Slashdot Mirror

It seems to me that the recourse of a person with a poor argument is to insult and degrade the person that they are arguing with, rather than merely sticking to facts as presented. Regardless, the discussion in this thread is about whether or not the courts have the right (or, actually, the ruling body of a state, which has very little to do with its courts) have the right to interpret whether or not the term "import" applied to state-to-state commerce as well as commerce coming from another country.

Now, you may feel free to quibble on whether or not the original drafters of our Constitution intended the word "import" to be used as it applied to states, and we can argue back and forth on whether or not the reasonings behind that addition to our Constitution were put into place with the intent of allowing a business and/or consumers to circumvent paying taxes to the states in which they live - taxes that have been passed into law long ago - but we can never know their true intent. All we have to go on is the word "import", and whether you're talking about 220 years ago or today that word still implies transportation between countries - not within a country itself. Taken from dictionary.com (bold added for emphasis): "1. to bring in (merchandise, commodities, workers, etc.) from a foreign country for use, sale, processing, reexport, or services."

Now, no matter how much freedom individual states are given with their internal government, we are all still one country. California is not a foreign nation to New York (no matter how both peoples might feel about each other). That being said, I still hold fast to my assertion that even if (and I feel this is a strong "if" at this point) the drafters of our Constitution intended to use the word import in a fashion that no one else had intended, it is still a very different situation. I'm sure that if you could go back in time and ask the founding fathers what they thought about people circumventing the taxes that paid for the services where they lived by exclusively buying from retailers in another state, they would find the idea ludicrous. The taxes that are levied on the peoples in each state are (theoretically) used for their benefit - to fix the roads they drive on and to fund the schools their children attend. The idea of people circumventing this with internet buying could not have occured to our founding fathers - they having no knowledge of the ease of internet buying - and I think that they would feel it was a gross abuse of the system that they helped create. But, again, as I do not have a working time machine at this time I can't actually know for certain.

So you may bluster and moan about the illegality and unconstitutionality of the situation, but the reality is that our Constitution - if taken literally at its word, as you seem to feel we should - makes no license for States to not implement this sort of tax. If you feel that the spirit of the word (not its literal definition, but its intent) was to prevent this sort of tax, then you will need to take the issue before the Supreme Court and let them decide, as that is the recourse that our country and the Constitution provides for you. If you are unwilling to do that, then I feel it is safe to say that bluster is all you have and not the will to back it up.

By the by, taken from wikipedia (once again, bold added for emphasis): "Noah Webster, the author of immensely popular readers and spelling books for schools, published his first dictionary, A Compendious Dictionary of the English Language, in 1806. In it, he introduced features that would be a hallmark of future editions such as American spellings (center rather than centre, honor rather than honour, program rather than programme, etc.) and including technical terms from the arts and sciences rather than confining his dictionary

Grainy 1. resembling grain; granular.

The matte display uses an anti-reflective coating to diffuse light. This gives the display a granular appearance, which has nothing to do with the sharpness of the colour but rather the surface coating that slightly distorts the image. "Grainy" is a perfectly suitable description for such an effect and I can't think of a more suitable adjective to use. If you can, by all means feel free to correct me.

Look it up in any dictionary. They will tell you that the pronunciation is either. I just explained how I, and how I have observed others I know, make use of each pronunciation.

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/route
http://www.answers.com/route
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/route

Wiktionary, and my Australian Oxford English Dictionary (paperback edition), list "root" as the official pronunciation in Australia. It seems that the the "rowt" pronunciation may originally have been an Americanism.

Oh wait. Video games and cable TV are fundamental human rights, and poor people should never sacrifice them to pay for education, healthcare, etc.

That's right. You should do the actual work to pay for their education and health care. We will collect this from you via a method we call taxation.

Disclaimer: This message has been approved by Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and John McCain

Granted that two of ten dictionaries define a robot as:

2. A machine or device that operates automatically or by remote control.

but most people wouldn't recognize that definition. Is my central-air system a robot just because it operates by a remote control thermostat?

Certainly, speaking of a "robot uprising" implies the definition of a robot which includes artificial intelligence or at least autonomous operation.

The only thing worse than a grammar nazi is one that doesn't know what the hell they are talking about. http://dictionary.reference.com/search?db=*&q=flounder

Maybe it's a regional thing. Where I live, most people use "geek" to describe someone who's tech-savvy, or occaisionally a rabid fan of something ("anime geek.") It generally has neutral to positive connotations.

"Nerd" is a pejorative insult for the antisocial, hygiene deprived basement dweller.

Now, by Zealot's law ("everything on the internet linked to by me is infallible") and the appropriate sections of the Ferengi code, I'd like to point out that "circus freak" is the last definition on dictionary.com, and archaic in some of the zomg-heavy-book type dictionaries I've paged through.

Compare with nerd:

Maybe it's a regional thing. Where I live, most people use "geek" to describe someone who's tech-savvy, or occaisionally a rabid fan of something ("anime geek.") It generally has neutral to positive connotations.

"Nerd" is a pejorative insult for the antisocial, hygiene deprived basement dweller.

Now, by Zealot's law ("everything on the internet linked to by me is infallible") and the appropriate sections of the Ferengi code, I'd like to point out that "circus freak" is the last definition on dictionary.com, and archaic in some of the zomg-heavy-book type dictionaries I've paged through.

Compare with nerd:

Check out "social" on dictionary.com: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/social

Social engineering requires some sort of social interaction. Just because it is a human involved with an action it doesn't make it a social action.

If a guy accidentally drops a $5 bill so I can pick it up off the street there is no social component. If someone distracts him so he drops the 5 then there is a social component. Looking at an inanimate object is not a social behavior.

Come on, an expert on rocket fuel technology named Professor Ben Zinn?

For some reason, this cry for justice rings empty. Does Microsoft honestly think THEY can make such complaints given their own gregarious behavior?

For some reason, this cry for justice rings empty. Does Microsoft honestly think THEY can make such complaints given their own gregarious behavior?

unlimited
-adjective
1. not limited; unrestricted; unconfined: unlimited trade.
2. boundless; infinite; vast: the unlimited skies.
3. without any qualification or exception; unconditional.

atheist -noun a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings. [Origin: 1565-75;

--Synonyms Atheist, agnostic, infidel, skeptic refer to persons not inclined toward religious belief or a particular form of religious belief. An atheist is one who denies the existence of a deity or of divine beings. An agnostic is one who believes it impossible to know anything about God or about the creation of the universe and refrains from commitment to any religious doctrine. Infidel means an unbeliever, especially a nonbeliever in Islam or Christianity. A skeptic doubts and is critical of all accepted doctrines and creeds.

Online Etymology Dictionary atheist 1571, from Fr. athéiste (16c.), from Gk. atheos "to deny the gods, godless," from a- "without" + theos "a god" (see Thea). A slightly earlier form is represented by atheonism (c.1534) which is perhaps from It. atheo "atheist."

Please have a commonly defined set of terms or else all arguments are are useless as the incorrect definitions.

You can't believe in one God or set of gods and by denying others be an atheist as some in these threads have said. As to which belief system is correct, have fun arguing.

I don't know whether roads marked as private are considered public or not

Start with the definition of private which has, as its most applicable definition: "not open or accessible to the general public".

So, you make a nice, long driveway on your personal property. It's a private road, leading to your house. Your driveway is not a public road. It's not maintained by the city/county/state, it's not surveyed by public surveyors, it's not public.

If you specifically wanted personal privacy, and payed nicely for it, wouldn't you think it reasonable to get pissed if somebody drives down your private driveway and takes pictures to publish worldwide?

The lawsuit is for peanuts - if won, would barely cover the cost of suing. It's to make a point.

Yeah yeah, Streissand effect and all that. She was nuts. So was Scientology. But these guys? Not so much. And if they can set a precedent, no matter how small, we can begin to preserve our private lives lived in private places. Public places have always been just that...

Proprietary? ISO/IEC 23270:2003 Information technology -- C# Language Specification
Does not seem to meet the defenition.
Especially with other alternatives out there.

Many grammar weenies would vehemently disagree with me.

Not with your argument, but we would have trouble making sense of why you think being redundant has any value, and then overlook the possibility that the intended rhetorical effect may be the opposite of what you hoped.

Put simply, if something is "unique", then say so. If you're looking to describe other qualities, reach for a thesaurus. There's no need to dumb down the language for everyone when there's lots of good words you can use.

--
Grammar Weenie

"ideologically agnostic"

Looking at the definition of agnostic the only definition I can see that may fit is #4. Which would mean you are completely ignorant to OS and closed source software ideology.

I think the word you are looking for is neutral.

Defined by whom? That's not the definition at all. Terrorism is an attempt to destabilize cohesiveness of a society through violence and threats of violence.

There is a big difference between being affected and actually having your identity stolen. I am sure if Mr. Bunce has/had a wife she would consider herself affected even if her identity hadn't been solen.

"some people can eat stake all day and be fine other can eat nothing but lattice and have a cholesterol problem. [emphasis added]"

"I would hate to eat a stake every day... now a STEAK, on the other hand, would be awesome. I just don't have the budget right now."

A quantum dot is a semiconductor whose excitons are confined in all three spatial dimensions (links to other terminology you may or may not understand from the link provided)

From Wikipedia: "There is no page titled "Stark-shifting." However, a Google search of the term brings up lots of interesting links, like "Effect of pressure-dependent quantum interference on the ac Stark shifting of two-photon resonances". The dictionary only lists towns named "Stark" when you search for the term.

snooze. snooze. snort. no mention of stun, kill, slicing, death ray, x-ray specs or photonic propulsion, so there is nothing there for me

Well then you should read my journals. Lots of sex, drunken debauchery, and violence. No lasers, but there's mention of taking a "hydrogen bomb" to junior high school. See, slashdot's got something for everybody!

I wonder what the middle eastern religions, the trifecta judaism, christianity, and islam, will have to say about it. Either the universe is teaming with life, or we are the only ones. I find it hard to believe we are the only ones, so sooner or later will find proof of life somewhere.

I doubt we are alone. The real question is, are we alone with regard to how we have evolved with regards to intelligence and communication. After all, life on a distant planet is nothing but a small curiosity for scientific journals unless we can communicate with it.

Oh, and you mean 'teeming', not 'teaming'. Well, unless you really did mean that the universe and life are forming a organization for working or playing together.

Redundant? I understand offtopic, but I fail to see how this is redundant as I am the only one to call this jerk out.

Do you understand what "redundant" means, or was this just an accident? I know the new moderation system lends itself to accidental mis-moderation...

redundant -adjective
1. characterized by verbosity or unnecessary repetition in expressing ideas; prolix: a redundant style.
2. being in excess; exceeding what is usual or natural: a redundant part.
3. having some unusual or extra part or feature.
redundant. (n.d.). Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1). Retrieved March 30, 2008, from Dictionary.com website: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/redundant

If some gay guy runs around saying that Jesus sucks donkey dick and the virgin mary was a lesbian, I am within every right to say, well, all faggits will burn in hell, and I certainly don't have to hang out with one.

And really, to bring this back to the whole moral relativism point, you argue that it is ok to kill an unborn child because it has a high probability of being defective due to being born into poor circumstances, and yet, here you have, what you claim, is a defective golemlike thing that isn't even human enough to know if it is murdering a child, and you want that thing to live?

What do I tell my son? Stay away from retards because they might kill you?

I'm not even talking about every muslim nation suddenly embolded to try and get the bomb because of perceived American weakness.

You say that Bush has destroyed the good will of the world towards the USA by his actions?

and he's already picking a trade war with Canada and Mexico.

When you look at it that way, its kinda hard to imagine why we are even having a presidential election. Can we amend the constitution and have Bush run for a third term!

n. A safety device that protects an electric circuit from excessive current, consisting of or containing a metal element that melts when current exceeds a specific amperage, thereby opening the circuit.

n. 1. A cord of readily combustible material that is lighted at one end to carry a flame along its length to detonate an explosive at the other end. 2. often fuze A mechanical or electrical mechanism used to detonate an explosive charge or device such as a bomb or grenade: "A mechanical . . . switch is used to initiate the fuzes" (International Defense Review).

Now look who's being too literal! And-

1. a figure of speech in which a term or phrase is applied to something to which it is not literally applicable in order to suggest a resemblance, as in "A mighty fortress is our God." Compare mixed metaphor, simile (def. 1).
2. something used, or regarded as being used, to represent something else; emblem; symbol.

I don't see how "information wants to be expensive" is a metaphor. What's more, the example I just put shows that the other side in the freedom war (those who want freedom and those who oppose it) can play the same game. What, exactly, is it a metaphor for? Sorry, I think th ephrase "information wants and ice cream cone" sounds no more unrealistic than "information wants to be free".

I still maintain that "when information isn't free, neither are you" is a far better slogan. If someone tries to turn it around it becomes patently false. It's literally true, and it isn't trying to be cute. And I'm sure someone can come up with a far better slogan than that even.

I prefer "gubernator." With the emphasis on goober.

It's obvious you don't understand the word censor.

It's NOT your money. You gave it away!

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=gave
1. to present voluntarily and without expecting compensation; bestow: to give a birthday present to someone.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/tax
1. a sum of money demanded by a government for its support or for specific facilities or services, levied upon incomes, property, sales, etc.

Emphasis mine. He didn't give it away.

It's NOT your money. You gave it away!

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=gave
1. to present voluntarily and without expecting compensation; bestow: to give a birthday present to someone.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/tax
1. a sum of money demanded by a government for its support or for specific facilities or services, levied upon incomes, property, sales, etc.

Emphasis mine. He didn't give it away.

I don't know about you, but I would define "completely amoral and dispassionate entity who seeks to maximize his profits" as evil -or a sociopath.

I don't know about you, but I would define "completely amoral and dispassionate entity who seeks to maximize his profits" as evil -or a sociopath.

Yup your heard it.
  In 1997 the TV show strange universe. I was on several times since I knew the producers.

  I was an expert on hacking, Internet expert, Internet exposing personal information, cybersex, and internet addiction.

  I have spent almost every waking moment I could since I was 7 or so in front of a computer and thinking about them, I am 40 now.
  I program them at work, I use them in the morning before work and after work. Mostly programming, writing, email or IM.
  They have always provided me a good living, help me find housing, transportation and most of the material things I need in life, even just about every girlfriend and even my wife.

  In the past 30 years people were labeled as being addicted to TV and Video Games, junk food, fast food, sex, porn, sports, shopping, oil, taking on the phone, hell even exercise was labeled as an addiction. They tried to convinces us needed some sort of treatment to be cured of it.

  I suppose if we go far enough back our ancestors were addicted to tools or fire. more recently electricity and light.
  Be it Gas lighting in the early 1900's or electric lighting after that.
  Look at how people reacted to blackouts in the 50's, 60's and 70's.

  If you go even further back, we must have been addicted to waking upright, and eating meat, wearing cloths.
  I suppose you could even say these first land based animals became addicted to air and light.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/addiction
Addiction: the state of being enslaved to a habit or practice or to something that is psychologically or physically habit-forming, as narcotics, to such an extent that its cessation causes severe trauma.

  Yes, de-evolving like the fall of modern society would be traumatic. Going back in time, were people didn't bathe, wear clean cloths, have fresh safe food, and having to use the pony express for comminication or having to walk everywhere to get around would be traumatic.

  Someone should shoot all of these pontificating a-holes. They are really Luddites in disguise, labeling all forward progress and an addiction.

  This is the very nature of forward progress, "that its cessation causes severe trauma."

  Why should I feel ashamed of living my life at the bleeding edge of technological advancement, I am just an early adopter, in the future everyone will live like that.

  I only stands to reason that we have evolved to be addicted or at least according to there definition, but it's that very type of addiction that has propelled our race to the top of the food chain.

I hope some day we will be addicted to Zero G, Terra forming, hyper intelligence, living for a 1000 years, neural interfaces, nano-bots, robotic servants and warp travel.

What does that have to do with cooking?

You're saying that if a statement is an oxymoron then it is necessarily always true?

That's a curious departure from a more standard definition of oxymoron, such as http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=oxymoron which focuses on the self-contradictory nature of a statement.

The UAC blackout thingy actually wrecks havoc

please put an end to this nonsense

From the American Heritage Dictionary:

monopoly
1. Exclusive control by one group of the means of producing or selling a commodity or service: "Monopoly frequently ... arises from government support or from collusive agreements among individuals" (Milton Friedman).

Since the big four join together as the RIAA, they are indeed a monopoly.

I agree that loosing the 'babes' is a good thing.

I agree that loosing the 'babes' is a good thing.

I agree that loosing the 'babes' is a good thing.

I agree that loosing the 'babes' is a good thing.

Not 'legendary', just legerdemain .

He's smart with a fairly rich background in applied sciences. In other words, he's a lot less likely to create or support legislature based on the perception that the internet is a bunch of tubes.

victim /vktm/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[vik-tim] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
-noun 1.
a person who suffers from a destructive or injurious action or agency: a victim of an automobile accident.
2. a person who is deceived or cheated, as by his or her own emotions or ignorance, by the dishonesty of others, or by some impersonal agency: a victim of misplaced confidence; the victim of a swindler; a victim of an optical illusion.
3. a person or animal sacrificed or regarded as sacrificed: war victims.
4. a living creature sacrificed in religious rites.

sleazy /slizi, slezi/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[slee-zee, sley-zee] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
-adjective, -zier, -ziest.
1. contemptibly low, mean, or disreputable: sleazy politics.
2. squalid; sordid; filthy; dilapidated: a sleazy hotel.
3. thin or poor in texture, as a fabric; cheap; flimsy: a sleazy dress; a sleazy excuse.

Virtually everyone else can get one legally with relatively little hassle.

So why would a criminal need to smuggle one from a different country when he can simply steal one from his neighbor?

It is legal both to own a car and to drive a car - but you must be licensed.

You have no constitutional right to car ownership, nor driving.

It's not illegal in many states.

Which begs the question, why not?

Allowing it in people's homes would have no effect other than reducing the government's money intake, which would lead to raised taxes

That's the most pathetic excuse for restricting my rights I've ever heard.

But it's not the government's job to protect you from your own weakness, it's the government's job to protect other people from your weakness

So why isn't there a law against my giving money away?

It's much easier for the government to say "No prostitution" than to say "Only unmarried people can see prostitutes" because while the first is possible to enforce, the second is not.

Oh, so you want to restrict my freedom because it's easier? It still doesn't solve the problem you want to solve, if the actual problem is adultery. How about making it illegal to knowingly have sex with a married person, for a married person to have sex with anyone except their spouse, and to withhold marital status for purposes of having sex?

You mean "if you're for drug prohibition".

Yes, correct, I wrote that wrong.

I say these things that I think should be illegal, however I don't think a country should impose laws on an unwilling populace.

I'll agree with that, too. I hate tobacco, having been addicted to the stuff for thirty years (haven't had a cigarette for 8 years now) but 3/4 of adults DON'T smoke.

I used conservative in the standard manner - as a synonym for "Republican" conservative

And again, I use the dictionary (link is to the definition of "conservative"). Republicans haven't been conservative for a long time now.

Er... you're saying there's no evidence that gambling is an addictive habit whose victims include those who depend on the gambler for a living?

No. Although is she depends on a gambler for her living she should divorve the idiot and get a job!

From dictionary.com:

1. The interaction of two or more agents or forces so that their combined effect is greater than the sum of their individual effects.
2. Cooperative interaction among groups, especially among the acquired subsidiaries or merged parts of a corporation, that creates an enhanced combined effect.

As I'm using it here, "serendipity" would probably be a better word, or "happy coincidence" -- instead of two forces working together to produce more than the sum of their parts, it's one force that turns out to be effective in two surprisingly separate areas.