Slashdot Mirror

"Illegitimate" meaning that they are against the law.

I'm not saying that these activities are wrong or that this information should not be shared, but it still is technically illegitimate.

anarchy 1. Absence of any form of political authority. 2. Political disorder and confusion. 3. Absence of any cohesive principle, such as a common standard or purpose.

You deserve to be able to cooperate openly and freely with other people who use software. You deserve to be able to learn how the software works, and to teach your students with it. You deserve to be able to hire your favorite programmer to fix it when it breaks. You deserve free software.

[The]...ownership of a program--the power to restrict changing or copying it--is obstructive. Its negative effects are widespread and important. It follows that society shouldn't have owners for programs.

Ironic? In which sense?

Clearly not the first because you reiterate your postition. Not the second because it doesn't apply here.

Hey, if I knew the fancy latin word for 'seller', I could come up with a catchy foriegn phrase that asserts my position too: don't take actions you can't defend in court.

Of course not!

And defenestration is the act of throwing someone or something out of a window. Usually because I've been thrown out of Windows by a BSOD.

Frigging.
As in the song, "Frigging in the rigging". Somewhat rude.

One of my pet peeve phrases outside of Slashdot lately is "high rate of speed" when the speaker means "quickly". Acceleration is the rate at which velocity changes. Velocity is the rate at which position changes. So, what the hell is the rate of speed? From dictionary.com: high 9. a.Greater than usual or expected, as in quantity, magnitude, cost, or degree: "A high price has to be paid for the happy marriage with the four healthy children" (Doris Lessing). rate 1.A quantity measured with respect to another measured quantity: a rate of speed of 60 miles an hour. speed 1.Physics. The rate or a measure of the rate of motion, especially: a.Distance traveled divided by the time of travel. So it looks like when someone says "high rate of speed" it means they are saying "greater than usual or expected quantity measured of distance traveled divided by the time of travel. Makes sense to me.

One of my pet peeve phrases outside of Slashdot lately is "high rate of speed" when the speaker means "quickly". Acceleration is the rate at which velocity changes. Velocity is the rate at which position changes. So, what the hell is the rate of speed? From dictionary.com: high 9. a.Greater than usual or expected, as in quantity, magnitude, cost, or degree: "A high price has to be paid for the happy marriage with the four healthy children" (Doris Lessing). rate 1.A quantity measured with respect to another measured quantity: a rate of speed of 60 miles an hour. speed 1.Physics. The rate or a measure of the rate of motion, especially: a.Distance traveled divided by the time of travel. So it looks like when someone says "high rate of speed" it means they are saying "greater than usual or expected quantity measured of distance traveled divided by the time of travel. Makes sense to me.

One of my pet peeve phrases outside of Slashdot lately is "high rate of speed" when the speaker means "quickly". Acceleration is the rate at which velocity changes. Velocity is the rate at which position changes. So, what the hell is the rate of speed? From dictionary.com: high 9. a.Greater than usual or expected, as in quantity, magnitude, cost, or degree: "A high price has to be paid for the happy marriage with the four healthy children" (Doris Lessing). rate 1.A quantity measured with respect to another measured quantity: a rate of speed of 60 miles an hour. speed 1.Physics. The rate or a measure of the rate of motion, especially: a.Distance traveled divided by the time of travel. So it looks like when someone says "high rate of speed" it means they are saying "greater than usual or expected quantity measured of distance traveled divided by the time of travel. Makes sense to me.

Just look up the word doom and you'll see it's the same word, only a thousand years older.
It is also related to the suffix -dom, entry #12.

Just look up the word doom and you'll see it's the same word, only a thousand years older.
It is also related to the suffix -dom, entry #12.

arbitrary:
Determined by chance, whim, or impulse, and not by necessity, reason, or principle.

Perhaps you should have given the link for the definition so that we could also see definition 2:

Based on or subject to individual judgment or preference.

And, obviously, using an earth-centric measurement is quite akin to using a king-centric measurement. Now, it's nice that it went decimal in the filtering down, but that's about it. Frankly, I would have preferred that 1km had equaled 1 mile - it sure would make existing 1 mile square road grids a lot easier to deal with...but that's a fairly u.s.-centric view.

Wether

Weather

thanks.

Wether

Weather

thanks.

Damn, nobody gets my jokes around here. Too subtle perhaps. :-)

Translation: I'm a clutz, what do you expect from a dork anyhow? ;-)

That's klutz.

HTH.

Please do pay attention.

Most archetects don't use that much detail when designing a building

Please tell me you're not an architect.

No, no, he must have been talking about archetects, which could be construed as 'model builders', if one takes arche- as in archetype and -tect, as in, well, architect.

Of course, I just might be overestimating his cleverness. ;)

Most archetects don't use that much detail when designing a building

Please tell me you're not an architect.

No, no, he must have been talking about archetects, which could be construed as 'model builders', if one takes arche- as in archetype and -tect, as in, well, architect.

Of course, I just might be overestimating his cleverness. ;)

He's a self admited Penis?
Why would he admit that?

Just to follow your suggestion:
thesaurus.com: No entry found for BIOS.
thesaurus.com: No entry found for browser.

Just to follow your suggestion:
thesaurus.com: No entry found for BIOS.
thesaurus.com: No entry found for browser.

Check out that third or fourth definition. (www.dictionary.com and search for poser)

Lindows is just a poser distribution.

SK

You do know that "on the order of $50/ea" means they cost between $5 and $500, right?

I didn't realize that. Aparently dictionary.com didn't either:

(quoting from link)

on the order of

1. Of a kind or fashion similar to; like: a house on the order of a mountain lodge.
2. Approximately; about: equipment costing on the order of a million dollars.

(end quote)

Yes, I do hypenate analretentive. ;-)

It would appear that you forgot in this case ;-) (maybe it was stolen along with the second 'h' in hyphenate)

As opposed to the common dictionary definition of open source? From now on, I'm going to call any 2 door vehicle "rocks" and expect everyone to know what I mean. If they don't, they are obviously stupid.

Thank you, but a dictionary is merely a collection of words. He could find it assuming he looked in the right dictionary.

On a side note, I would suggest not using the ellipse so often. It detracts from your statements and makes reading awkward.

You've got to be kidding... I have trouble believing that anyone could use the word "cannibalizing" correctly in context without having any idea where the word comes from. Do yourself a favor, look it up, and you'll never get the spelling wrong agin. Let's hope not, anyway.

I think the word you were looking for was trite . : )

Spare me your pet causes. You do what you wish with your duckets, whatever makes you feel better. I will do as I please with mine.

I believe you are confused.

Ducat n.

1. Any of various gold coins formerly used in certain European countries.
2. Slang.
   A piece of money.

vs.

Ducket n.

1. A container for storing ducks.

You can do what you please with your ducats, but please be careful with your duckets. Ducklings can break.

Spare me your pet causes. You do what you wish with your duckets, whatever makes you feel better. I will do as I please with mine.

I believe you are confused.

Ducat n.

1. Any of various gold coins formerly used in certain European countries.
2. Slang.
   A piece of money.

vs.

Ducket n.

1. A container for storing ducks.

You can do what you please with your ducats, but please be careful with your duckets. Ducklings can break.

... attempt to make a buck anyway they can. And it is quite profitable to aggregate as much data as possible to maximize its resale value. Selling marketing data collected about real people's web surfing habbits MUCH more profitable than simply publishing the ads, which ammounts to little more than setting up a web server to pump out bytes.

Spying? Maybe. First, check the definition of the word. Ok, I'll save you one mouse click (and filter out the uses of the word that don't apply)

1. One who secretly keeps watch on another or others.
2. To discover by close observation.
3. To seek or observe something secretly and closely.
4. To make a careful investigation: spying into other people's activities.

It's not piracy because they're not raping and murdering on the high seas.

Yes, congratulations, that is one definition. But sorry, not the sole definition. It has been used in the sense of copyright violations for hundreds of years.

It's not theft because there's no missing property.

Yes, there is. As soon as someone downloads music that they would have otherwise purchased, there is a theft of the money that would have been paid. No, not all downloads are theft, but that doesn't mean that all downloads are legitimate.

It is copyright infringement. But some would argue it falls under fair use.

And they would be wrong. Fair use was NEVER intended to apply to mass, anonymous distribution.

A sissy; a wimp

Which is Worse: Wussy-Assed or Candy-Assed?

when deliberate and purposeful, a http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=cartel">c artel)

Damn, that'll teach me to use "preview" next time. c artel

What a horribly long post. I went on a bit of a tangent there :/

The condition is called an oligopoly (when deliberate and purposeful, a http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=cartel">c artel), and it is just one more fairly commonly used method to avoid having to deal with "free-market forces" (i.e, to unfairly eliminate healthy competition). If two large companies (who would normally be in competition) wield considerable control over a market, then they will often just "agree not to compete". In other words, the CEOs realise that they can BOTH make tonnes of money this way, which makes it, in some cases, a much more logical and easy choice than entering into aggressive/risky competition.

There are some well-known of these, such as the RIAA, as well as Visa/Mastercard. Or here in South Africa, there was until recently the Vodacom/MTN cartel that entirely controlled the cellphone market.

Does the Sherman act say anything about oligopolies? Are there are equivalent laws?

One of the tricky things is usually trying to prove that companies have "agreed not to compete".. when a company obviously has a monopoly, thats pretty clear. But if the CEOs and CFOs etc of two large companies have made deals with one another not to compete, its usually fairly easy to hide any evidence of this.

The public often don't seem to be bothered either, because the illusion of competition is usually enough to fool them, and they may not realise that they're being price-gouged because 'for all they know, thats what product XYZ should cost'. (In fact, some companies actually CREATE additional "brands" in order to deliberately *manufacture* the illusion of competition in the market by having two separate brands next to one another on the shelf in the store, and will even do things like have "price wars" with themselves between the brands, to drive up sales. IIRC, the Liqui Fruit and Ceres boxed fruit juice companies ("company") are an example of this. This is a separate issue though)

Incidentally, just like monopolies, the mere existence of a competitor does NOT magically NULLify the condition, since the mono/oligopolies still have "unnatural" powers to control prices or block market entry points (e.g. the existence of BeOS did not imply that MS did not have a monopoly, since MS could still control the major market entry points (the OEMs). In the same way, the existence of small record labels or credit card companies does not "negate" the cartel (and power that comes with it) that the RIAA or that Visa/Mastercard have. With monopolies, the "monopoly condition" may be defined in terms of the percentage of a market that a company controls. I think over here it is 75%, but I may be remembering wrong.

There are many many "sneaky" ways to establish and retain success in a market that have absolutely nothing to do with quality of product, which is why I find the pure-capitalism (unregulated) approach rather naive. People think its all about "building a better mousetrap". I think anyone who thinks this has probably never actually tried to produce and sell a new product. Rhere are many ways to be successful with only a mediocre, overpriced mousetrap, especially if you can block the market entry points of others who might actually have a better mousetrap. "Buying shelf space" is another commonly established practice, in fact, with many retailers, the only way to get onto their shelves is to buy the shelf space. I remember years ago Microsoft used to do "buy shelf space" of software retailers (essentially pay them off) in exchange for keeping Mac and other competing software off the shelves. Microsoft Press made various "exclusionary deals" with a major local bookseller.

Hint

Yeah, so what's the problem?

eschew \es-CHOO\, transitive verb: To shun; to avoid (as something wrong or distasteful).

And what difference does it make if it's Canadian or not?

iopha

IF people were paying their fair share, they'd all pay the same PERCENTAGE of their income to taxes-- and thus the richer you are, the more you'd pay.

This isn't really fair either, actually, because EVERYONE gets the same benefit from the government and has the same cost to the government.

Truely fair would be for everyone to pay the same DOLLAR AMOUNT in taxes to the government.

But you'd never stand for that, screaming about how "unfair" it is based on bullshit assumptions (like the rich get more from government-- often made, never backed up. Fucking idiot statement, that.)

But no, you want to tax a higher percentage from the more wealthy-- which is pure bigotry.

You might as well be advocating that gay people and black people pay more taxes than straight or white people-- cause its just as bigoted an idea.


EOD

IF people were paying their fair share, they'd all pay the same PERCENTAGE of their income to taxes-- and thus the richer you are, the more you'd pay.

This isn't really fair either, actually, because EVERYONE gets the same benefit from the government and has the same cost to the government.

Truely fair would be for everyone to pay the same DOLLAR AMOUNT in taxes to the government.

But you'd never stand for that, screaming about how "unfair" it is based on bullshit assumptions (like the rich get more from government-- often made, never backed up. Fucking idiot statement, that.)

But no, you want to tax a higher percentage from the more wealthy-- which is pure bigotry.

You might as well be advocating that gay people and black people pay more taxes than straight or white people-- cause its just as bigoted an idea.


EOD

IF people were paying their fair share, they'd all pay the same PERCENTAGE of their income to taxes-- and thus the richer you are, the more you'd pay.

This isn't really fair either, actually, because EVERYONE gets the same benefit from the government and has the same cost to the government.

Truely fair would be for everyone to pay the same DOLLAR AMOUNT in taxes to the government.

But you'd never stand for that, screaming about how "unfair" it is based on bullshit assumptions (like the rich get more from government-- often made, never backed up. Fucking idiot statement, that.)

But no, you want to tax a higher percentage from the more wealthy-- which is pure bigotry.

You might as well be advocating that gay people and black people pay more taxes than straight or white people-- cause its just as bigoted an idea.


EOD

IF people were paying their fair share, they'd all pay the same PERCENTAGE of their income to taxes-- and thus the richer you are, the more you'd pay.

This isn't really fair either, actually, because EVERYONE gets the same benefit from the government and has the same cost to the government.

Truely fair would be for everyone to pay the same DOLLAR AMOUNT in taxes to the government.

But you'd never stand for that, screaming about how "unfair" it is based on bullshit assumptions (like the rich get more from government-- often made, never backed up. Fucking idiot statement, that.)

But no, you want to tax a higher percentage from the more wealthy-- which is pure bigotry.

You might as well be advocating that gay people and black people pay more taxes than straight or white people-- cause its just as bigoted an idea.


EOD

IF people were paying their fair share, they'd all pay the same PERCENTAGE of their income to taxes-- and thus the richer you are, the more you'd pay.

This isn't really fair either, actually, because EVERYONE gets the same benefit from the government and has the same cost to the government.

Truely fair would be for everyone to pay the same DOLLAR AMOUNT in taxes to the government.

But you'd never stand for that, screaming about how "unfair" it is based on bullshit assumptions (like the rich get more from government-- often made, never backed up. Fucking idiot statement, that.)

But no, you want to tax a higher percentage from the more wealthy-- which is pure bigotry.

You might as well be advocating that gay people and black people pay more taxes than straight or white people-- cause its just as bigoted an idea.


EOD

IF people were paying their fair share, they'd all pay the same PERCENTAGE of their income to taxes-- and thus the richer you are, the more you'd pay.

This isn't really fair either, actually, because EVERYONE gets the same benefit from the government and has the same cost to the government.

Truely fair would be for everyone to pay the same DOLLAR AMOUNT in taxes to the government.

But you'd never stand for that, screaming about how "unfair" it is based on bullshit assumptions (like the rich get more from government-- often made, never backed up. Fucking idiot statement, that.)

But no, you want to tax a higher percentage from the more wealthy-- which is pure bigotry.

You might as well be advocating that gay people and black people pay more taxes than straight or white people-- cause its just as bigoted an idea.


EOD

IF people were paying their fair share, they'd all pay the same PERCENTAGE of their income to taxes-- and thus the richer you are, the more you'd pay.

This isn't really fair either, actually, because EVERYONE gets the same benefit from the government and has the same cost to the government.

Truely fair would be for everyone to pay the same DOLLAR AMOUNT in taxes to the government.

But you'd never stand for that, screaming about how "unfair" it is based on bullshit assumptions (like the rich get more from government-- often made, never backed up. Fucking idiot statement, that.)

But no, you want to tax a higher percentage from the more wealthy-- which is pure bigotry.

You might as well be advocating that gay people and black people pay more taxes than straight or white people-- cause its just as bigoted an idea.


EOD

It was a joke , son.

An official authorization appended to a passport, permitting entry into and travel within a particular country or region.

I thought words in the dictionary weren't copyrightable? Can anyone shed some light on this subject?

I know the original saying is "Extraordinary Claims Requires Extraordinary Evidendence", but in your case, you're leaving the rest of us scratching our heads. You're assuming we know too much, so I've listed some questions to help you elaborate.

1. Are you partly saying because Sony manufactures hardware and the copy protection, it will be picked up and implemented?

No, the other way round. I'm saying that hardware sells anyway, and Sony, due to their presence in both the music media and music device industries can use influence in one to help out the other.

2. Which SPECIFIC horizontal markets are you talking about, and WHY are they the way to go?

Music. From distribution, through music hardware to normal pc hardware to copy protection software.

3. If Microsoft supports everything off of Windows sales, are you saying Sony will support everything off thier CD sales???

No, the other way round. CD sales are the endangered market at the moment, with sales dropping off. Artists are going to start losing money, and they don't want that at all. So if Sony can offer then better royalties by signing the to record on Sony copy-protected media, they will be happy. And to listen to the music we will have to buy the Sony hardware, making Sony a profic on both sides of the fence, and helping to keep the CD sales afloat.

4. What does your Conglomo link mean? It looks like a fan website. HOW does this tie into Sony?

Never saw Rocko's Modern Life then? :) Ah well. It's a big company in a kid's cartoon. In fact, it's the only company in the kid's cartoon and it makes and sells everything. Name from conglomeration.

5. A Record label offers them more? What's them?

artists. more money.

6. What's the blank before "Profit. Massively."?

I included spoilers in the original post... that bit with the '*' on it..?

Basically, I am trying to point out how Sony is aligning itself to play the music market, both in terms of media and electronics, by the prodution of this closed copy protection mechanism, and how throwaway comments like 'the recording industry is scared shitless' are shortsighted and naive. Large companies have clever people in them that devote all day every day to planning a successful future for their company, and people shouldn't throw out their 5-minute's-worth-of-thought opinion like it's God's Own Truth.

Does that help?

And now I've seen the ad, I'm still completely non-plussed!

...a totaltarian police state with omni-surveillance everywhere to prevent rouge nanotech development.

hmmm....totaltarian police state...don't like rouge nanotech.....used for dynamic facial make-up effects.....to easy to fool surveilance...

Since probably a million people submitted this, maybe we could pick the post that actually doesn't read like an entry from the Yoda diaries?

brain hurt make!

Apologies if the poster suffers from dysphasia.