Slashdot Mirror

The noun "orientation" is derived from the verb "orient", not the other way around.

You gave lip service to home-schooling, which is nice, sort-of, but then came this indefensible rant:
Home school kids are massively underdeveloped socially, they miss out on a lot of cues that the rest of the population learned the hard way in social environment.

I'm calling you on the carpet -- this is your big chance. Prove it!

I never actually met someone who actually believes that our public school system, by and large, produces such well-adapted children. Nor have I met anyone who crows about the academic prowess of our elite Federal public schools.

I do hear *lots of* concern about drugs, rape, murder, school fights, dropouts, peer pressure, depression, suicide, ADD/ADHD, racism, bullying, teen pregnancy, AIDS/HIV, lack of discipline, school riots (!), hazing, poor grades, and on and on, in the public schools. Some of our good/safe local public schools have metal detectors, since students have brought guns into their lockers. How is this good "socialization," again?

Oh, by the way, my wife and I worked in the public school system for a few years (K-12 and junior college) and personally know many ex-elementary public school teachers who now home school! One of the reasons we all don't public school? Socialization!!! (Now, I do think colleges are generally safer than junior/senior high schools, but that's another story). Increasingly, our friends who teach in public schools are pulling their kids out, in favor of home schooling!

Do you have kids, BTW, or is this just a hypothetical rant -- "if I had kids?"

Uhm, maybe look up the definition of "socialization" or "socialize", some time. It's probably not a "good thing" at all, unless you like the thought police: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/socialization

If this is what you mean by "socialize," which of these these attributes would you call "good" with a straight face:
1. To place under government or group ownership or control. (Is this good -- really?!?!?! Public school *does do* this!)
2. To make fit for companionship with others; make sociable. (I'll grant you this one, maybe, if you like an institution defining it for you)
3. To convert or adapt to the needs of society. ("Bend to our will and do our bidding, slave!")

How about "socialization," itself?
1. a continuing process whereby an individual acquires a personal identity and learns the norms, values, behavior, and social skills appropriate to his or her social position. (Should public school be telling our kids about their "norms" or "values" -- really?)
2. the act or process of making socialistic: the socialization of industry. (OK, we're defining the word with the word, here)

What is "socially normal" about a child spending his waking hours with a bunch of rowdy people/class clowns/bullies/jocks and picked-on kids/nerds/outcasts/druggies -- all part of a pecking order, all part of a high pressure/peer pressure "society," all kids roughly his/her own age for 13 years? How is this in any way like "society," outside of school? This "society" of public school is institutional, artificial, and orthogonal, compared to "normal" society.

As far as socialization of home schoolers is concerned (as I guess you are redefining the term "socialization"), prove it with actual evidence, please. I call foul. Please define your term, too.

You need to read John Taylor Gatto http://www.johntaylorgatto.com/, some time, and remember that he's a public school expert and taught in NY public schools for about 30 years. He's also a researcher of public schools. He's a sharp critic of public (and even private) schools and he has ample evidence to destroy your tired old assumption, which is not based on fact.

Not only do public school students lack mental acumen, they also lack social sk

I think it's a bit of a stretch to call Scientologists "terrorists" at the very least.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/terrorism

terrorism/trrzm/
1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.
2. the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.
3. a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.

scientology has used violence in the past and openly threatens and intimidates both members and critics into silence.
"Religious extremist terrorists" is pretty close, although the "religious" part is legally incorrect in some countries.

There is no need to mention that I use it in a non-legal sense, because the definition of the word contract is not specific to law. This is the reason you see the word Legal in front of the word contract on Legal Contract . So as you can see, you do not know the meaning of the word contract either.

Furthermore, my post was specifically pointing out that there is a contract between Google and the Google User without using the actual word. The respondent was then the first to use the word contract without specifying a Legal contract, showing that he does not know the definition of the word and assumes that it refers to a legal document, making the same mistake as you just made. I therefore pointed out that, like you, he mistakenly believes the word contract always involves the Law.

Thanks for playing. Definition #1 is your consolation prize.

Virtual = Not real.

From http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/virtual
(Just one of many definitions)
Existing or resulting in essence or effect though not in actual fact, form, or name: the virtual extinction of the buffalo.

Scenario
You lend person A $20.00, they repay you with electronic credits or virtual gaming money. What if you don't play electronic games? The owner of the game company doesn't give you the physical $20.00 for relinquishing the electronic credits or electronic gaming money. This will not bode well....

I knew what you were referring to and that it was a joke. I was just being a grammar-nazi.

Apparently my humerous intentions also missed their target.

Please tell me that was intentional...

Did you ever watch the Sourcerers Apprentice section of Fantasia? Because if not, I politely suggest you do.

He was a programmer? Or were you talking about a magician?

Actually, he's not. What that statement says is that instead of having The Incident happen, Google is launching an investigation.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/in+lieu+of

Obviously, that's not what is going on because we don't have time travel.

I really wish people stop using "booting" and it's variations when not talking about ankle-tall shoes.
        http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/boot?jss=0

In order to "reboot" a computer it must be "booted" in the first place, which requires having legs and feet. "I've just changed the socks of my computer before putting in new boots", see how retarded that sounds?

      -dZ.

I don't know if this is proper use of the term or not, and frankly I don't care. It's really fucking annoying and I wish people would stop using "reboot" in a non-shutdown-a-computer-OS-and-start-it-up-again" sense. This use of the word makes me want to stab someone in the eye.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/reboot

http://www.google.com/dictionary?aq=f&langpair=en|en&q=reboot&hl=en

In order to REboot a production it must be booted in the first place, correct? So I've booted my slashdot comment. And the Spider-Man franchise was booted a few years ago. See how fucktarded that sounds? Well "reboot" in this context sounds just as dumb.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/android

It's perfectly possible to insult the dead. It's just impossible for them to be offended by it.

What you tied into one idea is actually two distinct ideas. They are distinct because the first one is agreeable, but the second is not.

Your ideas, made clearer for discussion:

1) Clean = natural; don't set ambiguous numbers based on a specific timepoint or observation, but rather relative to natural systems.

2) The actions of mankind are always natural, and thus they ought carry forward without regard; natural processes will still ensue.
----

The first one is sensible. It a good idea to use the natural system as a reference in a realtime basis. Ambiguous thresholds based on specific time points or postulations are not in line with the natural change of the earth without man's influence. I would agree with you on the idea of embracing an effort to maintain a natural, or close to natural system, given we define the word natural in a relevant term such that we are talking about how the Earth's systems would work without the modern man's influence.

But I can't agree with you. And in such amazing irony you claim you are not trying to play semantics and yet you OBVIOUSLY tried to personally define a word (clean) and are now also defining 'natural' in a sense that is not aligned with what is most widely accepted.

And this is why you have two separate ideas, both still playing semantics.

Your second idea is ridiculous. I ridicule it because not only have you decided that you can define the word natural by your own terms, but apply it to everyone else; but also because it is completely reckless and foolish at best! The reason we have so many words is because there are definitions for each of them, which are widely accepted, and different words are produced to have DIFFERENT definitions. The words RAPE and INTERCOURSE are defined and accepted in terms that are distinct, and rightly so. And thus for the different purposes, the different words exist. In some insane way you've decided that you can personally define the word NATURAL by your own terms; those terms being "that whichever may arise from anything". I don't accept that, nor would most anyone else reading this conversation.

Let me guess here. In an even more ironic attempt to defend yourself, you will try to tell me you are still not using semantics by self-defining what you are doing.

Here's some help for you:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/semantics

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/natural
-----

If ANY of what you said were a good idea, then why do you even remove your garbage from your home at all (I'm sure you do)? Let it build up, you claim it is natural and that nature will take its course. Practice what you preach. The sheer reality is that you KNOW it is a bad idea to keep the garbage around and that it is convenient to put it somewhere else as a way to maintain a healthy environment for yourself. The difference being that in regard to yourself, you have one set of ideas, but in regard to others, you have another.

Ironically Wrong and Selfish are words that define you. Its a shame that people will care about you, abstracting themselves from the concept of thinking the universe exists only through the eyes of the self; but that you are incapable of the same. In this you are a parasite to care and to the benefit that care produces.

What you tied into one idea is actually two distinct ideas. They are distinct because the first one is agreeable, but the second is not.

Your ideas, made clearer for discussion:

1) Clean = natural; don't set ambiguous numbers based on a specific timepoint or observation, but rather relative to natural systems.

2) The actions of mankind are always natural, and thus they ought carry forward without regard; natural processes will still ensue.
----

The first one is sensible. It a good idea to use the natural system as a reference in a realtime basis. Ambiguous thresholds based on specific time points or postulations are not in line with the natural change of the earth without man's influence. I would agree with you on the idea of embracing an effort to maintain a natural, or close to natural system, given we define the word natural in a relevant term such that we are talking about how the Earth's systems would work without the modern man's influence.

But I can't agree with you. And in such amazing irony you claim you are not trying to play semantics and yet you OBVIOUSLY tried to personally define a word (clean) and are now also defining 'natural' in a sense that is not aligned with what is most widely accepted.

And this is why you have two separate ideas, both still playing semantics.

Your second idea is ridiculous. I ridicule it because not only have you decided that you can define the word natural by your own terms, but apply it to everyone else; but also because it is completely reckless and foolish at best! The reason we have so many words is because there are definitions for each of them, which are widely accepted, and different words are produced to have DIFFERENT definitions. The words RAPE and INTERCOURSE are defined and accepted in terms that are distinct, and rightly so. And thus for the different purposes, the different words exist. In some insane way you've decided that you can personally define the word NATURAL by your own terms; those terms being "that whichever may arise from anything". I don't accept that, nor would most anyone else reading this conversation.

Let me guess here. In an even more ironic attempt to defend yourself, you will try to tell me you are still not using semantics by self-defining what you are doing.

Here's some help for you:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/semantics

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/natural
-----

If ANY of what you said were a good idea, then why do you even remove your garbage from your home at all (I'm sure you do)? Let it build up, you claim it is natural and that nature will take its course. Practice what you preach. The sheer reality is that you KNOW it is a bad idea to keep the garbage around and that it is convenient to put it somewhere else as a way to maintain a healthy environment for yourself. The difference being that in regard to yourself, you have one set of ideas, but in regard to others, you have another.

Ironically Wrong and Selfish are words that define you. Its a shame that people will care about you, abstracting themselves from the concept of thinking the universe exists only through the eyes of the self; but that you are incapable of the same. In this you are a parasite to care and to the benefit that care produces.

in fairness, he is pretty optimistic for a guy whose name sounds like macabre...

Ooops, I meant to include this link to the dictionary entry.

The real 800 pound gorilla in the room

The metaphor is "elephant in the room"
you've mixed it with "where does an 800lb gorilla sit"

here you go: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/widget

Or, as Wikipedia has it: "An indefinite name for a gadget or mechanical contrivance, esp. a small manufactured item"

is this Slashdot? noone condemned the article because he said pacific instead of specific?

No, he didn't.

I applaud your autodidactic instincts, but in this case I was spoonerizing an old geeky meme.

Personally I think the quote's origin is crap, apart from the beautiful production design and Rutger Hauer's speech at the end. However I won't let that get in the way of a cheap laugh.

Despite also being visually brilliant, I don't think Avatar has the same problems -- the characters actually talk like real people for the most part, and their interactions are believable. Unfortunately the plot turns into a hackneyed cartoon about halfway in. That doesn't make it bad, but merely ordinary.

I'd still recommend it though, if you can see it on the big screen. It's an experience on a par with seeing Toy Story for the first time.

Way to go with a book which main theme is about questioning and stand up against unfair authorities.

Hmm. Maybe it is because the very gate keepers are uncomfortable with material that talks about not falling in line. After all, they are a very powerful controlling interest in our society. I doubt they welcome any kind of real rebellion against authority, as their authority is very profitable for them.

Or, maybe it is because the two fringes of American society (far right and far left) both have agendas to keep certain behavioral examples out of the minds of Americans. Both rally at think of the children and anything about government and religion, yet seem to have almost opposite opinions of what if fair and right!

Whatever the reason, being mono-lingual is definitely a handicap in this world. The more US citizens become multilingual (not just bi-lingual), the harder it is for censors to control what they can learn, see and think, as they have to control more sources and more *inputs*.

As an aside, is not almost all authority unfair? The very definition of authority(*1) throws fair to the side. Only the individual/group with authority can try to inject fairness into whatever actions may be administered. Yet, as there are normally at least two sides to anything requiring an authority to manage, and most authority is derived from power to maintain things in the status quo or gather more power to the individuals in power, at least one side always feels unfairly dealt with, hence authority is innately unfair. Probably why most people do not *like* politicians, managers or other powerful people, even the good ones.

• *1 http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/authority

WRONG!

Irregardless is not a proper English word. Its usage has *ALWAYS* irked me from when I was a small boy to now. To use common vernacular, it's a mashup of 'irrespective' (one negative; prefix) and regardless (also, one negative; suffix). 'Irregardless' is a double negative and is thusly illogical by construction and would only be understandable to people born in the U.S. since 1970, and those less literate in the U.S. prior to that.

On my words that aren't words list it's right up there with 'impactful'.

I kind of hate that 'word' myself.

WRONG!

Irregardless is not a proper English word. Its usage has *ALWAYS* irked me from when I was a small boy to now.

I know it is not a word. I just use it to make the PENDANTS SURFER!

WRONG!

Irregardless is not a proper English word.

It sure looks like a word to me.

But not a proper one. The parent is correct, it has come into use because people who want to sound smart don't realize the word is irrespective, or regardless, so they mash the two together. Sort of like how people say "often times" which is redundant... just say "often". Or "many times". Or "frequently".

WRONG!

Irregardless is not a proper English word.

It sure looks like a word to me.

But not a proper one. The parent is correct, it has come into use because people who want to sound smart don't realize the word is irrespective, or regardless, so they mash the two together. Sort of like how people say "often times" which is redundant... just say "often". Or "many times". Or "frequently".

Yes it is.

WRONG!

Irregardless is not a proper English word.

It sure looks like a word to me.

WRONG!

Irregardless is not a proper English word.

It sure looks like a word to me.

WRONG!

Irregardless is not a proper English word. Its usage has *ALWAYS* irked me from when I was a small boy to now. To use common vernacular, it's a mashup of 'irrespective' (one negative; prefix) and regardless (also, one negative; suffix). 'Irregardless' is a double negative and is thusly illogical by construction and would only be understandable to people born in the U.S. since 1970, and those less literate in the U.S. prior to that.

On my words that aren't words list it's right up there with 'impactful'.

Were I in his shoes, I would have instead taken the angle of attack related to the title line of the site which is "Alan Grayson is Nuts" and proven that I am not legally insane.

The typical dictionary does not equate "nuts" exclusively with "legally insane" (example below) so I don't think this will get far. Definition 8b is the one you wish to take offence to, but there are many others. Heck, definitions 7a and 7b could be taken as positive. Definition 8a is negative but is also a statement of opinion that cannot be proved either way although, IMHO, the good representative has demonstrated Def'n 8a quite well in bringing this charge. The writer may have been using metaphor and equating to a "a dry fruit consisting of an edible kernel or meat enclosed in a woody or leathery shell." There'd be long argument over what the writer meant and not what the reader interpreted, followed by argument of free speech protection in your Constitution and law. Only the lawyers would be happy at the end if it.

7. Slang. a. a person who is very enthusiastic about something; buff; enthusiast; devotee: He's a real circus nut. b. an extremely concerned or zealous person: My boss is a nut on double-checking everything. 8. Slang. a. a foolish, silly, or eccentric person. b. Offensive. an insane person; psychotic. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/nuts

If we're picking nits, you're both right.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/decade

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/generally

Note the word "commonly". It's the second word.

I find it hilarious that you think I'm lacking logic for simply criticizing you for misquoting me. Once again you prove your intelligence.

No, we're not all depressed because it's hard to spot. Did you ever learn reading comprehension? My point is that just because you can't identify it doesn't mean it's not a common problem.

Umm, yeah.

(Disclaimer: Catholic guy here. Take that as you will)

1) The whole story/argument/whatever is based on an organization that literally invented a little something called an imprimatur (The funny part is, the deal with Galileo was largely based on the fact that he printed his famous book and using a papal imprimatur without permission, but that's a whole other argument that I'm sure I'd be modded into oblivion for elaborating on).

2) They've sorta held the trademark for roughly 1400 years or so, and the office for roughly 1973 years (an estimate counting back to when Peter was named to the office, counting Dennis The Short's mathematical hose-ups on the whole Anno Domini tabulations.)

3) It's their office, thus their right... still open for parody and news purposes though, at least in western nations that enjoy freedom of speech. No different than if Tux the Penguin were registered as a trademark by the Linux Foundation, really (For instance, using Tux as a marker for Linux news stories, versus Microsoft using Tux as their new logo for Windows 8...) They're no further beyond or above secular law (outside of Vatican City) than any other organization... which makes the summary kind of a moot point.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/in+lieu

Only for problems that can be described as Massively Multithreaded, Oratorical, Redundant, Periphrastic, and Gratuitous

Like WoW and Second Life.

[Citation: http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/redundant%5D

Right there, you've just destroyed your own argument. Having "exclusive use" of your code is not a "real, tangible product". The instant you sell or supply your code to anyone else, you necessarily lose the ability to have "exclusive use" of that code.

The "copying code necessarily destroys code uniqueness" argument and the "slavery and killing are not 'real, tangible products' argument were actually completely separate arguments. The former cited an example of something that is literally *taken away* from you (stolen) if someone copies your code; the latter was trying to disqualify his maxwells demon's examples for why "I can make a living off this" isn't a good barometer for something that should be legal—a point he was correct in making, but let's not get off track here.

Having "exclusive use" of your code (let's say "uniqueness"; totally bogus dude said that in his response to me and I think that's a better way of putting it) is not a "real, tangible product." The code itself is a "real, tangible product"; the uniqueness is a byproduct of having created something original. And yes, when you sell or supply your code to anyone else, your code is no longer unique. To create a website, however, you must place at least some code online where it is accessible by anyone. You could argue that this equates to "supplying" others with your code, I suppose, but most people do it with the reasonable expectation that it will not be copied. In this case, Plurk hadn't "sold or supplied" Microsoft with the code, Microsoft just took it. And in the case of software products like Photoshop, what is being sold is the compiled binary, not the code itself.

What copyright gives you is the exclusive right to control the copying and distribution of your code.

Yes, that's exactly what it gives you, and as a result of that you are legally guaranteed code uniqueness, unless you choose to surrender that right.

Now, what you almost touch on is that theft concerns "real, tangible products", not abstract concepts like software. Regardless of what all the armchair lawyers on Slashdot think, you cannot steal an idea. How many copyright cases do you think include the word theft? I'll give you a hint - it's probably zero. No, they use words like infringement and violation. The simple reason is, despite what they want you to believe, there is no such thing as stealing non-tangible concepts. The copyright owners know it, the courts know it, everybody knows it except the people who are taken in by Big Content's rhetoric.

I've said this before, and I'll say it again: this just semantics. Whether you "steal" an idea, "copy" an idea, or "plagiarize" an idea, it all equates to the same thing. Furthermore, just because a classical definition of "theft" requires that something is physically taken doesn't mean that more recent definitions can't be expanded to include the plagiarism of ideas. For all intents and purposes, the word "theft" conveys the intended meaning effectively, even if a more specific word might be (slightly) more appropriate.

I don't think either of us have any idea what terminology is used in copyright cases—you yourself stated that they "probably" don't say the word theft—so I'll just leave that part of the argument alone.

Copyright infringement may or may not be immoral. It may or may not be unethical. One thing it is not, however, is theft.

Actually, according to Dictionary.com *and* Merriam-Webster, it is. But again, this is engaging in semantics.

I think you're missing the point of pedantic argumentation. Basically: if you're going to make an analogy, make sure it actually fits. Having people point out mismatches between your analogy and the actual thing you're discussing may be annoying, but can also be constructive in helping to refine your own thinking.

No, I realize the advantage of pedantic argumentation (although that's the first time I've heard the term), and I agree that the original analogy comparing stealing someone's physical belongings to stealing code is flawed, but there was no reason to compare the analogy to something else when he pointed out its flaws in the next sentence. I was just nitpicking because maxwell demon came across as really obnoxious :)

The point was that it's not monetary loss that was the issue. The harm done is of an entirely different nature, so comparing it to breaking into someone else's house and taking whatever you want is illogical and irrelevant. Analogies are supposed to help us to understand things more clearly, but using an analogy that doesn't actually fit only muddies things. Is sexconker pissed off only at the potential financial damages that could result from having his code "stolen", or is it something else?

This a fair assessment, since we can all agree (well, except maybe sexconker) that the analogy wasn't apt in the first place.

This one I'm interested in, because I'm not able to think of a scenario where someone still has their "stuff" that I would be willing to call "theft". This is probably just semantics though; "theft" is often used as a shortcut for "copyright violation" or whatever would be more technically correct. Still, some people do get hung up on it, so if you're going to have these kinds of discussions it's probably good to have a response that doesn't rely on people agreeing with your casual usage of the term. Using terms like "theft" and "stealing" in cases like this is essentially slang: it's fine if the people you're talking to happen to share your understanding of what a "jive ho" is, for example; but if you don't know they do, you might be better off using less ambiguous terms.

This issue *is* just semantics, as far as I'm concerned, which was what I was trying to point out, although that may not have come across clearly. A classical definition of "theft" may only cover something which was removed from its owner's possession, whereas more recent definitions may cover the copying of intellectual property and other such things. Dictionary.com lists both. Clearly there are more specific words or phrases for what occurred here, but for all intents and purposes I think "theft" or "stealing" conveys the meaning pretty effectively.

No, there's not, not if the code is being copied. If they delete your copy and you no longer have it, then yes, you've lost the money that was invested in it; in the same way if you buy a new stereo and someone steals it, the money you spent on the stereo is gone, along with the stereo. Arguably, what you've lost is your code's uniqueness. Suppose the stereo is a one-of-a-kind custom model, the only one in the world. A large part of its value to you, as its owner, is the fact that it is unique. This could be converted into a monetary gain in the future by selling it: presumably its uniqueness is attractive to other people as well. But even if someone comes from the future with a matter duplicator and makes an identical copy of your "unique" stereo, you haven't suffered an actual monetary loss, any more than you suffer a monetary loss if you buy a stereo at full price a week before the store has it on special for 50% off.

I did point out the uniqueness issue in my response to maxwell demon's other post, and it's not hard to see how the loss of that uniquene

I don't see that definition anywhere on Websters. I looked for "failed to follow directives or direction" but couldn't find it.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/professional

Oddly enough, I found your definition under Insubordination:

insubordination
  - 2 dictionary results
insubordinate /nsbrdnt/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [in-suh-bawr-dn-it] Show IPA

–adjective
1. not submitting to authority; disobedient: an insubordinate soldier.
2. not lower.
–noun
3. a person who is insubordinate.
Origin:
1840–50; in- 3 + subordinate

Related forms:
insubordinately, adverb
insubordination, noun

Synonyms:
1. refractory, defiant, insolent.

Don't try to pretend you are unable to understand what I'm talking about...

Unlike you I have an understanding of the subject.

PC gaming does not depend on DRM, there is no forced component, it is a third party add on that is entirely optional. The point is that the hardware DRM for consoles is enforced on every single game, for any game that does not have a disk requires online activation.

Please get your facts straight in the future.

Last but not least, games are abandoned in regards to patches and sometimes OS updates/etc. introduce incompatibility.

Hmmm.. this does not happen on consoles? I think not. There are plenty of abandoned console games. In fact all console games are abandoned as soon as the hardware gets too old. At least with the decent abandoned PC games you get a community that fixes it, take a look at Evil Planet for Evil Genius or Armada Fleet Command for an ancient Win98 game called Birth of the Federation. I'm certain there are support communities out there I've never heard of.

has the primary goal of stopping second-hand market

You are thick aren't you, I've already said this is their stated goal on all platforms that's why 2nd hand sales are used as part of the piracy statistics. The only difference is that they are trying to kill 2nd hand PC sales on the software but attempting to kill 2nd hand Console sales by going after retailers. This is due to the fact it's cheaper to harass retailers then it is to pay MS to monitor you. Also remember that there is reigion coding on the Xbox meaning I cant import games from Asia or the US and expect it to work in Australia, PC games do not have this restriction.

YES, DRM is less pervasive

Now I know you don't understand the meaning of pervasive. Here it is.

pervade

/prved/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [per-veyd]
-verb (used with object), -vaded, -vading.
to become spread throughout all parts of

Hmmm... PC DRM is an easily defeated optional component, console DRM is a difficult to defeat mandatory component. This makes console DRM both more pervasive and more invasive.

You ignored it and now you try to spin in some silly way.

How, your post was full of logical inconsistencies and half truths? at least point out the bits that were wrong and provide evidence to back it up.

Heck, your beyond ridiculous. Modern PCs with floppy drive?

Here's the brilliant part, I can have a floppy drive on a modern PC if I want to. If you must know I'm a sysadmin, every now and then I have to read a floppy at work thus I have a USB floppy drive. There are two types of fools in this world, the first says it is new therefore good and the second says it is old therefore good, you have just proven you are the first type of fool.

seeing you were also unable to comprehend that "zero cost" applies when one buys AND sells used

I said demonstrate this, find me an example of being able to sell an old game at above retail. Your entire point hinges on this. Otherwise it costs you.

My argument doesn't rely at all on selling games one owns,

Yes it does

Meaning one important thing...it is much more realistic to resale console games, or even buy them used outright

So you not only propose buying used games but you also think that you can resell those games for a greater price. Basic economic theory says this cannot be done, you are proposing that retailers not only make no profit on used games but actually take a loss on buying them back off you.

look, understand that you're

But we dont require people to legally disclose that to partners.

Yes, we do. In many states willfully failing to disclose VD to a partner is a criminal offense.

Anyway, you're missing my point. It was the dichotomy of interests that makes it interesting. I.e., both a right to privacy AND a public interest. You're arguing one side, pretending there's not two. There are in fact two sides.

As far as your lecture on ethics versus morality, you may wish to read this:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/morals

C//

I interpret that differently:

The male statement gives credit to the group without specifying his own involvement, whereas the female statement makes damn sure she gets credit as *part* of the group.

You must have a very different definition of "oversaw" than most of the English speaking world. It generally means you were in-charge of something or were in a position to observe and pass judgment upon it.

"Deceptively" is the worst word in the English language. No one has a clue as to what it means.

See the usage note here.

Any dictionary I have ever seen would consider "ginormous" to be a word.

See the definition of "word" here:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/word

This is one of my favorite asinine party tricks. If someone tells me something isn't a word, I bet them that it is, according to THEIR dictionary. I've never lost this bet. It has the added virtue of verbally pinching the anal retentive word monger right on the nose. :-)

C//

I'm getting fed up with these two concepts. There is only one kind of Plagarism...

...misspelled.

cheating. If you didn't do the work on your paper, then you're cheating.

plagiarism /pledrzm, -dirz-/
-noun
1. the unauthorized use or close imitation of the language and thoughts of another author and the representation of them as one's own original work.

English? YOU FAIL IT!

Copyright is the idea that you control the copies of your creation. Obviously, nobody wants to spend thousands of hours creating something then letting someone else (a corporation) sell it without royalties.

I've spent hundreds of hours developing articles for Everything2. I shudder to think at the hours which have gone into Wikipedia. Human Emotion? YOU FAIL IT!

However, Copyright has turned into this idea where as soon as you make a "Dark cloaked figure who kills people for a living" you can go bully anyone else for doing something like it.

The courts let you do that. They also provide a mechanism for recovering the costs of frivolous lawsuits. Understanding Jurisprudence? YOU FAIL IT!

IP is not a failed idea. Our system is what's broken (or more likely, those who are in charge of the system).

you are the government
you are jurisprudence
you are the volition
you are jurisdiction
and I make a difference too

Is this like "counterfeit" copies of MS Windows? Where these chips that acted and functioned the same (shadow shift production runs)? Seems like we need a better word as counterfeit implies that it looks the same but does not act the same.

No, it doesn't. A counterfeit is something that has been made or altered to appear to be something other than what it is, it may well act the same (indeed, "acting" the same under various tests is a key part of counterfeiting some things.)

A counterfeit chip may well be one designed to perform the same function (e.g., in terms of logic), at least under normal conditions, but with different origins, QC, and/or range of designed operating conditions from the brand it is passed off as. Indeed, it would pretty much have to be not be noticed as soon as it was used.

Maybe we should just be saying "copies produced without authorization?"

"Copies produced without authorization" is quite a mouthful. If only there was an adjective that means that already, so the same idea could be expressed more concisely.

Or, in short, in response to "what does counterfeit mean?" -- RTFDictionary.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/drake

It's interesting that Wiki-sociologists have attempted to redefine the word "minority" in order to accommodate the view that whites are dominant even though they are a numerical minority. However, the dictionary definition takes precedence (see http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/minority). If you want to use "minority" as a technical sociological term in a popular forum, I would suggest you use the phrase "sociological minority" instead. At least it will be clear what you're trying to say.

Why do people who identify themselves as pedants get it wrong most of the time?

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/pun

Same place I get that water is wet, fire is hot, sky (on Earth) is bluish color and other hard to find information.
It is common sense.

Or, you can look it up.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/fame

http://www.yourdictionary.com/fame

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fame

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fame

Okay.

beg the question

Take for granted or assume the truth of the very thing being questioned. For example, Shopping now for a dress to wear to the ceremony is really begging the questionshe hasn't been invited yet. This phrase, whose roots are in Aristotle's writings on logic, came into English in the late 1500s. In the 1990s, however, people sometimes used the phrase as a synonym of "ask the question" (as in The article begs the question: "What are we afraid of?").
The American Heritage® Dictionary of Idioms by Christine Ammer.
Copyright © 1997. Published by Houghton Mifflin

From http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/beg+the+question (at the very bottom).

Though I continue to be confused about this idiom (in my defense I'm not a native, OTOH I am an English linguist ;) ). The definition at the top of the linked page says beg the question, to assume the truth of the very point raised in a question, while a later definition+example (American Heritage 2005) goes To assume what has still to be proved: “To say that we should help the region's democratic movement begs the question of whether it really is democratic.”. Isn't that an example of the colloquialism, since the point raised in the question is whether or not we should help, while the assumption is that the movement is democratic? The dress shopping example in AH Dictionary of Idioms 1997 seems to make more sense.