Slashdot Mirror

Browse means: 1. to eat, nibble at, or feed on (leaves, tender shoots, or other soft vegetation).

... so a browser would be a salad fork.

Oh by the way, a couple of days ago, my wife let me know that she had "Closed the internet" a few hours previously. I opened it again as soon as I found out. Sorry, I'll try to not let it happen again.

What do you mean by agnostic? I can only assume you mean that you don't understand the benefits of different operating systems. Unusual for slashdot reader!

You're missing something from your argument. Namely, you're trying to prove the negative (Ad Hominem not meaning ...) by trying to show the positive (Ad Hominem can mean ...). For this to work, you'd either need to show that your source is absolutely authoritative and that the definition you gave is the sole definition.

Remember, your first comment on the subject began "ad hominem doesn't mean attacking the messenger..." And Wikipedia, dictionary.com, and pretty much any result you find on Google will confirm the original poster's definition of the term.

Unless you're trying to go meta by using a logical fallacy to distort the definition of a logical fallacy. In that vein, you might take a look at your source again...in the footnote below the passage you quoted, the author misspells the term in question (spelling it "ad kominem"). How can such a source be considered authoritative if they can't even be bothered to spell it correctly?

[edit] Common Usages of Facts
Facts are commonly used in many ways, such as to signify mathematical dismissal, to spend time spreading bullshit, to get smart, to make it all up as you go along, to bungle something, or to act carefully or foolishly, as if full of cheese doodles. "The truth is more important than the facts." - Frank Lloyd Wright (1868-1959) So if you are a true person and you have to tell a fact, let out the truth, frankly speaking..[Citation not needed at all; thank you very much]

"Dickheads" will just leave their cellphones at home (or turn off their in-car cellphone for that matter) and continue to drive wrecklessly

One can be standing 30 yards away and still look someone or something directly in the eyes. Your vision must not be that great.

And here's a picture of just how close you can get. You can see right into the tiger's eyes, and that's from some crappy camera back a ways from the fence.

I'm not going to say or even imply (like you have) that I understand all wild animal behavior, but I understand cats and feral cats. All other observations of big cats (like tigers) seem to fit right in with my understanding -- except when they "play" you're not just going to suffer an annoying claw scrape.

You don't stare down ANY wild animal -- hell, any domestic animal -- unless you're willing to back it up with force. Since we don't have any evidence of the boys doing anything other than watching the tigers, I'm inclined to believe they simply stared right back. Unfortunately, Tatiana was not too amused that day and simply jumped across the moat, or up the wall.

My proof is that the tiger attacked them and only them
People who know things about animals. Even mentioning punishing the tiger shows that this is not you.
You know less than you think you do. My proof is your so-called "proof."

Your assertion about predators normally just picking people at random shows you have little understanding of just how a predator works. It doesn't charge in willy-nilly and maul the closest person. It selects its target(s), stalks, and picks them off. It's a much more efficient strategy than simply going after the closest, because that one could also be stronger and faster.

I am not sure about these boys' body sizes, but they didn't look fat. Likely, they were around 5'6" and extremely skinny, as most boys are around their ages. A tiger who has mauled someone before might not even think twice about human prey of this size.

We can go back and forth about what you and I *think*. But we know very little except this:

1) No evidence of taunting. No witnesses. No confessions. No weapons. No nothing.

2) Tatiana has mauled before.

3) The tiger enclosure was known by zoo officials to be too short and nothing was done.

4) The same zoo officials ignored the known defective cage that allowed the mauling a year prior.

5) Zoo employees, security, and officials did not respond right away, and even refused help at one point.

Be careful of unfounded accusations. Without proof, they are libel. If you are not an animal expert, and you weren't there, you should not be saying such things against the boys. I'm sure the zoo director makes a better lawsuit target for libel and slander, but you never know...

Cite your sources if you know otherwise.

they had the "fraudulous" (maybe http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fraudulent would be better) positions because of him. some of the "talking heads" have even blamed the global market "mini crash" on his trades

interesting logic though

Odd. It seems that Webster disagrees with you. I know, I know, it's not Oxford. Oxford doesn't have a free interface, and my copy is 30 years old. Still, Webster is generally considered to be a reasonable source for the English language as spoken in the U.S.

Dang.

I will point out, though, that this one supports almost exactly what I wrote.
And besides, William Safire is like the Chuck Norris of words.

The written purpose of the 2nd amendment is the maintenence of the militia. On what basis do you argue that a militia should not have access to assault rifles?

It's not about "legitimate sporting purpose", self defense,criminals or anything else other than the arming of a citizen's military force. Naturally, if you are part of a well armed militia, self defense etc become issues that do not require debate.

To pray, Issac went to the fields, Christ went to a mountains, Matthew went to the closet, Peter went to the rooftops, etc. The very idea of people congregating to pray would have been decried by Jesus' disciples. Indeed, they did not pray even amongst themselves, while they were together, instead keeping their prayers to themselves, not unlike eastern meditation. The purpose of being together was for discussion on the things discovered during prayer.

So you're saying we should not start out church meetings with a prayer? We are encouraged to pray privately and as families. It was not so odd as you claim to be seen in prayer at the time of Christ:

• During the Sermon on the Mount he gave an example prayer
• In James we are told that if we are sick we should call for the elders of the church to pray over us, i.e. as a group
• When Christ went up into the Mount of Transfiguration to pray, he brought along Peter, James, and John, so he must not have minded praying with the two of them there
• When Christ prayed at Gethsemane he was at least close enough for the Twelve to hear him and record his words
• We read of a multitude of Jews praying outside the temple in Luke
• Christ prayed at his baptism in full view of the public, who saw the dove descend and heard God's voice from heaven.
• When choosing the replacement for Judas Iscariot, the Eleven prayed together to determine which of the two they had chosen should be named an apostle.
• Peter and John prayed with an assembly gathered to hear them.
• The apostles fasted and prayed together before sending Barnabas and Saul (Paul) to teach.
  • 
    
    I trust that is enough examples?
    
    On a slightly related note, what gives you the idea the LDS Church congregates in order to pray? Prayer is not the purpose of our meetings, instead we gather to learn from the scriptures. Prayer is almost incidental to that activity. We are taught that we must pray always, in all places.

    Also, the idea of giving a standardized percent of your income, especially to religious leaders, would have made Christ's stomach turn... He followed the Pharisees laws, and encouraged his followers to do the same, but he would have much preferred that you helped the poor with your money... Instead, leadership of churches since his time have taken accounts of Jesus's giving of tithing, and twisted his words, into supporting a tithe.

    The standardized percent used for tithing in modern times is based solely on modern revelation (see D&C 119:3-5), however the concept of tithing has been around since the times of Adam (Cain and Abel offered up a portion of the fruits of their labors to the Lord), and Malachi warned the Jews that they had robbed God by not paying their tithes. The money is not given to religious leaders, as you claim; none of the leaders of the LDS Church are compensated for their service (other than a few who volunteer full-time, and are given a small stipend with which they can pay their bills). Tithing money goes exclusively toward the maintenance and construction of church buildings. I do not think Christ would be appalled by it as you claim.
    
    The word "tithing" itself means "one-tenth" (see here), so it is not at all surprising that 10% should be the percentage assigned.

    I think you, and your fellow LDS churchgoers know less of Christ's

cult-noun

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.
-adjective 9. of or pertaining to a cult.
10. of, for, or attracting a small group of devotees: a cult movie.

So you get to make up your own definition now, eh?

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

A cult -is- a religion, even the dictionary says so. It's on the 'connotations' that people have that make it any different than religion, and those vary according to who you talk to.

Also, you've neglected to mention the time when Christianity was also a 'cult' by your own definition. They read the bible in church in the original language, despite the fact that none of the lower members understood it. They definitely attacked all other beliefs, locked people up, used any possible means, etc.

>If it doesn't matter, then why use the wrong term?
> It's because it DOES matter

No, it's because the word "steal" carries enough meaning to fit with what is being talked about.

(from another post)
From http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/steal

This definition doesn't explicitly say that stealing removes an object from the owner's use, merely that you took something without permission.
(ie, making a copy is taking a copy, and if you were not authorized to make that copy you are stealing it)
1. to take (the property of another or others) without permission or right, esp. secretly or by force

This definition fits nicely with the vernacular usage that you're decrying
2. to appropriate (ideas, credit, words, etc.) without right or acknowledgment.

>associating something innocuous, copyright infringement, with something we all despise: theft.

Copyright infringement is not innocuous as far as I've ever heard... multimillion dollar lawsuits are fought over years when one company infringes another's copyrights. It's serious business
We don't all despise theft either: If I'm starving, I feel just fine stealing bread. Stealing a candy bar from a billionaire just doesn't compare to stealing one from a child.

Let the word stand, and associate what they're doing: extortion, destroying people entire lives over a $1.99 song, etc.

We are not lawyers in court or writing court documents, the word steal has multiple meanings, and by context you can work out the point of the conversation:

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

This definition doesn't explicitly say that stealing removes an object from the owner's use, merely that you took something without permission.
(ie, making a copy is taking a copy, and if you were not authorized to make that copy you are stealing it)
>1. to take (the property of another or others) without permission or right, esp. secretly or by force

This definition fits nicely with the vernacular usage that you're decrying
>2. to appropriate (ideas, credit, words, etc.) without right or acknowledgment.

The difference is that the interstate commerce thing sounds ridiculous to "normal" people that are just trying to exchange ideas.
When someone else gets something for free that you had to pay for, that fits enough of the definition of theft for people to be able to grasp onto.

By nitpicking about specific terms, you detract from the discussion about what really matters, and the real argument suffers: Sure RIAA has a right to investigate these things, but no cheating guys... (sorry if my use of the word cheating collides with a usage of the word you don't approve of) They shouldn't have the right to destroy a person's life with just an accusation that has no real basis. They should not be allowed to extort money from you simply because you can't afford to defend yourself. (The burden's are well beyond proportion to the alleged "crime" or tort)

Also, when you focus on the "theft" definition, you reduce the problem to one of two competing concerns:
1. Rich artists making millions off of presumably little work, so it's OK to "take from" them without compensation
2. Empathy with "If I did a song I'd want to get paid for it"
Neither of them deals with the inherent unfairness of the copyright system, nor with RIAA's evil methods of dealing with it.

Once people get used to "Corporations are abusing unfair laws and abusing the court system in order to destroy people just like you", the nuances of terminology make much more sense to talk about.

tax /tæks/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[taks] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
-noun 1. a sum of money demanded by a government for its support or for specific facilities or services, levied upon incomes, property, sales, etc.
2. a burdensome charge, obligation, duty, or demand.
-verb (used with object) 3. (of a government) a. to demand a tax from (a person, business, etc.).
b. to demand a tax in consideration of the possession or occurrence of (income, goods, sales, etc.), usually in proportion to the value of money involved.

4. to lay a burden on; make serious demands on: to tax one's resources.
5. to take to task; censure; reprove; accuse: to tax one with laziness.
6. Informal. to charge: What did he tax you for that?
7. Archaic. to estimate or determine the amount or value of.
-verb (used without object) 8. to levy taxes.

[Origin: 1250-1300; (v.) ME taxen

Glutinous had me scratching my head until I figured out it was a misspelling. Didn't know being extra sticky was a sin... :P (they're pronounced quite differently which honestly made it not immediately apparent to me)

you took a simple joke and imagined yourself wiser.

Are easily distracted by that which does not apply to you?

Fact or faith:

Will there be a sunrise for you tomorrow?

Hint: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=faith (just read the first two).

Why do you go about pretending to redefine 'faith'?

Even the first two definitions thereof at Dictionary.com have no mention of a Deity. Check it out:

1. confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.
2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.

Your use of the word assumption is but #5: arrogance; presumption".

Why do you go about pretending to redefine 'faith'?

Even the first two definitions thereof at Dictionary.com have no mention of a Deity. Check it out:

1. confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.
2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.

Your use of the word assumption is but #5: arrogance; presumption".

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

Stop making up your own definitions. What are you, a Democrat?

You took an easy question, posed in the simplest vernacular, and imagined yourself wise.

Here's the question again, for your sake:

Is it fact or faith that the Sun will rise on/for you tomorrow?

note that we have no evidence that there is a general purpose intent to lie, only a case where communication was used and observed to score better in one mode than another

1. a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive ... 2. something intended or serving to convey a false impression ... 3. an inaccurate or false statement ... Dictionary.com

There's more definitions, but this activity fits two of the top three (actually, at least four of the top seven) definitions of the word!

Since the first two of the definitions you cite require intent as part of the definition, and since I was discussing "intent to lie", that's an odd claim. Except in the somewhat metaphorical use like "That thermometer lies when it says it's 37 degrees out.", lying is an action of intent, so you must demonstrate, not define away, the intent component.

And, note particularly, that intent to lie is not intent to have the end result. If I give you two buttons and I say, "press one of these two buttons to do something (I won't tell you what) and then seek the goal and score yourself, keeping track of which button to press", you may well learn to press the buttons but that doesn't mean you know what you're causing, other than a higher score. Do we know the program is modeling anything else besides its food score? Its own quality of life, for example? Much less the quality of life of its compatriots? Even if it thinks letting something go to its death is going to give it a lower score, is that the extent of what it knows about death? Or has it seen Bambi? I think the bar for lying is higher than you're setting it.

There are probably many animals that know to do actions that have the effect of misleading, and yet we wouldn't say such animals are liars unless they have the cognitive modeling capability to understand the difference. Even the instructions to a child or to the impaired given in court to someone who will testify (at least on the TV shows I've seen, which I must assume mirror reality) seem to focus on the question of only allowing someone to testify as to the truth of something if they can model what it is to lie. If they can't form the difference between truth and a lie, the information cannot be taken as an assertion of truth. It's just a data point.

There's an excellent illustration of some of these issues in the book Ender's Game. Orson Scott Card explores a lot of strategies and meta-strategies in there, and there's a notable one at one point where this comes into play clearly. I don't want to spoil anything by saying more about that book, which is a fun read. You'll know it when you see it.

1. a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood. 2. something intended or serving to convey a false impression; imposture: His flashy car was a lie that deceived no one. 3. an inaccurate or false statement. ("lie." Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1). Random House, Inc. 19 Jan. 2008. <Dictionary.com http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/lie>.)

There's more definitions, but this activity fits two of the top three (actually, at least four of the top seven) definitions of the word!

Of course if you ask if the device knows that it is telling an untruth, the answer is Mu. It cannot know unless it has been programmed to know. Is the veracity of the statement one of the scoring criteria for communications? Now THAT would be interesting.

Do dictionary entries count?

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

Maybe we can add his picture to TWO definitions :-)

Creationism and Evolution are not mutually exclusive.

Yes they are, at least for the standard dictionary definition of creationism:

creationism:
1. the doctrine that matter and all things were created, substantially as they now exist, by an omnipotent Creator, and not gradually evolved or developed.
2. the doctrine that the true story of the creation of the universe is as it is recounted in the Bible, esp. in the first chapter of Genesis.

Keep in mind, "Creationism" != "Religious faith". There are plenty of people who believe in God and who accept the scientific theory of evolution. But they are not creationists.

That depends on your definition. (see #7)

you're very sure of yourself, but, perhaps instead of assuming you know what you're talking about, you should put some weight into the thoughts of others, and do some research, as well.

from a dictionary, it appears you're cherry picking:

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

it's also rather evident your 'definition' which supposedly "fact" is blatantly wrong. you might define it like that, but you shouldn't expect anyone else to understand you when you try to use words in your own special way. several of the dictionaries seem to disagree on the extent to which atheism extends its negativity, but wikipedia should be of help:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism#Definitions_and_distinctions

it means disbelief in god or gods. that's nothing to do with belief that gods don't exist. I'm not sure how "without god" says anything conclusively about that.

That's an interesting definition of creationism you're using. It's not most people's, nor does it fit with the dictionary:

creationism:
1. the doctrine that matter and all things were created, substantially as they now exist, by an omnipotent Creator, and not gradually evolved or developed.
2. the doctrine that the true story of the creation of the universe is as it is recounted in the Bible, esp. in the first chapter of Genesis.

It sounds like you're thinking of theistic evolution, which is different from creationism.

Words, eh! Who'd have though they could have more than one meaning:

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=theory

Evolution would be under definition #1, whereas creationism comes under definition #7.

It should be noted that the implication that leaning over the table blocks a projection from above is spurious

You're claiming that "clone" is a homophone and I'm confusing two words with entirely different meanings because they sound the same. Or if not homophones, that I'm at least confusing different definitions of the same word. For your example of "speaker," Dictionary.com lists four definitions, and you make reference to two of the different meanings given there in your example.

However, you have entirely misapplied this in my case. I am using exactly the same, precisely defined, scientific definition of the word "clone," and you are wrong in claiming I'm trying to "compare scientific things based on linguistics." I'm comparing scientific things based upon science, and using the accurate scientific word for both things used with the exact same definition.

I'm quite curious what it is that you think "clone" means. Here are some examples of what it actually means. Note that they all apply to both the cloned animal and apple case.
From Dictionary.com: "a cell, cell product, or organism that is genetically identical to the unit or individual from which it was derived."
From Wikipedia: "In horticulture and biology, any organism whose genetic information is identical to that of a 'mother organism' from which it was created."
From Merriam Webster: "the aggregate of genetically identical cells or organisms asexually produced by a single progenitor cell or organism"
From University of Texas' Life Sciences Dictionary: "A population of cells all descended from a single cell."
From McGraw-Hill's Access Science: "Cloning
The asexual creation of a genetic copy, a capability possessed by plants but not by most animals. Thus, plants generate genetic copies spontaneously, and rooting "cuttings" is widely used by horticulturists to propagate millions of clones annually. In animals, only some lower invertebrates can be cloned by "cutting"; for example, earthworms when bisected will regenerate the missing half, resulting in two whole, genetically identical individuals. However, asexual reproduction and cloning do not normally occur in vertebrates except for the special case of identical twinning. This is despite the fact that individual cells, called blastomeres, within the very early embryo are totipotent; that is, each is capable, if evaluated on its own, of developing into a viable term pregnancy and infant."

I see in the Access Science entry, and other places, what I think is confusing you: there certainly are many different ways cloning can occur. That doesn't mean I'm using the word wrong. It's as if I said that both Bill Clinton and Pervez Musharraf became leaders of their countries, and you said I'm wrong because they came to power in different ways. While you're right there are distinctions to be made in different ways of "becoming leaders," and different methods of making "clones," I am entirely correct in calling both animal and plant clones "clones," just as I'm entirely correct in calling both Clinton and Musharraf "leaders." And it's the same definition of "clone" and "leader." The ability to draw further distinctions does not mean they don't both meet the same greater definition. You are trying to draw semantic distinctions that do not exist.

I don't even know what word you're looking for. "Artificial Cloning" doesn't apply, because they're both artificial: those Apple trees do not make natural clones, they are grafted artificially by people, usually onto foreign rootstock. Apples have their own natural method of procreation, which is trees sprouting from the seeds inside Apples, that we bypass entirely to create the artificial man-made c

You're claiming that "clone" is a homophone and I'm confusing two words with entirely different meanings because they sound the same. Or if not homophones, that I'm at least confusing different definitions of the same word. For your example of "speaker," Dictionary.com lists four definitions, and you make reference to two of the different meanings given there in your example.

However, you have entirely misapplied this in my case. I am using exactly the same, precisely defined, scientific definition of the word "clone," and you are wrong in claiming I'm trying to "compare scientific things based on linguistics." I'm comparing scientific things based upon science, and using the accurate scientific word for both things used with the exact same definition.

I'm quite curious what it is that you think "clone" means. Here are some examples of what it actually means. Note that they all apply to both the cloned animal and apple case.
From Dictionary.com: "a cell, cell product, or organism that is genetically identical to the unit or individual from which it was derived."
From Wikipedia: "In horticulture and biology, any organism whose genetic information is identical to that of a 'mother organism' from which it was created."
From Merriam Webster: "the aggregate of genetically identical cells or organisms asexually produced by a single progenitor cell or organism"
From University of Texas' Life Sciences Dictionary: "A population of cells all descended from a single cell."
From McGraw-Hill's Access Science: "Cloning
The asexual creation of a genetic copy, a capability possessed by plants but not by most animals. Thus, plants generate genetic copies spontaneously, and rooting "cuttings" is widely used by horticulturists to propagate millions of clones annually. In animals, only some lower invertebrates can be cloned by "cutting"; for example, earthworms when bisected will regenerate the missing half, resulting in two whole, genetically identical individuals. However, asexual reproduction and cloning do not normally occur in vertebrates except for the special case of identical twinning. This is despite the fact that individual cells, called blastomeres, within the very early embryo are totipotent; that is, each is capable, if evaluated on its own, of developing into a viable term pregnancy and infant."

I see in the Access Science entry, and other places, what I think is confusing you: there certainly are many different ways cloning can occur. That doesn't mean I'm using the word wrong. It's as if I said that both Bill Clinton and Pervez Musharraf became leaders of their countries, and you said I'm wrong because they came to power in different ways. While you're right there are distinctions to be made in different ways of "becoming leaders," and different methods of making "clones," I am entirely correct in calling both animal and plant clones "clones," just as I'm entirely correct in calling both Clinton and Musharraf "leaders." And it's the same definition of "clone" and "leader." The ability to draw further distinctions does not mean they don't both meet the same greater definition. You are trying to draw semantic distinctions that do not exist.

I don't even know what word you're looking for. "Artificial Cloning" doesn't apply, because they're both artificial: those Apple trees do not make natural clones, they are grafted artificially by people, usually onto foreign rootstock. Apples have their own natural method of procreation, which is trees sprouting from the seeds inside Apples, that we bypass entirely to create the artificial man-made c

I see this got tagged 'this is not irony'... Actually, it's the very definition of irony.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/irony
5. an outcome of events contrary to what was, or might have been, expected

Sheep, despite being the first mammals (not animals, apparently) cloned, were not included on the 'safe' list. This is ironic since you would expect that the first animals would have had more time to be studied, and therefore more should be known about them... Yet they didn't get studied enough yet.

If you're going to nitpick the summary, at least be correct.

I'll take your comment as the joke it sounds like however to be fair [1] many Presidents have graduated from prestigious schools and Bush is no exception. Just from Harvard alone we have: "Seven Presidents of the United States have graduated from Harvard University. These include John Adams, John Quincy Adams, George W. Bush, Rutherford B. Hayes, John F. Kennedy, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, and Theodore Roosevelt. Bush and Hayes graduated from Harvard Business School and Harvard Law School, respectively, while the others graduated from Harvard College. Some fifty Nobel Prize winners have been associated with the University." So although Bush may seem stupid (and maybe he finished at the bottom of his class) he still graduated from the same school as Kennedy and other notable Presidents. Not everyone is good at public speaking either but that doesn't mean they are stupid; it does however mean they are easy targets for those who are ignorant and like making fun of people like they are in junior high school again.

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source - Share This
cyborg /sabrg/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[sahy-bawrg] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
-noun a person whose physiological functioning is aided by or dependent upon a mechanical or electronic device.

[Origin: 1960-65; cyb(ernetic) org(anism)]
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.

... it could be argued that hotlinking is not distribution or any kind of copyright violation.

A "derivative work" is a work based upon one or more
            preexisting works, such as a translation, musical arrangement,
            dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound
            recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any
            other form in which a work may be recast, transformed, or
            adapted. A work consisting of editorial revisions, annotations,
            elaborations, or other modifications which, as a whole, represent
            an original work of authorship, is a "derivative work".

To set down or present (ideas, for example) in a new or different arrangement

I'm guessing this is not connected with helping the user. Maybe they want to organize your email messages so that they can calculate the conversations more efficiently and serve ads that are more effective.

Yahoo played so many tricks that I learned to stay away from it; I haven't seen Yahoo in years.

Now I just visited the Yahoo web site. As I write this it says, "Pulse - What Yahoos Are Into". That's typical of Yahoo's respect for it's customers. A "yahoo" is "an uncultivated or boorish person".

I don't know where you got that idea. From dictionary.com
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/citizen

citizen
1. a native or naturalized member of a state or nation who owes allegiance to its government and is entitled to its protection (distinguished from alien).
2. an inhabitant of a city or town, esp. one entitled to its privileges or franchises.

Regardless, children have constitutional rights. This includes every right that adults have against being prosecuted by people without proper authority.

You can perfectly well have an amount of something but refer to the amount of its unit: four inches, for example, where the amount is four and the unit is inches. In this case, one might not have a respectable amount of inches.

You can refer to http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=amount for the definition of amount. Just think: one potato is a small amount (or number, see discussion at dictionary.com) of potatoes. The amount is one, the unit is potatoes. A farm can have a respectable amount of acres, though "acreage" might be more acceptable to the prescriptivist crowd. Not so weird though, at least to me.

But what do I know; I am just one speaker of yet another amalgam of regional English dialects.

Next-gen is a perfectly legitimate term to describe the PS3 and 360; it distinguishes them from the Wii and PS2, which are consoles that are still viable development platforms, but are not in the same league as the 360/PS3 in terms of graphical power.

I think your English skills are a bit lacking. Let me help you with this:

dictionary.com: generation /dnren/
1. the entire body of individuals born and living at about the same time: the postwar generation.

PS3, 360 and Wii are part of the same console generation.

If these so-called invisible rootkits are so effective, why aren't we seeing them everywhere? Huh?

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

How about you list the other definitions of deprecate: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/deprecate The word has clearly undergone a change in the last century, as words generally like to do. Additionally, technical fields, or any fields in general, tend to have their own vocabulary apart from that of the standard language. It's obviously not kosher to use these vocabulary items (jargon) outside the context of that field, but it is not uncommon for them to "cross over" and become part of the standard language.

Microsoft could really care less about the average home user.

It is "couldn't care less". The point of this expression is "I do not care at all, so I cannot care less, because there is no such thing as negative care"
You essentially said "Microsoft cares about average home user and is threatening to care less." Which, I believe, is not what you tried to say.

Faithfully yours, semantics Nazi

(Or joyousness, if being quaint...)