Slashdot Mirror

--I*Love*Green*Olives

--I*Love*Green*Olives

--I*Love*Green*Olives

--I*Love*Green*Olives

4. to make earnest petition to (a person).
5. to make petition or entreaty for; crave

(See: dictionary.com)

The legal "pray" simply is a formal way to ask the Court for an action. You will find this phrase in many legal filings, not just in Texas courts.

Thanks for the slam, though; always good to see the myths and legends preserved.

I don't follow. You repeatedly refer to stock as being tangible. It's not. Tangible means you can touch it. (None of the other definitions fits what you mean here either.) You can't touch stock. You can touch stock *certificates*, but the "stock" itself is "ownership of a company". When you buy stock, you're buying a certain kind of (intangible) relationship with others about control of a commercial venture. That is tangled up with all sorts of expectations about whether the board must listen to you, whether courts will smack them up if they don't, etc.

You then describe cash as tangible. Well, cash has different meanings. Financial planners refer to money market mutual fund shares and bank account money, even when it's electronically stored, as "cash". That again is just bits, which through certain relationships, entitles you to conversion to the *tangible*, paper money.

Your gnome is bits on a server, and that's it. Those bits don't even represent anything in the real world; the bits are the entirety of the thing's existence. The server owners could delete those bits at no cost except your annoyance, or they could duplicate those bits so everyone on the server has three dozen exact copies of everything you own. If you can get someone to buy those bits from you, they are still buying nothing but bits. There is no connection to anything outside the world of bits, and hence the gnome is truly intangible.

I'd have to disagree. Like the stock (that you classify as tangible), your gnome is a claim to a certain kind of performance (from Blizzard). Yes, Blizzard could "inflate" your gnome into worthlessness, or delete it, for the heck of it. Just like the board of directors could tell you they're not sharing dividends with shareholders anymore. What creates value for the gnome and the shares is the (well-founded) expectation that that won't happen.

Now, I ultimately agree with your suggestion: for a number of reasons, it's best to just say, "when real-world currencies change hands, *then* count it as income, but not until". But I don't understand the distinction you tried to make between a gnome and stock.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/denigrate/ attributes the word to Latin "to make black". So now the word "denigrating" will be declared a racist word that denigrates black people.

Flamebait? So young people ARE allowed to express aggression and exhuberance? Because I haven't noticed.

The last part was one of these, I think:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dichotomy

Or it was one of these (2b):
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/conundrum

And it makes people feel like one of these:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hypocrite

I bet that less than 5% of the posters to this thread have ever run Vista.

First you complain about anti-Windows FUD. Then you claim that Vista's market penetration is so ridiculously low that less than 1 in 20 people on this technical website have even tried it.

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

Hope this helps, have a nice day.

To be a nazi about it, he is right, 'Fiance' refers to a man, 'Fiancee' refers to a woman. And the first 'e' in both should have an accent.

To be a nazi about it, he is right, 'Fiance' refers to a man, 'Fiancee' refers to a woman. And the first 'e' in both should have an accent.

the defintion I gave you WAS the connotative "meaning" of "shill"

no, he means the negativity popularly associated with the word. the definitions you gave don't allude to this negative perception, unless you think that self interest is a negative thing.

try it with another word. saying someone is a 'nazi'. in this entry, the third entry is marked "sometimes offensive". notice how this is presented before the definition. they are trying to acknowledge the negative connotation of the word. that acknowledgement was not present in your definitions.

you are right about the definition of 'shill', but you are wrong that it is a connotative definition.

That would be "dictionary.com".

Typically science fiction is not considered to be literature.

"writings in which expression and form, in connection with ideas of permanent and universal interest, are characteristic or essential features, as poetry, novels, history, biography, and essays." ("literature." Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1). Random House, Inc. 12 Apr. 2007. <Dictionary.com http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/literature> .)

"Imaginative or creative writing, especially of recognized artistic value" ("literature." The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. Houghton Mifflin Company, 2004. 12 Apr. 2007. <Dictionary.com http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/literature> .)

By my reading of the dictionary, the genre isn't significant. Or are you talking about what some isolated intellectuals with ivory towers up their asses told you the word meant?

Typically science fiction is not considered to be literature.

"writings in which expression and form, in connection with ideas of permanent and universal interest, are characteristic or essential features, as poetry, novels, history, biography, and essays." ("literature." Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1). Random House, Inc. 12 Apr. 2007. <Dictionary.com http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/literature> .)

"Imaginative or creative writing, especially of recognized artistic value" ("literature." The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. Houghton Mifflin Company, 2004. 12 Apr. 2007. <Dictionary.com http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/literature> .)

By my reading of the dictionary, the genre isn't significant. Or are you talking about what some isolated intellectuals with ivory towers up their asses told you the word meant?

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

invent
1.to originate or create as a product of one's own ingenuity, experimentation, or contrivance: to invent the telegraph.

The groups that invented them in '62 definitely created LEDs as a product of their own ingenuity, experimentation, and contrivance.

All of this is some what cleared up if you use the punctuation of the original hand written constitution.

Are you sure about that? It seems that the scribe might of added some commas while writing up the final document. A bit of history on comma usage as regards the 2nd(and therefore the rest of the constitution).(Wiki link, but elucid).

In theory in a sentence of this structure you can take only the parts outside the commas to get the meaning of the sentence and those inside the commas are just supporting data. In this case you end up with "A well regulated Militia shall not be infringed." But I am not a linguist.

Neither am I, but I did have 12 years of english, some more in college, and was reading at college level in jr high. Cheer for excessive comma usage! Here's a hint: take the first and third commas as pauses. The part before the second comma is explanationary. It's one reason for the second part. The second part is the declatory part containing the actual instruction. 'The car's a wreck, don't buy it.'

But even if you interpretation is valid, why is it that it is ok to back date the word "regulated" but not "firearm." By your logic "firearm", as used in the constitution, refers to flint lock single shot rifles and low power single shot hand guns,

Where does the word 'firearm' appear in the text of the 2nd ammendment? A firearm is indeed an arm, but so isn't a bow, sword, knife, dirk, spear, axe, halberd, mace, and too many others to count. Going back to the original definition; 'Arms' were pretty much weapons for an individual soldier. So, keeping with my practice to, whenever possible, interpret the consitution using it's original meaning*, it would mean any weapon that's used by the individuals in an army. Back then it was certainly black powder, with a sprinkling of swords and pikes. Today, in the USA, it's some varient of an M16.

Quick definitions of what I consider important words:
Regulated - Note definitions 3 though amendment 3 might suggest laws encouraging a functional militia would be allowed.
Militia - Non-professional military; historically able bodied men, minus certain categories of unwilling due to religious reasons**. I personally modify this to all willing and able people; After all, back then only white men could vote, and we have a number of amendments expanding that right. Federal law right now has all 'able bodied' men between 17 and 45, as well as female national guard.
People - Somewhat generic, but was frequently restricted to 'White men'. Today, I pretty much apply it to 'Anybody in the country' - With some concessions for incompetent or violently criminal people.
Arms - Weapons, personal use. Not WMD, large bombs, etc... It has to be reasonably usable in a discriminate fashion. You can stuff a frag grenade into the definition, but not sarin gas.
Keep & Bear - Own and carry/transport. Even use under the appropriate circumstances.
infringed - 1st definition in the American Heritage Dictionary(2nd one down). As in, if it violates a person's ability to 'keep and bear', it's wrong.

which are basically weapons which produce less kenetic energy that many modern BB or Pellet guns. After all you even said that "regulated" means "adequate supply of ball & powder." I don't see alot of drive by shootings being done with black powder rifles.

Sure... Right... Look, I own a .50cal black power rifle. It's about the same size as many period

All of this is some what cleared up if you use the punctuation of the original hand written constitution.

Are you sure about that? It seems that the scribe might of added some commas while writing up the final document. A bit of history on comma usage as regards the 2nd(and therefore the rest of the constitution).(Wiki link, but elucid).

In theory in a sentence of this structure you can take only the parts outside the commas to get the meaning of the sentence and those inside the commas are just supporting data. In this case you end up with "A well regulated Militia shall not be infringed." But I am not a linguist.

Neither am I, but I did have 12 years of english, some more in college, and was reading at college level in jr high. Cheer for excessive comma usage! Here's a hint: take the first and third commas as pauses. The part before the second comma is explanationary. It's one reason for the second part. The second part is the declatory part containing the actual instruction. 'The car's a wreck, don't buy it.'

But even if you interpretation is valid, why is it that it is ok to back date the word "regulated" but not "firearm." By your logic "firearm", as used in the constitution, refers to flint lock single shot rifles and low power single shot hand guns,

Where does the word 'firearm' appear in the text of the 2nd ammendment? A firearm is indeed an arm, but so isn't a bow, sword, knife, dirk, spear, axe, halberd, mace, and too many others to count. Going back to the original definition; 'Arms' were pretty much weapons for an individual soldier. So, keeping with my practice to, whenever possible, interpret the consitution using it's original meaning*, it would mean any weapon that's used by the individuals in an army. Back then it was certainly black powder, with a sprinkling of swords and pikes. Today, in the USA, it's some varient of an M16.

Quick definitions of what I consider important words:
Regulated - Note definitions 3 though amendment 3 might suggest laws encouraging a functional militia would be allowed.
Militia - Non-professional military; historically able bodied men, minus certain categories of unwilling due to religious reasons**. I personally modify this to all willing and able people; After all, back then only white men could vote, and we have a number of amendments expanding that right. Federal law right now has all 'able bodied' men between 17 and 45, as well as female national guard.
People - Somewhat generic, but was frequently restricted to 'White men'. Today, I pretty much apply it to 'Anybody in the country' - With some concessions for incompetent or violently criminal people.
Arms - Weapons, personal use. Not WMD, large bombs, etc... It has to be reasonably usable in a discriminate fashion. You can stuff a frag grenade into the definition, but not sarin gas.
Keep & Bear - Own and carry/transport. Even use under the appropriate circumstances.
infringed - 1st definition in the American Heritage Dictionary(2nd one down). As in, if it violates a person's ability to 'keep and bear', it's wrong.

which are basically weapons which produce less kenetic energy that many modern BB or Pellet guns. After all you even said that "regulated" means "adequate supply of ball & powder." I don't see alot of drive by shootings being done with black powder rifles.

Sure... Right... Look, I own a .50cal black power rifle. It's about the same size as many period

Partisan: "an adherent or supporter of a person, group, party, or cause, esp. a person who shows a biased, emotional allegiance"

Don't know where "PR hitmen" came from, but the definition of partisan does seem to more-or-less describe Bruce Perens and a host of other advocates. Bruce might object to the terms "biased" or "emotional," but I think one could objectively point to other opinion pieces he's written where he shows some bias at the very least. Everyone is biased, so this isn't a particularly strong condemnation.

Ironical is not a word

Looks like one to me..
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/ironical
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ironical

Subject: "Barely" watchable?

Is that the new term slashdotters are using for pr0n?

Check out the entry on Dictionary.com. If you look under verb, the entry numbered 15 says:

15. to connect or link: a telephone system mated to a computerized information service.

It is a perfectly valid use, and not a metaphor. That said... you can see what people here at /. are think about when the word "mating" is used.

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

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

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/welsh

In all of these dictionaries welsh is the primary entry and welch is merely a pointer to welsh. Welch is a relatively modern corruption that came about as the original meaning was forgotten.

Heresy! How dare you question the RIAA's assessment that all the recording industry's woes are due to "pirates." There's absolutely no way the RIAA could be misinterpreting the situation. They're infallible. They said so themselves.

In today's age, your free time is under assault from hundreds of sources. Your free time is a resource that everyone wants access to. The youts [sic] of today have more choices than we did when we were kids. Listening to music used to be one of the mainstay activities. The music industry hasn't increased the "value" of listening to music, while other activities have increased their value to me. It's no surprise that the music industry is losing market share.

you support polymorphism?

If you carry over a load of garbage to my property and dump it on my lawn, I believe that could be considered a form of commerce.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/commerce
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=trade
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&defl=en&q=defin e:commerce&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title

I just don't see your definition there. Dumping garbage on my property is trespassing and vandalism (and probably violates any number of local laws). It's not an exchange (if you take something, that's stealing), and not a business deal, and not bartering.

some arbitrary standard you can't identify

The "arbitrary standard" is the meaning of the word "commerce" at the time the Constitution was written. Releasing CO2 is not included in that definition, at least as far as I can tell. If it is, please inform me.

Feel free to explain how you think that is not commerce, and how you think that one state dumping in another without permission is something outside the bounds of Federal government.

Well, you certainly turned it around on me there. It's hard to prove a negative. How about you show me what definition of commerce you're using to arrive at your conclusion. And if it's not commerce, how about you show me the part of the Constitution that does authorize such regulation.

The thing is, if releasing CO2 is "commerce" than anything can be. Heck, I release CO2, and so do you. We might as well say that absorbing CO2 is also "commerce" and therefore plants can be regulated too, not just animals.

If you carry over a load of garbage to my property and dump it on my lawn, I believe that could be considered a form of commerce.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/commerce
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=trade
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&defl=en&q=defin e:commerce&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title

I just don't see your definition there. Dumping garbage on my property is trespassing and vandalism (and probably violates any number of local laws). It's not an exchange (if you take something, that's stealing), and not a business deal, and not bartering.

some arbitrary standard you can't identify

The "arbitrary standard" is the meaning of the word "commerce" at the time the Constitution was written. Releasing CO2 is not included in that definition, at least as far as I can tell. If it is, please inform me.

Feel free to explain how you think that is not commerce, and how you think that one state dumping in another without permission is something outside the bounds of Federal government.

Well, you certainly turned it around on me there. It's hard to prove a negative. How about you show me what definition of commerce you're using to arrive at your conclusion. And if it's not commerce, how about you show me the part of the Constitution that does authorize such regulation.

The thing is, if releasing CO2 is "commerce" than anything can be. Heck, I release CO2, and so do you. We might as well say that absorbing CO2 is also "commerce" and therefore plants can be regulated too, not just animals.

Unlimited is not a term that is ambiguous in any sense. If you can take it to mean anything other tha "without limit" then you aren't speaking English.

Paragraph 1 of the Verizon terms state plainly that the Unlimited plain means unlimited bandwidth for a particular small set of uses:

Unlimited Data Plans and Features (such as NationalAccess, BroadbandAccess, Push to Talk, and certain VZEmail services) may ONLY be used with wireless devices for the following purposes: (i) Internet browsing; (ii) email; and (iii) intranet access (including access to corporate intranets, email, and individual productivity applications like customer relationship management, sales force, and field service automation). The Unlimited Data Plans and Features MAY NOT be used for any other purpose.


Verizon is bastardizing the English language in their service agreement, and the courts should take note of this.

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


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


Emphasis mine.

I bet you believe abortion is civilized... particularly state funded abortion.

Just a hunch.

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

To me, this is a little bit like suing because even after buying a bag of chocolate chips, you couldn't make cookies that look as nice as the ones on the package.

No, this is like buying "ready to bake" cookies only to find you have to add eggs in order to bake them. Well, you didn't buy eggs while you were at the store because you thought they are ready to bake as the bag advertises. Sure you could try to bake them without the eggs, but you aren't getting the full cookie experience you expected.

but I think that about 15 minutes of research would have let someone know that they couldn't use the Aero interface

It isn't the job of the consumer to research whether an advertisement means what it says. That's why there are consumer protection laws in the first place. Not everyone is capable of figuring out how to do such research. Now if you want to the computer that runs Aero the best, then sure that is the job of the consumer to do their homework.

If the stickers say "Vista Capable" then they should be Vista capable and not some smaller subset which provides minimal functionality. If you can't see why that's deceptive, then you don't fully understand what the word means.

I believe the author meant itself

Perhaps you should have done the same, first.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/require
"3. to ask for authoritatively or imperatively; demand."

Excuse me, it is somethin ehich is called commonly a "preprint server". That defines it to be a preprint.

Majority (noun): the greater part or number; the number larger than half the total.

Just in case there is any remaining confusion to have a majority you have to more that 50%. In the case in question you have a majority of Americans being non-Christian.

Whether or not you, or Turnitin, or Joe Schmoe, or any one of the 6+ billion people on the planet think my work is valuable is irrelevant. My decision that my work is valuable is the only relevant issue in copyright and piracy. Turnitin's paper piracy violates my right to decide how and when I use my work. The fact that they ignore written requests that a work not be posted is alone enough to tag them for piracy.

Also, it's typically not a public service if you charge money for something. See: Public Service for further reference.

Anyway, the very fact that Turnitin charges for access to this database would imply that there is some inherent value in a paper written for a course, which breaks your argument to the contrary.

That's American. Not English. In America, "y'all" is a word.

The word is "pantywaists". It referred originally to a child's undergarment.

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

So in what way does building something and then charging the people that use it not qualify as commercial?

NYCL is like the elliot spitzer of copyviol.

kudos for all the updates.

>>It isn't you guys who don't know the difference ... between to, too, and two...

Yeah, that's almost as bad as when people use "between" to differentiate a choice amongst three or more options.

Pretexting is the practice of getting your personal information under false pretenses.

Pretexting is the practice of getting your personal information under false pretenses.

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

Certainly Ohio State fits at least ONE of those definitions, no?

>Stealing stuff is wrong and if these students who settled did so because of a guilty conscience then they deserve to be out the 3-5 thousand USD.

I certainly agree. Stealing is very wrong. However, why do people that didn't steal deserve to be out $3,000?

>Students today need more courses in ethics.

I agree. I would also suggest courses in something a little simpler, first, like how to ">use a dictionary. In fact, I would suggest that course for you, since you are misusing the language.

>Stealing stuff is wrong and if these students who settled did so because of a guilty conscience then they deserve to be out the 3-5 thousand USD.

I certainly agree. Stealing is very wrong. However, why do people that didn't steal deserve to be out $3,000?

>Students today need more courses in ethics.

I agree. I would also suggest courses in something a little simpler, first, like how to ">use a dictionary. In fact, I would suggest that course for you, since you are misusing the language.

Disclosure: I don't feel like registering, so I did not read the article. My comments are based completely on the summary. Feel free to correct me if the story indicates otherwise.

That said, what the NYPD did is (1) travel to cities around the world (2) to observe public meetings of groups of people (3) who were likely to be in NYC during the convention (4) and cause significant disruptions in business and city services (5) for an extended period of time.

This is not espionage, it is scouting. The NYPD did not obtain any secret information from these meetings. These were publicly open meetings intended to disseminate the information the NYPD was after to anyone in attendance. The NYPD took action that an average person could take if they were willing to spend a several thousand dollars.

This is no different than a basketball coach attending an opposing team's game or looking at their game film. This is no different, even, than a police man listening to two people talking in the middle of a busy street. It is settled law, in the US at least, that individuals or groups of individuals have no expectation of privacy in a public area.

The NYPD did not exercise any extra-jurisdictional control over these people or use any methods that would illegal under either US, New York, or Local Country law. All they did was attend public meetings without advertising their presence. There is no evidence here that NYPD was abusing its authority in observing these groups, that it infiltrated these groups to cause internal disruptions, or that its observation invaded the privacy of these groups. In short, the NYPD did nothing legally or morally wrong.

Disclosure: I don't feel like registering, so I did not read the article. My comments are based completely on the summary. Feel free to correct me if the story indicates otherwise.

That said, what the NYPD did is (1) travel to cities around the world (2) to observe public meetings of groups of people (3) who were likely to be in NYC during the convention (4) and cause significant disruptions in business and city services (5) for an extended period of time.

This is not espionage, it is scouting. The NYPD did not obtain any secret information from these meetings. These were publicly open meetings intended to disseminate the information the NYPD was after to anyone in attendance. The NYPD took action that an average person could take if they were willing to spend a several thousand dollars.

This is no different than a basketball coach attending an opposing team's game or looking at their game film. This is no different, even, than a police man listening to two people talking in the middle of a busy street. It is settled law, in the US at least, that individuals or groups of individuals have no expectation of privacy in a public area.

The NYPD did not exercise any extra-jurisdictional control over these people or use any methods that would illegal under either US, New York, or Local Country law. All they did was attend public meetings without advertising their presence. There is no evidence here that NYPD was abusing its authority in observing these groups, that it infiltrated these groups to cause internal disruptions, or that its observation invaded the privacy of these groups. In short, the NYPD did nothing legally or morally wrong.

...If you're going to attempt to inflate your appearance of sophistication with impressive-sounding words, at least make sure you know what they mean. Recalcitrance?

Maybe you mean contrition.