a sin or cosine wave with a frequency wich composes the complete signal which will get to your ear.

Going back to what you said...

Sure, but he would still be wrong. You can't construct a new frequency component by mixing two waves. Yes, you'll get a new wave, but it's the sum of existing frequency components.

You said that you didn't say anything remotely like my second interpretation...I'm assuming you meant the interpretation of the second sentence. You say, shown above, that you will get a new wave with a new frequency than existed before. To me, this can be considered as a new frequency component...it's a frequency that didn't exist alone before. If you get a spectrum analyzer...you should be able to see it on the graph. Before, you should have just seen the others. So, it didn't exist before...it's new.

Back to being contradictory...
You can construct a new frequency component by mixing two waves when a new wave is created on a surface. This is a new wave with a different frequency than existed alone before. Looking at the second sentence, this is what you said.

To me, it seems that, in the first sentence, you are saying that you *cannot* create a new frequency component by mixing signals. To me, it also seems that you say you *can* create a new wave, with a different and new (didn't exist alone before) frequency component, that is the sum of the existing frequency components. And, looking at your other sentence, "A resonating surface can modulate a wave to create new frequency components.", you seem to support this...along with the "second interprotation".
To me, that seems contradictory...maybe it's just me.

I know I repeated a lot...but I was trying to be a s clear as possible.

I don't think your comment about schooling was called for...bei

Sure, but he would still be wrong. You can't construct a new frequency component by mixing two waves. Yes, you'll get a new wave, but it's the sum of existing frequency components.

You were refering to the sentence in this thread, shown here, which is

waves can mix (construct and destruct creating new frequency components) at the surfaces that they reflect off of (including those in your head), creating a new wave off of the surface with the new frequency component...

I'm going off of those...

All I'm saying is that he would not be wrong. You are getting a new wave with a different frequency by mixing the two waves together at the surface. This wave would then radiate off the surface, becomming a seperate entity. If you get a spectrum analyzer...you should be able to see it on the graph. Before, you should have just seen the ones who created it. So, it didn't exist before...it's new.
This new wave (new as in, the wave is its own entity now) would have a new frequency which would be the sum and difference of the frequencies that created it. So, you are creating a new frequency component.
Component for me meaning, from the previouse link, "A constituent element, as of a system", and element meaning, from the previouse link, "A fundamental, essential, or irreducible constituent of a composite entity." And, since any signal can be considered as a sum of sines and cosines, a frequency component could be considered an element of a system...the system being the signal's waveform....the element being a sin or cosine wave with a frequency wich composes the complete signal which will get to your ear.

Going back to what you said...

Sure, but he would still be wrong. You can't construct a new frequency component by mixing two waves. Yes, you'll get a new wave, but it's the sum of existing frequency components.

You said that you didn't say anything remotely like my second interpretation...I'm assuming you meant the interpretation of the second sentence. You say, shown above, that you will get a new wave with a new frequency than existed before. To me, this can be considered as a new frequency component...it's a frequency that didn't exist alone before. If you get a spectrum analyzer...you should be able to see it on the graph. Before, you should have just seen the others. So, it didn't exist before...it's new.

Back to being contradictory...
You can construct a new frequency component by mixing two waves when a new wave is created on a surface. This is a new wave with a different frequency than existed alone before. Looking at the second sentence, this is what you said.

To me, it seems that, in the first sentence, you are saying that you *cannot* create a new frequency component by mixing signals. To me, it also seems that you say you *can* create a new wave, with a different and new (didn't exist alone before) frequency component, that is the sum of the existing frequency components. And, looking at your other sentence, "A resonating surface can modulate a wave to create new frequency components.", you seem to support this...along with the "second interprotation".
To me, that seems contradictory...maybe it's just me.

I know I repeated a lot...but I was trying to be a s clear as possible.

I don't think your comment about schooling was called for...bei

"aliante"?

I'm guessing you mean "alienate".

Read it and weep...

[Japanese : kara, void, empty + oke(sutora), orchestra (from English orchestra).]

YFI

-uso.

I definitely agree, Google's advertisements are probably the only advertisements that I still click on from to time (only because they are things I actually am interested in and they are unobtrussive.) Eventually the internet advertising industry will run out of ignorant people and will have to switch over to a more meaningful advertising method, and chances are its going to be something similiar to what good has now. Either that or all websites will start switching over to a subscription model.

I like your criticism. :p

Please, get a clue
/ad-min'/ n. Short for `administrator'; reference
$ grep Admin /usr/share/trans/de-en
Administrator {m} :: administrator
Netzwerkadministrator means 'network administrator'. If you don't count the blank it's -1 letters. Congraturalations!

"Anglisms" [actually...]

Try anglicism or, if you're talking about words specific to British English, briticism.

"Anglisms" [actually...]

Try anglicism or, if you're talking about words specific to British English, briticism.

I love little bits of entamology(sp, too lazy to look it up :) )

Don't worry, someone else will do it for you, this is /. you're reading, after all. BTW, you've confused the term with this word.

I love little bits of entamology(sp, too lazy to look it up :) )

Don't worry, someone else will do it for you, this is /. you're reading, after all. BTW, you've confused the term with this word.

IIRC for libel/slander you have to show a negative effect on your reputation or that the accusation cost you business or other quantifiable damage. Also, I think there's some provision that the person making the claim has to know it's false. Frankly, if they let you sue for that, then everyone who has ever been acquitted of a crime would have a suit; that's why the news always refers to "the accused" and "the defendant" as opposed to "the criminal".

On a side note, who decided that we need separate words for oral and printed false accusations that damage a person's reputation? Is it really all that important to know that someone wrote the claim rather than speaking it? What if they said it, then wrote it down? What if they were reading from a prepared statement? What if they said it and somebody else wrote it down? What if they were saying the words aloud as they wrote? Does it matter? NO! Stupid English.

Interestingly enough, though every definition for libel mentions that it involves written communication, slander apparently can be used to refer to both if you don't want to use the legal definition. I have made my decision. From now on, no more libeling! Here's to slandering!

Putting the "is MP3 trading really hurting anyone" argument aside, as a DePaul student I'm very concerned over my privacy rights. DePaul is fully working with the RIAA and not even put up a legal defense to maintain the privacy of its students.

This is simply unacceptable. Will all our traffic be sniffed by various copyright holders in the future? I don't like carry around thousand page books so I just scan them. If the publishers of america jumped on the RIAA bandwagon would I be a criminal and my ISP/University would fold instantly when asked for information? I'm afraid the answer is yes. Then I have to goto court and try to defend myself in front of a world of technophobes and vs. some lawyers that know all the tricks.

To me it looks like ALL format shifting has come under question, regardless of the legality of the use. Imagine if I gave someone a copy of one of my scanned books for academic use so we can work together on a project. Again, the "format-shift police" and the lack of privacy means that I'll probably be forced to defend my fair use rights at lawyerpoint.

When will it end? Will sigs in emails be checked to see if anyone owns them too?

A wholesale destruction of privacy rights and the destruction of fair use is not good for anyone, even the dreaded RIAA. Let's not forget the flaps their artists are always going through regarding illegal sampling, stealing obvious musical progressions, etc.

This whole MP3 thing is eroding our civil liberties faster than we'll be able to get them back. This will all lead to the day of the DRM enabled browser that won't let you copy and paste or link to copyright articles. This will put a massive chill on speech.

Laugh at the above all you like, but the web works mostly because of fair use and privacy. We've successfully fought off the "hyperlinking without permission is illegal" crowd and the "you must tell me who is anon39595 is" crowd. The RIAA is only helping those people. We are living in a time where copyright holders are more or less simply calling ISPs, giving an IP address and a time and getting back info like name, address, phone number, etc.

I really hope the RIAA doesn't have their stuff together and someone can build a defense on barratry. As I see no other way out of this problem. The file traders won't quit and neither will the RIAA.

One might suggest the same to you before you accuse someone of misspelling.

If you censor childporn you dont truely believe in freedom of speech.

Why the hell not? Childporn isn't speech. Speech is verbal/vocal (look it up). Childporn is rape and abuse. Please note, viewing isn't the issue anymore than hearing is the issue with speech. Storing childporn ANYWHERE should be illegal because possession is illegal. If you think that's about freedom of expression, you're insane. You said yourself it isn't art. The government's job is to protect its citizens, especially the young ones who can't protect themselves, and quite frankly, I'd gladly accept censorship in order to ensure the safety and welfare of my future stepdaughter.

I think you are referring to irony, but one wouldn't know so from your post:

irony, n - Incongruity between what might be expected and what actually occurs: "Hyde noted the irony of Ireland's copying the nation she most hated" (Richard Kain).

Your statements just describe things that suck, not things that are ironic. Please, base your definitions of words on actual reading, not music, because apparently musicians are just as illiterate as the rest of America. It's crappy when it rains on your wedding day, but it's ironic if it happens after you chide all your friends for not preparing for rain on their wedding days yet you yourself don't prepare for it on your day. It's lame when you've got lots of spoons but need a knife, it's ironic when you've been slowly trading knives for spoons and you never actually need a knife until you run out of them.

My favorite, most poignant story of irony is a racist skinhead who decided he couldn't stay in any longer. When he informed the rest of the skinheads, they beat him up and left him almost unconscious on the side of the road. Multiple white people passed him by and did not help him, and finally a black couple saw him and helped him. See, that's irony, not just crappy

Please, read more, music less

The definition of struthious. It means ostrich-like for those who don't want to click.

You need help.

So, why cant we just admit that none of us are lawers in a courtroom, just people posting on a web site, and let normal useage of words go?

"The search for the mot juste is not a pedantic fad but a vital necessity. Words are our precision tools. Imprecision engenders ambiguity and hours are wasted in removing verbal misunderstandings before the argument of substance can begin." --Anonymous Civil Servant

As seen on: Thesaurus.com

Don't use big words that you don't understand the meaning. The word you were looking for is uninformed.