Slashdot Mirror

They do good work and unlike the ACLU they aren't hypocrites, at least as far as I can tell.

hypocrite

1. a person who pretends to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc., that he or she does not actually possess, esp. a person whose actions belie stated beliefs.
2. a person who feigns some desirable or publicly approved attitude, esp. one whose private life, opinions, or statements belie his or her public statements.

Unless they're secretly fighting for individual gun rights, they're not hypocrites.

There are shades of gray with many issues but civil rights are not one of them.

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

You correct me even though I'm 100% correct. Just because someone does something differently from you, they must be wrong, even if every dictionary on the planet indicates they aren't wrong. But feel free to keep correcting me while I'm not even wrong.

A patty is what a hamburger is. Perhaps you meant paddy?

That's a different scenario.

• Philip Morris said cigarettes were non-addicting. They didn't say they were addictive but that the addiction can be overcome. This is a possible red herring for the current discussion.
• Smoking a cigarette and taking in nicotine is the same act as smoking a cigarette and taking in nicotine. Committing simulated violence in a game and committing an actual act of violence against an actual person are not the same act. Any attempt at making one of these equivalent to the other, as one is a tautology and one is the very link in question, show that you are begging the question of the link from simulated violence to commission of actual acts of violence.
• Even if someone becomes physiologically addicted to committing simulated violence in a computer game, there remains a difference between that addiction and performing an actual physical act against an actual living person.
• The causal link between simulated violence in computer games and actual acts of violence is exactly what is at question. You are begging that question. (You cannot assume a priori the answer to a question and use that answer as support for answering the question. That's the fallacy of circular reasoning) or "begging the question".)
• Your use of demonizing Philip Morris and comparing myself to that company appears to be the genetic fallacy or somethign related to it.
• The press linking a few game players to crimes and that meaning all players of violent video games commit violent acts is the spotlight fallacy.
• Even if there's a correlation between players of violent video games and commissions of violent acts, one still has to consider and rule out the fallacies of confusing cause and effect, post hoc, ignoring a common cause, and even division (since the link between the two would likely to be stronger for certain types of people (like those with a mental failure distinguishing between fantasy and reality already)).
• Saying that either games cause real violence or they don't is a fallacy in itself, that of false dilemma. Surely even if playing violent video games is a contributing factor to actual violent acts, it is unlikely to be a sole or final cause. It is also unlikely to be a major cause compared to more significantly correlated contributing factors. It is unlikely to be the same level of contributing factor for people with different mentalities and different levels of faculties.

If you want to argue logically, please get your factual information correct and police your statements for logical fallacies.

So sue me.

First things first:

He said Microsoft's move in March 2006 to put former head of Office development Steven Sinofsky in charge of Windows development was a key driver of changes in the process. Sinofsky is now senior vice president for the Windows and Windows Live Engineering Group, and Nash credits him for bringing order to the group.

They need to fire that guy, and hire me. I'll do it for half the money, and pump out an OS that people actually want. It might even resemble Windows 2000 in its simplicity, and Linux in its features.

Gavriella Schuster, a senior director of Windows product management, cited the "stop-and-start nature" of Vista's development process as contributing to partners' lack of preparedness for the final release. Microsoft stopped Vista's development in the middle of the process to overhaul the security of the OS, a move that delayed its final release.

Wrong, they didn't overhaul security, they overhauled the whole damn thing because an OS made out of .NET wouldn't actually run any applications. What's it called when someone re-writes history?

I still didn't see anything specific to "How Vista mistakes guided blah blah". Guided? Guided? Not even close. "Vista mistakes" didn't exist until Win7 was announced. All I saw in this article was this: "Hey, look, we have a new and BETTAR one, LOOKIES! It's safer, more secure, faster, more reliable than any other" what? propogadvertisement we've ever seen before while installing it, that's what.

I know I sound like I have a chip on my shoulder. I do. It's because my clients, friends, family, and I have been forced into this crap if we plan to run the applications we are familiar with, or buy a computer from a big box store. I tried, oh how I tried, to get family on Linux...endless support calls later, they're all back on XP. Yes, XP. I like Linux dearly, it's close to market, but just not yet...I can operate a computer in the dark, under water, wearing blindfold with one hand behind my back. >95% of all other people can't, which precludes them from that platform.

As an aside, and completely off-topic, who the hell started the standard of making the non-functional progress bar? The first time I recall seeing it was during the XP installation. Now, it's everywhere. Is nothing sacred? Obfuscate! They must not know!

Norton's forum is not a government. "Censorship" is done by governments, not private businesses.

Umm, no, not at all.

Censorship -noun
1. the act or practice of censoring.
2. the office or power of a censor.
3. the time during which a censor holds office.
4. the inhibiting and distorting activity of the Freudian censor.

No mention of government anywhere.
What you are probably thinking of is the US's First Amendment to the Constitution, part of the Bill of Rights:

First Amendment
The First Amendment to the United States Constitution is the part of the United States Bill of Rights that expressly prohibits the United States Congress from making laws "respecting an establishment of religion" or that prohibit the free exercise of religion, laws that infringe the freedom of speech, infringe the freedom of the press, limit the right to peaceably assemble, or limit the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Here's a link for your review.

Please read it before trying to be clever or insightful.See this piracy definition. Piracy IS copyright infringement.

Sorry for completely destroying you with facts and logic, but it had to be done.

Though I agree that atheism is not a religion, I take exception to your (apparent) definition of religion. People who believe in Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy are not necessarily members of a religion. A religion is not a belief. A religion is:

a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

Source

So a religion is not simply a belief in a deity or deities.

Though it's a stretch, you might be able to actually make an argument for Santa Clausism and ToothFairieism:

Santa Claus

• Santa Claus is this dude who delivers toys to all the children of the world in one night. (superhuman agency)
• Santa Claus lives at the North Pole (a statement about the nature of the universe)
• Kids put out milk and cookies for Santa, decorate a Christmas tree, etc. (devotional and ritual observance)
• Kids know they have to be "good" because Santa is "making his list and checking it twice" (moral code governing the conduct of human affairs)

But what's missing? Well, no one believes that Santa Claus created the universe. There is no discussion concerning the cause or purpose of the Universe either.

OTOH, you could argue that polytheists do not necessarily believe that their superhuman agencies created the universe either. Neither do pantheists or animists.

Tooth Fairy

• The Tooth Fairy is a fairy who magically turns your discarded baby teeth into cash. (superhuman agency)
• Kids put their teeth under their pillow (devotional and ritual observance)

But there's nothing concerning the universe or a moral code at all.

Like I said: you could make the argument, but it's a stretch at best.

I think you need to look up the definition of democracy...

If you're too lazy to follow the link, here's the first two definitions:

1. government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.
 
2. a state having such a form of government: The United States and Canada are democracies.

What I think you meant to say was Australia is a constitutional monarchy and the USA is a republic. Canada (where I live) is also a constitutional monarchy. The former British colonies mostly all share a Westminster style parliament, and the same royal head of state, Queen Elizabeth II. The US gave up that privilege (if you want to call it that) in 1776.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/gotten FOr all those who troll about vocabulary, I ask: How can you be Freedom Fuckin Luving Indie Geniuses if you can't accept that it ourselves that contribute and construct a language. Language is more a people's right than anything in the constitution. The emergence of language comes about upon an organic self-organizing set of processes that act, survive, and change within and with sets of dynamic and chaotic constraining principles of human communication. Simply put, you cannot capture that dynamicism in a dictionary and grammatical guide.

Hmmm. That's not what the dictionary says. Let me check....

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

"a bitter, sharply abusive denunciation, attack, or criticism:"

Yep, that shoe fits. Wear it. Ignorant diatribe indeed :-).

Jeremy.

So, all those other bands on RIAA labels, who by their association contribute just as much to the RIAA legal budget as does Metallica, do you boycott them as well? I bet you don't.

Actually yes I do. Not only that but I don't even listen to the radio (unless I'm stuck in someone else's car). Haven't for almost a decade now. If it wasn't for "piracy" I wouldn't even know about any of the bands I listen to now (and pay concert money for, and buy their CDs {believe it or not}, and their merch, and tell other friends about who buy their CDs, concert tickets, and merch).

You only boycott the outspoken and honest. All the other weasels, who want money for their music as well, but play it strategic and don't say anything that might upset anyone, you're okay with them. They sue their customers just as much, it's just that they leave it to the record companies to do it on their behalf, so they don't get their hands dirty.

The bands don't sue anyone (rarely, if ever). It is the companies that own the bands' copyrights that sue. The bands complain to the label, they think they'll get compensated but they never do. They just pointlessly ruin peoples' lives. It's fucking disgusting. I don't pay my plumber for the rest of my life for every flush. I pay for one job. You want more money you gotta perform another job. (ie, concert) Albums are publicity for concerts. Concerts are performances. I'd love to be paid for the rest of my life for crap I did once. But guess what, I don't. Nor should I. Nor should they. Where does this sense of entitlement come from? I owe them nothing.

Lars Ulrich is not the hypocrite here.

I do not think that word means what you think it means.

Again, the answer to the question "who does that" is: every single P2P user who also understands and implements strong security measures.

And once again, over and over, WHO CARES? No one said it wasn't possible to construct scenarios where P2P is secure. The point is that when you do that, it's annoying and much less useful, hence the reason VERY FEW PEOPLE DO THAT (or, to put it colloquially, "NO ONE DOES THAT").

NOW do you get it?? I suspect not. But if not, PLEASE keep it to yourself and your analyst in the asylum.

"As has been beaten into the ground (and Ubuntu is striving to change), Linux is hard. Stupid people won't bother with it particularly when their computer already has an OS when they get it. Your bias is showing if the old and tired mantra of "windows is more prevalent" didn't answer that for you right away."

First, you are perpetuating a ridiculous myth. Linux is not hard (to use.) You go on to almost figure out your mistake, but then breeze by it when you say: particularly when their computer already has an OS when they get it. If you want to compare Windows pre-installed and configured then you need to compare it to a Linux installation that is pre-installed and configured

My 72 year old mother has been using Linux for more than 7 years. She started with a system with Windows XP pre-installed. I came in and installed Linux properly - dual boot - and let her try it out. Her conclusion? Linux is much easier to use, and much better than that horrible Windows!

I actually concede that lots of very smart people use Windows. Unfortunately, those same smart people are very ignorant (read the word definitions 2 through 4 before you rush for the flamebait mod junior). They simply don't know any better. For example, they think Ubuntu is an improvement rather than an abomination.

No, not owned by the government.

Oh, right. Where could I have gotten the idea that socialism means ownership by the government or a collective?

You need a better source of information than the indoctrination-with-an-agenda diet you've been fed... and I do mean "fed", because I doubt you've actively sought out any objective information about socialism. The only information you have about it is what validates your desired view of the world, and that was handed to you with that as a goal in mind. That information is wrong. Are you scared of learning something that might challenge your worldview? Grow a pair and go do some objective reading.

Either you're reacting to the fact that you screwed up and got called on it, or you really don't understand that you're using the word "socialism" in a very different way than other people are. As long as you aren't actually pointing me to "correct" sources, then I'm just going to assume that your rant is just your way of trying to irritate people.

See 8
See 6

After thinking about it I do agree that it sounds a bit strange, but only because of the way the author wrote it. The verb is technically fine, but it just doesn't "fit".

Eugenics is generally defined as selective breeding based on human characteristics.

Show me one dictionary definition wherein force or laws are used to select those human characteristics. Here, I'll help with a link to a bunch of dictionaries, OneLook, I'll even include the link to eugenics.

I'll admit I didn't check all of the definitions, but I did check the first 5 and none of the said anything about the use of force. The closest is the first one which does say permitting reproduction, from MSN Encarta which says "selective breeding as proposed human improvement: the proposed improvement of the human species by encouraging or permitting reproduction of only those people with genetic characteristics judged desirable. It has been regarded with disfavor since the Nazi period."

I only said it was closer to abortion, not that it was abortion. Both abortion and whatever this is both involve fertilized embryos. The similarity ends there.

That's right the similarity ends with both involving fertilized eggs, so why did you compare it to abortion?

Not defined by me. Defined by various online dictionaries, medical texts, and Sir Franis Galton himself. How you and others define it is irrelevant and incorrect.

Not how I define it but how all those dictionary definitions I linked to above define it.

Did you even look up the definition or just arrogantly assumed you were correct? Spot checking onelook has entries that all support my statement that eugenics exclusively involves selective breeding and therefore the actions of this company don't meet it.

Check what I say above. Quite simply when parents pick a fertilized egg they are selecting it. Don't believe me, check this thesaurus select: "Definition: pick out, prefer from among choices". Of those 9 definitions you provide only 4 say anything about the discouraging unfit people from reproducing and encouraging those who are fit. Those are Encarta, Cambridge, InfoPlease, and SFF.NET That's less than half.

I got tired at this point, but needless to say it seems that the vast majority of online references prove that I am correct

I too am tired of this, so I'll end after one more statement. Four out of nine references is not a "vast majority" of references, that's not even half.

Falcon

Stop it. Stop the "There's only one answer and it's the one I choose!" bullshit. Phobia has been in common use for a long time to describe an irrational fear.

References: Wikipedia, Dictionary.com

loose
lose

loose
lose

pour is not a synonym for pore.

Homonyms are fun, kids!

pour is not a synonym for pore.

Homonyms are fun, kids!

The hallmark of a mercantile nation is hoarding.

You're using "mercantile nation" differently than others do. For instance Dictionary.com says "2. engaged in trade or commerce: a mercantile nation."

if China were really trading fairly

China doesn't trade fairly, that I admit. If China wanted to trade fairly then they'd have to let the market set the price of yuan or the Chinese Renminbi. But instead the government does.

she would be spending that money around the globe and those dollars would ultimately work their way back to the US economy.

China does spend, er invest, that money throughout the world. For instance "China to invest in Brazil oil". China is one of the biggest investors in Africa. It's because of China that there hasn't been a solution in the Sudan before, but the Chinese are pushing for peace now.

those "New Deal" era reforms made by Roosevelt that were successful

Some economists believe FDRs reforms prolonged the Great Depression as I've said elsewhere. Here's what the Wall Street Journal has to say about "How Government Prolonged the Depression". The protectionist Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act, enacted in 1930, may of made it worse.

Obviously, all taxes are bad in some theoretical sense, but if you were going to tax -effectively-, and raise revenue to do what it is that governments do, then, the things to tax would be hoards. Capital Gains taxes are the -worst- form of taxes because they encourage hoarding. On the other hand, sales taxes are pretty terrible too because they discourage spending, and that ultimately lowers the velocity of money.

Depending on how you look at it taxing something but not another may be bad, or visa versa. Taxing investments drives money away from investments, and taxing spending drives money away from spending. However not enough people in the US invest enough, too many people have been living beyond their means since at least the 1990s. That stimulus package passed in early 2008, where rebates were mailed out to tax payers, failed because many people used it to pay off debt instead of spending it. If they had spent it though then they would of had more debt. Damn if I do and damn if I don't. About the only thing I can see working is to reduce government spending so taxes can be lowered if not eliminated. Reduce the size of government and use user fees for those things government does mean to provide, like roads.

Falcon

"You can check out the kernel code for many of the BSD variants out there, including Darwin, and let us know just how far OS X is from 4.4-Lite compared to the rest."

You may also need to look up the word variant. So in an argument where I say it is not the same and you claim it is, you want me to assess how different it is? So basically, it is the same and if I don't believe that I should measure the difference . WOW! I didn't think you could find a way to appear more absurd, but you pulled it off!

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

Allow me to quote:

incentive
noun
1. something that incites or tends to incite to action or greater effort, as a reward offered for increased productivity.

adjective
2. inciting, as to action; stimulating; provocative.

Whatever action is chosen as 'punishment' should never be done for the reason of revenge, but instead as a preventative measure for others not to follow their path.

Care to explain why punishment should never be motivated by revenge? It seems to me that the idea is that we forsake personal revenge in favor of the courts implementing revenge with the goal of a more impartial and proportionate revenge than tends to happen otherwise.

For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Revenge carried out proportionally and impartially is also known by the name "Justice". The fifth definition here: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=justice "the administering of deserved punishment or reward." Having a court system rather than personal revenge doesn't make justice not revenge, it is simply a method of trying to ensure that the "deserved" requirement is properly met.

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

The English language will always have various components and modules. There are regional and cultural words. There are fad and fashionable words. Some changes stick while others die. If you hate many of these new introductions, you're not alone. Personally, I find many of them to be extremely irritating and "incentivize" is rather high on that list. (along with words made to end with -izzle) But if you really hate all this change in the language, I suggest you go back and practice inserting "thee" and "thou" into your daily vocabulary.

In truth, there are few things as truly democratic as the English language. And just as in a democratic government, there will be laws and other aspects that you will absolutely hate and feel compelled to protest just as you do with words like "incentivize." But in the end, it is the collective will of the people that carries through because no one can really tell you how to speak. (I know, it's a subjective statement... just accept it as a generalization.) But one thing is for certain -- the [ab]use of the English language is one very unrecognized force that actually helps to ensure the spirit of democracy remains alive.

Hold on a second. Are you really arguing that if my actions cause the value of your property to decrease, that is equivalent to theft?

Yes, in cases where your actions run afoul of either legal or contractual obligations. I guess you missed the fact that all of my examples were illegitimate, either for legal reasons, or contractual obligation?

If you control the world's only known naturally occurring source of unobtanium, and I invent a process that produces artificial unobtanium your property has been devalued.

There's no law against producing unobtanium, unless it closely resembles certain nuclear-fissionable materials. Unless, of course, you have a legal contract with me involving "insider knowledge" or "non-competition". Otherwise, have at it!

If you buy a meal, and I'm sitting next to you with noisy and annoying friends, your purchase has been devalued.

Depending on the situation, you may be running afoul of local harassment, tresspassing, and/or noise ordinances. For example, if I'm trying to eat my meal in my living room, and I don't want you there? Otherwise, chatter away!

If you buy a HumVee and I write a book about how awful HumVees are, you might find it harder to sell your SUV.

It's usually not against the law to write a book about anything. There are laws about defamation, libel, and slander that you might want to consider.

As a consumer, I will decide what is in my best interest Thank You Very Much.

All the way to jail, if you are on a car lot with lots of shiny, new cars, and you decide that, while you don't want to pay for a HumVee, you are going to get one, anyway.

If my unwillingness to purchase certain media leads to the failure of that market, I'm quite ok with that.

Nobody's arguing with your right to not buy something. What's being argued is your right to have the thing you decided not to buy, anyway.

Of course, if you need hired thugs to convince people to buy your product, "market" doesn't really apply. "Racket" is the word you're looking for.

What about when those "hired thugs" are called "police" and they are inquiring about that shiny red HumVee in your front driveway that was recently found missing at the local car lot? Are you saying the civilization is a "racket"?

There are laws on copyrights that exist to grant rights to content creators. If you create content, you are free to waive those rights, and distribute your content free of charge. (As I am doing now, with this post) But if I don't want to allow free distribution of my created works, I can do so, and there are laws in place for this to happen.

As a programmer myself, I'm free to choose the GNU GPL license to distribute my works. (And I often do) Notice that it's a license: permission to do or not to do something. When I release something under the GPL, I'm limiting your right to use my works to those terms specified in the Gnu Public License, terms that are widely accepted in this particular corner of the Internet. But it's copyright law that gives me the right to limit distribution in this manner, and I bristle at the idea that you feel that these rights should be taken from me.

Because the marginal cost of making another car is non-zero. Therefore the scarcity is real. The marginal cost of making another MP3 is zero. Therefore any scarcity is artificial. Did you have trouble in economics?

I had no trouble in economics. In fact, in economics class I learned the difference between production costs and reproduction costs. The difference between the two is what you are confusing, and the difference between the two is greater for digital media than the cars, thanks to the Intarwebz. But the point remains the same.

Read up - you might find it enlightening!

If you can't grasp the concept of scarcity, you're going to be incoherent when discussing economics.

I think we can agree on this point. There are two links above where your road to discovery begins!

Scribes found other ways to make a living. Music publishers will too. The digital-copying genie is out of the bottle, the business model is fundamentally broken. The only question is how much time, effort, resources, and lives we will waste trying to go backwards.

Another concept you may want to consider reading on is the fallacy of argument by scenario. The legitimacy of copy rights have nothing to do with scribes. You might also look up "non sequitur" on the same page...

But, in any event, I guess that you are asserting that anybody who produces copyrighted material should just give up now and hurry along, right? Programmers, have no rights to their works anymore, right? On a side note: this would make the GNU GPL worthless, since it's based on copyrights...

So programmers have no rights to their works, anymore. Neither do authors, music writers, photographers, font creators, video-game writers, technical manual writers, database designers, website coordinators, architects, lawyers, hardware engineers, chipset designers, and advertising agents, right?

Hell, the majority of our modern economy needs to get with the program, give up their day jobs - they need to adapt, like scribes, Roman foot soldiers, and town cryers, right?

Methinks you are confusing your front side with your back side when you talk about going backwards...

Because the marginal cost of making another car is non-zero. Therefore the scarcity is real. The marginal cost of making another MP3 is zero. Therefore any scarcity is artificial. Did you have trouble in economics?

I had no trouble in economics. In fact, in economics class I learned the difference between production costs and reproduction costs. The difference between the two is what you are confusing, and the difference between the two is greater for digital media than the cars, thanks to the Intarwebz. But the point remains the same.

Read up - you might find it enlightening!

If you can't grasp the concept of scarcity, you're going to be incoherent when discussing economics.

I think we can agree on this point. There are two links above where your road to discovery begins!

Scribes found other ways to make a living. Music publishers will too. The digital-copying genie is out of the bottle, the business model is fundamentally broken. The only question is how much time, effort, resources, and lives we will waste trying to go backwards.

Another concept you may want to consider reading on is the fallacy of argument by scenario. The legitimacy of copy rights have nothing to do with scribes. You might also look up "non sequitur" on the same page...

But, in any event, I guess that you are asserting that anybody who produces copyrighted material should just give up now and hurry along, right? Programmers, have no rights to their works anymore, right? On a side note: this would make the GNU GPL worthless, since it's based on copyrights...

So programmers have no rights to their works, anymore. Neither do authors, music writers, photographers, font creators, video-game writers, technical manual writers, database designers, website coordinators, architects, lawyers, hardware engineers, chipset designers, and advertising agents, right?

Hell, the majority of our modern economy needs to get with the program, give up their day jobs - they need to adapt, like scribes, Roman foot soldiers, and town cryers, right?

Methinks you are confusing your front side with your back side when you talk about going backwards...

As an adjective for flamebait? I think he did mean hypergolic.

Just because it's an exothermic reaction doesn't make it combustion and the actual combustion in that case is incidental.

And cells aren't respiring when they're dead.

rust though, specifies iron.

And do you really think that just because it's done in a organism/cell that the reaction is any less energetic? Improperly stored grain/hay can get so hot that it ends up combusting from the heat of rotting.

At least according to Wikipedia, cellular respiration is a form of slow combustion.

I would encourage you (and the mods presumably) to look this up in a reputable English dictionary

From Merriam-Webster:

Recent criticism of the use of myriad as a noun, both in the plural form myriads and in the phrase a myriad of, seems to reflect a mistaken belief that the word was originally and is still properly only an adjective. As the entries here show, however, the noun is in fact the older form, dating to the 16th century. The noun myriad has appeared in the works of such writers as Milton (plural myriads) and Thoreau (a myriad of), and it continues to occur frequently in reputable English. There is no reason to avoid it.

Some more: Cambridge

Oxford

dictionary.reference.com says:

Usage Note: Throughout most of its history in English myriad was used as a noun, as in a myriad of men. In the 19th century it began to be used in poetry as an adjective, as in myriad men. Both usages in English are acceptable, as in Samuel Taylor Coleridge's "Myriad myriads of lives." This poetic, adjectival use became so well entrenched generally that many people came to consider it as the only correct use. In fact, both uses in English are parallel with those of the original ancient Greek. The Greek word mÅrias, from which myriad derives, could be used as either a noun or an adjective, but the noun mÅrias was used in general prose and in mathematics while the adjective mÅrias was used only in poetry.

*sigh*

That's not "evidence" in the sense that it would take to actually prove something. I assume you think that all uses of "theory" are synonymous with "conjecture" as well? Evidence is something tangible that can be verified by other people. Using your "broadest sense" definition I have evidence that you fuck goats. Because I know that stupid people have fucked goats in the past, and you're stupid, therefore you must fuck goats. And I have evidence to back up the truth of my assertion.

Queue Sun...

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

Queue Sun...

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

No, my point was that all religions are cults, it just takes 100 years to become 'accepted'.

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

"Right around the point where they run hospitals, schools and soup kitchens."

Running organizations is Completely irrelevant to being a cult.
Don't forget they also use Mother Teressa to get money for the poor...almost none of that money actually went to the poor.

Scientology donates to organization, so suddenly there not a cult?
Pretty much ANY cult would love to run those parts of society.

I suggest you take your own advice before looking more foolish:

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

1. a particular system of religious worship, esp. with reference to its rites and ceremonies.
2. an instance of great veneration of a person, ideal, or thing, esp. as manifested by a body of admirers: the physical fitness cult.
3. the object of such devotion.
4. a group or sect bound together by veneration of the same thing, person, ideal, etc.
5. Sociology. a group having a sacred ideology and a set of rites centering around their sacred symbols.
6. a religion or sect considered to be false, unorthodox, or extremist, with members often living outside of conventional society under the direction of a charismatic leader.
7. the members of such a religion or sect.
8. any system for treating human sickness that originated by a person usually claiming to have sole insight into the nature of disease, and that employs methods regarded as unorthodox or unscientific.

That's actually interesting, because whenever you quiz a board of directors about high CEO pay, they always say the same thing: it's to be competitive with what other companies are also doing.

Huh... That's actually kinda funny, because the last time *I* quizzed a board of directors about high CEO pay, they told me to shut up and look up the difference between competition and collusion.

That's actually interesting, because whenever you quiz a board of directors about high CEO pay, they always say the same thing: it's to be competitive with what other companies are also doing.

Huh... That's actually kinda funny, because the last time *I* quizzed a board of directors about high CEO pay, they told me to shut up and look up the difference between competition and collusion.

http://dictionary.reference.com/dic?q=looser

well, I just looked it up now - here and it would still be a "no no" to use it, so my gentle teasing probably wasn't that out of place ;-)

The US is one of the worst offenders in the world scene for breaking agreements.

I agree the US is "one of the worst", just like all other countries that have any amount of power and are capable or breaking agreements. But that does not change the fact that in this case this is just an international organization determining if two international agreements are being honored correctly.

But you would have known this if you knew the meaning of the word "sometimes."

I heartily recommend "censuring" posts when appropriate. I think you're referring to "censoring" posts.

A 'platform' is where you are currently standing. As it stands, he does have a 'fantastic platform'...

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=fantastic
1. conceived or appearing as if conceived by an unrestrained imagination; odd and remarkable; bizarre; grotesque: fantastic rock formations; fantastic designs.
2. fanciful or capricious, as persons or their ideas or actions: We never know what that fantastic creature will say next.
3. imaginary or groundless in not being based on reality; foolish or irrational: fantastic fears.
4. extravagantly fanciful; marvelous.
5. incredibly great or extreme; exorbitant: to spend fantastic sums of money.
6. highly unrealistic or impractical; outlandish: a fantastic scheme to make a million dollars betting on horse races.
7. Informal. extraordinarily good: a fantastic musical.

Hmm... I'd be willing to bet the GP meant that 5th or 7th definition rather than the other 5, but I think they all apply.

As I was listening to his inauguration speech, I said to myself: "If he does half of that, and just leaves the other half alone, I will be very, very happy." And no, I wasn't cherry picking which half. Any random half is fine.

If Obama can pull it off, he'll have been the best President ever.

I have Hope, but I don't have Confidence.

advertise
c.1430, "to take notice of," from M.Fr. advertiss-, prp. stem of a(d)vertir "warn," from L. advertere "turn toward," from ad- "toward" + vertere "to turn" see versus). Original sense remains in advert "to give attention to." Sense of advertise shifted to "give notice to others, warn" (1490) by influence of advertisement, which meant "public notice (of anything, but often of a sale)" by c.1460. The modern, commercial meaning was fully developed by 18c.

Online Etymology Dictionary, © 2001 Douglas Harper

If you'd like other opinions, you can read more here

Sorry asshole. The president was (badly) elected but is still expected to follow the laws of the land. That he did not feel it necessary was proof that he was a dictator.

Wrong.

"a person exercising absolute power, esp. a ruler who has absolute, unrestricted control in a government without hereditary succession"

The idea that Bush had "absolute power" is preposterous and everybody knows it.

He also lied and got us into a useless war that has killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, thousands of Americans, and was designed JUST to get Saddam.

Correct--and then he was re-elected despite it. Interesting, that. Sounds like a majority of Americans (and I didn't vote for him, mind you) were OK with it. Doesn't look too dictatorial to me.

That whole war on false pretenses thing... Maybe you're too fucking retarded to follow along here, but that's murder. Conspiracy to commit perhaps, but still a ticket to the big house for anyone not above the law.

Wrong. When you understand how both American and international law work, you can try to prove this point. You don't, so stop trying.

We must rid of presidents who see this as a kingdom.

Wow, you're right twice in one post. That's shocking. But that still doesn't make him a dictator, no matter how much you'd like to redefine the term.

typo's

I'm hoping that was irony, but on Slashdot, I know it probably wasn't. Sigh.

Meta-irony? http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/typo's&

Yeah, because after all, "tasked" isn't a word, and the verb form certainly doesn't date form 1598.