Slashdot Mirror

Capital is not property; property is not capital. Capitalism is about giving almighty power to capital disregarding everything else.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/capitalism
capitalism
-noun
an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations, esp. as contrasted to cooperatively or state-owned means of wealth.

Marx states that only a temporal all powerful all seeing state can crush away the minority of those few greedy individuals that control society by means of capital and use their power to perpetuate such 'statu quo'. Once the goal acomplished, such powerful state machinery would dismantle itself and vanish.

Heh! To think that millions of people where actually stupid enough to believe that a dictatorship would dismantle itself through the goodwill of the dictator. If it wasn't so horribly, murderously tragic, that would be funny.

You getting informative mod for that post is about on a par with a Branch Davidian getting informative for posting that David Koresh is the incarnation of god.

It reminds me of the word "ubiquitous". Prior to 1997 or so no one had ever heard of this word...

Some quick and dirty research tells me that it comes from the Latin ubique ("everywhere"). I'm fairly certain that Latin existed before 1997.

You're ascribing a trait to a whole country.

And it's not racism, they are the same race. It is bigotry.

At its birth in England, copyright was an instrument of censorship. In 1557, Mary Tudor, the Roman Catholic queen, capped off a 120-year monarchal struggle to censor printing presses by issuing a charter to the Stationers' Company, a guild of printers. Only members of the company could legally produce books, which had been licensed by the crown.

Modern copyright is based on the Statute of Anne from 1710. The Statute of Anne granted the author 14 years of exclusive rights with the option to extend for a second 14 year term. The first U.S. copyright did the same when George Washington signed it into law in 1790. You'll notice both of those happened well before Charles Dickens (1812) and Herman Melville (1819) were born.

I also question your understanding of the terms 'amoral' and 'puerile'.

Most of the world bases 'morals' off of religion. No major religion makes any mention of copyright. So for most of the world copyright has no moral or immoral quality. By definition that makes it amoral. To hold that opinion is hardly childish or immature.

If you're not religious you could just look at the purpose of copyright as it's spelled out in the U.S. Constitution:

To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries

Copyright was meant as a deal between the public and an author. The public would grant the author a temporary monopoly as an incentive to create new writings. After a limited time the writings would pass into the public domain so the pubic could do with it whatever they want. That is not an issue raised over morality. It is a business deal. Again, to label this amoral is not childish or immature. It is correct.

At its birth in England, copyright was an instrument of censorship. In 1557, Mary Tudor, the Roman Catholic queen, capped off a 120-year monarchal struggle to censor printing presses by issuing a charter to the Stationers' Company, a guild of printers. Only members of the company could legally produce books, which had been licensed by the crown.

Modern copyright is based on the Statute of Anne from 1710. The Statute of Anne granted the author 14 years of exclusive rights with the option to extend for a second 14 year term. The first U.S. copyright did the same when George Washington signed it into law in 1790. You'll notice both of those happened well before Charles Dickens (1812) and Herman Melville (1819) were born.

I also question your understanding of the terms 'amoral' and 'puerile'.

Most of the world bases 'morals' off of religion. No major religion makes any mention of copyright. So for most of the world copyright has no moral or immoral quality. By definition that makes it amoral. To hold that opinion is hardly childish or immature.

If you're not religious you could just look at the purpose of copyright as it's spelled out in the U.S. Constitution:

To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries

Copyright was meant as a deal between the public and an author. The public would grant the author a temporary monopoly as an incentive to create new writings. After a limited time the writings would pass into the public domain so the pubic could do with it whatever they want. That is not an issue raised over morality. It is a business deal. Again, to label this amoral is not childish or immature. It is correct.

Google is due for some Flock about this.

Broke that for you.

Google is due for some flac^Hk about this.

Fixed that for you, maybe. You could mean that Google should get some publicity (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/flack), of the bad variety.

You could also mean that they deserve criticism and a hostile reaction (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/flak).

The two seem to go hand in hand...

Google is due for some flax about this.

But it's all zen in the end ;-)

They would do well to support Linux usitatissimum (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/flax). (s/x/m/g)

Google is due for some Flock about this.

Broke that for you.

Google is due for some flac^Hk about this.

Fixed that for you, maybe. You could mean that Google should get some publicity (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/flack), of the bad variety.

You could also mean that they deserve criticism and a hostile reaction (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/flak).

The two seem to go hand in hand...

Google is due for some flax about this.

But it's all zen in the end ;-)

They would do well to support Linux usitatissimum (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/flax). (s/x/m/g)

Google is due for some Flock about this.

Broke that for you.

Google is due for some flac^Hk about this.

Fixed that for you, maybe. You could mean that Google should get some publicity (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/flack), of the bad variety.

You could also mean that they deserve criticism and a hostile reaction (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/flak).

The two seem to go hand in hand...

Google is due for some flax about this.

But it's all zen in the end ;-)

They would do well to support Linux usitatissimum (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/flax). (s/x/m/g)

Let me introduce to my friend, the dictionary. You might find it enlightening.

You know chink has other definitions, right? For example: "This flaw puts a chink in the armor of SSH."

Try again...

[Citation
cited]

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

The one you are citing is the EIGHTH one down. The others have religious or other connotations.

At any rate, a ritual has a connotation of ceremony, not one of a process, which is established for reasons other than tradition or religion.

To me, the point at which a process becomes a ritual, in that eighth definition context, is probably the moment a software engineering process probably stops working very effectively, because people have lost sight of why they are doing it. (Not always true of course and usage is pretty flexible.) Still, I think to call some of the OP's acts ritualistic sells them short, because there are good reasons for many of them, that wouldn't warrant weird stares from people.

Oh yes!

no
1/no/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [noh] Show IPA adverb, adjective, noun, plural noes, nos, verb

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/facetious Yes, yes. There were other battles in WWI.

Perhaps you would prefer your article summaries in this vein?

I have to say some description of what UIzard is or does would be far more relevant and important than a link to YUI, though.

Perhaps you would prefer your article summaries in this vein?

I have to say some description of what UIzard is or does would be far more relevant and important than a link to YUI, though.

Perhaps you would prefer your article summaries in this vein?

I have to say some description of what UIzard is or does would be far more relevant and important than a link to YUI, though.

Perhaps you would prefer your article summaries in this vein?

I have to say some description of what UIzard is or does would be far more relevant and important than a link to YUI, though.

Perhaps you would prefer your article summaries in this vein?

I have to say some description of what UIzard is or does would be far more relevant and important than a link to YUI, though.

Perhaps you would prefer your article summaries in this vein?

I have to say some description of what UIzard is or does would be far more relevant and important than a link to YUI, though.

Perhaps you would prefer your article summaries in this vein?

I have to say some description of what UIzard is or does would be far more relevant and important than a link to YUI, though.

Perhaps you would prefer your article summaries in this vein?

I have to say some description of what UIzard is or does would be far more relevant and important than a link to YUI, though.

Perhaps you would prefer your article summaries in this vein?

I have to say some description of what UIzard is or does would be far more relevant and important than a link to YUI, though.

Perhaps you would prefer your article summaries in this vein?

I have to say some description of what UIzard is or does would be far more relevant and important than a link to YUI, though.

From dictionary.com:

Daydream
1. a reverie indulged in while awake.

Reverie
1. a state of dreamy meditation or fanciful musing: lost in reverie.

Sure, some of the other definitions include phrases like "especially of the fulfillment of wishes or hopes," but not all. And if you like what you do your wishes and hopes may well be related to solving a work problem. Daydreming does not necessarily refer to thinking about completely unrelated things.

From dictionary.com:

Daydream
1. a reverie indulged in while awake.

Reverie
1. a state of dreamy meditation or fanciful musing: lost in reverie.

Sure, some of the other definitions include phrases like "especially of the fulfillment of wishes or hopes," but not all. And if you like what you do your wishes and hopes may well be related to solving a work problem. Daydreming does not necessarily refer to thinking about completely unrelated things.

Well it IS more confortable, wouldnt you say?

How is Twittering from home like a literary chronicle containing the names of all the teachers and writers from the close of the Talmud to present day?

correlation does imply causation.

s/imply/suggest/

correlation does imply causation.

s/imply/suggest/

AMD Breaks 1GHz GPU Barrier

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Nice try - but the term 'piracy' has been associated with 'media' for nearly two centuries.

Citation needed. Thanks.

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_infringement
  http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/piracy
  http://copyrightsandcampaigns.blogspot.com/2009/04/piracy-as-copyright-infringement.html

*queue smartass replies with inches per hour in scientific notation*

queue != cue

*queue smartass replies with inches per hour in scientific notation*

queue != cue

I don't know that there's enough fuel on the shuttle to bring it down to a geosynchronous orbit.

If they rode the shuttle down to a low geosynchronous orbit

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. Geosynchronous

I bet NYCL doesn't bother seeking council before he signs something!

He's probably smart enough to know that an administrative committee isn't the best place to go for advice on contract law.

Nice try. Being rude to obscure your lack of a cogent argument won't work on me. Red Hat offers a number of products and services (the solutions they charge money for would more properly be described as services). A product is "a thing produced by labor". Is it your contention that the free versions of Red Hat products are produced without labor? Or that the definition cited is invalid?

Wow, ok, so: http://dictionary.reference.com/dic?q=sarcasm

Of course, the companies mentioned back then had "revenues."

Wanna bet the "protesters" were doing more than just standing there with placards ?

Wanna bet that you didn't RTFA? The protesters were described as peaceful as can be, with the average age being over 40. Their list of offenses? They made some speeches and marched to the entrance of the AEC. Essentially, they were considered trespassing.

You don't get, as a protestor, to deny anyone access anywhere.

Which they didn't do.

You don't get to damage cars, or any other type of private property and, of course, a protest takes responsability for all protestors.

Which they didn't do.

If the police thinks the group is damaging property or denying people access to a location, they do not only have the right to end the protest, they have the duty to do so.

Again, they didn't do any of those. The police arrested them for trespassing, and I don't blame them for that. The police were only doing their job. But I don't see the point in your post, when you're basing it off of assumptions and won't even bother to read any of the links posted in the summary.

Besides, peace protesting in the united states is a farce. Someone who hides in a territory that's defended by the biggest guns on the planet is not a peace protestor. A real "peace protestor" would demonstrate in a lawless region without police forces present. You know, like Southern Darfur. You don't see many peace protests there, of course, for good reason. It doesn't make peace protests in America any less hypocrite.

How the fuck did this get modded insightful? Why would peace protesting be hypocritical in the U.S. ? One of the definitions of hypocrisy is:

The practice of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not hold or possess; falseness.

How are peace protesters, in this case, practicing beliefs that they do not hold? It would be hypocritical of them if they were protesting war, and at the same time, donating money to weapons manufacturers. One of the freedoms afforded to us is the freedom of assembly. It would be a damn shame for us to HAVE such freedom and not exercise it.

I believe that the word you are looking for is "corporatism", which is often a component of--but not fully synonymous with--fascism.

And that my friend is a sign of hypercorrection

Actually, it's not; it's an example of preferring a one plural form over another, more or less equally, acceptable one:

curriculum
n. pl. curricula or curriculums

(from here).

And what's more, curricula is actually more common than curriculums, judging by the number of Google hits (~12.7 million to 2.2 million, respectively). At very worst, what he did was impose one of his pet peeves on the conversation, in a dickish way that added nothing of value and served to undermine his point.

You, on the other hand, decided to blame your own ignorance and lack of research on someone else's supposed shortcomings, and justify it with a fabricated "rule," that ignores the actual facts and history of the language. He's a schmuck; you're an ignoramus, and an arrogant one at that.

curâ...ricâ...uâ...lum [kuh-rik-yuh-luhm] Show IPA â"noun, plural -la [-luh] Show IPA , -lums.
1. the aggregate of courses of study given in a school, college, university, etc.: The school is adding more science courses to its curriculum.
2. the regular or a particular course of study in a school, college, etc.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=curriculum&x=0&y=0

What does "prolly" mean? I checked dictionary.com, it doesn't seem to know:

From: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/prolly

No results found for prolly: Did you mean Proll (in dictionary) or Prilly (in reference)?

Yeah, programmers and mathematicians such as myself tend to look for rigurous definitions before trying to tackle the issue of the validity of a statement. Weird thing, that, trying to agree on what is being discussed before actually discussing it, that's just crazy.

Now, while Dictionary.com defines Art in terms of aesthetics and beauty, Wikipedia does it in terms of appeal to emotions, though it notes that the definition has been heavily contended during the last century. Let us take, then, the first definition of Art as per Dictionary.com, the creation of something beautiful since at the very least anything that is beautiful appeals to emotions as well.

Now we must define "beautiful", where thankfully both Dictionary.com and Wikipedia agree, as being something which possesses qualities that bring pleasure to the viewer.

Then, our task to find a game that rivals your linked painting in terms of art becomes much easier. The painting itself is ugly as sin, so anything from Chrono Trigger to Shadow of the Colossus suffices to surpass it in terms of art.

Yeah, programmers and mathematicians such as myself tend to look for rigurous definitions before trying to tackle the issue of the validity of a statement. Weird thing, that, trying to agree on what is being discussed before actually discussing it, that's just crazy.

Now, while Dictionary.com defines Art in terms of aesthetics and beauty, Wikipedia does it in terms of appeal to emotions, though it notes that the definition has been heavily contended during the last century. Let us take, then, the first definition of Art as per Dictionary.com, the creation of something beautiful since at the very least anything that is beautiful appeals to emotions as well.

Now we must define "beautiful", where thankfully both Dictionary.com and Wikipedia agree, as being something which possesses qualities that bring pleasure to the viewer.

Then, our task to find a game that rivals your linked painting in terms of art becomes much easier. The painting itself is ugly as sin, so anything from Chrono Trigger to Shadow of the Colossus suffices to surpass it in terms of art.

defunct

You're missing the point: civil disobedience is when you are working to change the world. That you don't care to try to make the world better is one thing, but you shouldn't align yourself with civil disobedience when you're really just doing what you want to do.

If you want to change the meaning of civil disobedience to be something more along the lines of "ignoring laws you don't like", then we'll have to come up with a new term to describe what is normally considered civil disobedience.

civil disobedience
 
-noun

1. the refusal to obey certain laws or governmental demands for the purpose of influencing legislation or government policy, characterized by the employment of such nonviolent techniques as boycotting, picketing, and nonpayment of taxes.

I believe there are many in this community that are willing to spend $200 on a toy. If I were to purchase a new video card for ~$200 to play games on my computer, I would consider that a toy. All the current generation gaming consoles are also in that range or above. Some may not consider them toys, but I do.. and so does dictionary.com

Please check your dictionary. For example Dictionary.com ( http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/steal )lists the following definition:

"2. to appropriate (ideas, credit, words, etc.) without right or acknowledgment." That seems to cover unauthorized copying.

Please check your dictionary. For example Dictionary.com ( http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/figurative )lists the following definition:

"1. of the nature of or involving a figure of speech, esp. a metaphor; metaphorical; not literal: a figurative expression."

Otherwise, if you believe every sense of the example you quoted is equally deserving of punishment, shouldn't the subject of this definition of "steal" also be prosecuted by the RIAA: "7. to gain or seize more than one's share of attention in, as by giving a superior performance: The comedian stole the show."?

Please check your dictionary. For example Dictionary.com ( http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/steal )lists the following definition:

"2. to appropriate (ideas, credit, words, etc.) without right or acknowledgment." That seems to cover unauthorized copying.

Please check your dictionary. For example Dictionary.com ( http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/figurative )lists the following definition:

"1. of the nature of or involving a figure of speech, esp. a metaphor; metaphorical; not literal: a figurative expression."

Otherwise, if you believe every sense of the example you quoted is equally deserving of punishment, shouldn't the subject of this definition of "steal" also be prosecuted by the RIAA: "7. to gain or seize more than one's share of attention in, as by giving a superior performance: The comedian stole the show."?