Slashdot Mirror

Militia: 1. a body of citizens enrolled for military service, and called out periodically for drill but serving full time only in emergencies. 2. a body of citizen soldiers as distinguished from professional soldiers. 3. all able-bodied males considered by law eligible for military service. 4. a body of citizens organized in a paramilitary group and typically regarding themselves as defenders of individual rights against the presumed interference of the federal government. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/militia

It may be the reason for the second amendment, only thing is the second amendment is now irrelevant.

It may be the reason for the second amendment, only thing is the second amendment is now irrelevant.

I only have a degree from a small private college in Pennsylvania, while the President has degrees from Yale and Harvard. I take issue with you implying that anyone without those credentials is worse than an idiot .

It is up to the plaintiff to declare that the courts hold no jurisdiction over them.

For those Slashdoters not understanding the "L" word reference see the following

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

From the criticism: From the blurp: ...
Blurp is not a word.
Perhaps you meant something along the lines of blurb.
Please, critics of /. staff, be better than the subject of your scorn!

From the criticism: From the blurp: ...
Blurp is not a word.
Perhaps you meant something along the lines of blurb.
Please, critics of /. staff, be better than the subject of your scorn!

All the things I have mentioned are evidence, a word which you seem to want to use here to mean "irrefutable proof". None of this is irrefutable proof, if you choose to allow for the ridiculous and unlikely circumstance where Maynor is perfectly capable of finding and exploiting the vuln, but instead chooses to lie about it, and not do the work until after Apple releases the patch. There is nothing that can be done now short of Apple admitting they lied to satisfy someone with such a narrow view.

Except that MS uses its announcements to "support XML" to confer the cloak of respectability as an open standard. Then they use XML to keep it proprietary, while saying they're not.

If people can't follow the story enough to track how MS abuses everything it touches, so I can just refer to it, then I'm really not interested in discussing it with them. I'm not writing a book here - I'm looking for discussion with people familiar with the issues.

And besides, since your argument claims that it's fair for MS to say they're using XML, I find your post to be more like a "concern troll". I don't think anyone who isn't already sympathetic to MS propaganda would find my perfectly legitimate accusations about MS and XML in this AJAX group context to support MS in any way. So thanks for your concern, but I'll just keep on.

And how do you know he was the impetus for it? (Psssst: you don't.)

The internal audit came as a result of claims by a senior researcher at SecureWorks
impetus

1. Morality is defined as: conformity to the rules of right conduct; As it is generally POSITIVE, biologically, to sustain one's own species, I could assume that morals are biologically inherent to successful social creatures. If your species thrives merely by numbers (which is hard to argue against with us humans these days!), morals would help individuals in the group cope with "group rules," thereby advancing the group as a whole.
2. Though, if one argues that "laws" (political, not biological...this could actually apply to both!) are merely a philosophical, intangible set of ideas applied to a large group to control said group, the idea of "morality" would merely be philosophical. Anything done instinctively is simply attributed to genetics, and the fact the bad "not beneficial" genes were weeded out during the evolutionary process. Morals are strictly a human creation, therefore implying a metaphysical, or philosophical angle.

Everyone knows that City driving is much harder on a vehicle than highway driving, that is why when everyone sells there car they put "Well cared for over 45K highway miles driven by my Grandmother"

I am simply saying that he is being contradictary. If you want to complain about the quality of the product and how they simply do not last, then do so. However quit buying them because they "hold up well." That is insane.

1. Of or relating to Sparta or its people.
2. Rigorously self-disciplined or self-restrained.
   a. Simple, frugal, or austere: a Spartan diet; a spartan lifestyle.
   b. Marked by brevity of speech; laconic.
   c. Courageous in the face of pain, danger, or adversity.

Parser error: does not compute
While I am glad that more people seam to understand this concept

-verb (used with object)
7. to join with or as if with stitches; make the seam or seams of.
8. to furrow; mark with wrinkles, scars, etc.
9. Knitting. to knit with or in a seam.
-verb (used without object)
10. to become cracked, fissured, or furrowed.
11. Knitting. to make a line of stitches by purling.

I'm just a poorly written and buggy bot, and it seems that I'm lost here. Why would becoming cracked, fissured, or furrowed cause one to understand a concept? Unless of course you meant #11, in which case it is still confusing, does the art of knitting help understand this concept, all concepts, or any concept?

Thanking you in advance, master human.

-T1000 (alpha)

-verb (used with object) 20. to let loose; free from bonds or restraint.
21. to release, as from constraint, obligation, or penalty.
22. Chiefly Nautical. to set free from fastening or attachment: to loose a boat from its moorings.
23. to unfasten, undo, or untie, as a bond, fetter, or knot.
24. to shoot; discharge; let fly: to loose missiles at the invaders.
25. to make less tight; slacken or relax.
26. to render less firmly fixed; lessen an attachment; loosen.
-verb (used without object)
27. to let go a hold.
28. to hoist anchor; get under way.
29. to shoot or let fly an arrow, bullet, etc. (often fol. by off): to loose off at a flock of ducks.
30. Obsolete. to become loose; loosen.
--Idioms31. break loose, to free oneself; escape: The convicts broke loose.
32. cast loose, a. to loosen or unfasten, as a ship from a mooring.
b. to send forth; set adrift or free: He was cast loose at an early age to make his own way in the world.

33. cut loose, a. to release from domination or control.
b. to become free, independent, etc.
c. to revel without restraint: After the rodeo they headed into town to cut loose.

34. hang or stay loose, Slang. to remain relaxed and unperturbed.
35. let loose, a. to free or become free.
b. to yield; give way: The guardrail let loose and we very nearly plunged over the edge.

36. on the loose, a. free; unconfined, as, esp., an escaped convict or circus animal.
b. behaving in an unrestrained or dissolute way: a bachelor on the loose.

37. turn loose, to release or free, as from confinement: The teacher turned the children loose after the class.

[Origin: 1175-1225; (adj.) ME los, loos

1. not definite; without fixed or specified limit; unlimited: an indefinite number.
2. not clearly defined or determined; not precise or exact: an indefinite boundary; an indefinite date in the future.
3. Grammar.
   
   1. indefinite article.
   2. indefinite pronoun.
4. Botany.
   
   1. very numerous or not easily counted, as stamens.
   2. (of an inflorescence) indeterminate.

...the purpose for which I can only fathom.

Times like this, you have to be pretty glad Slashcode didn't include a Clippy-style input assistant:

It looks like you're trying to inflate your appearance of sophistication by substituting a more impressive-sounding word for "guess". Did you mean "speculate"?

[Yes] [No] [Cancel]

He quite possibly meant reign but the sentence doesn't really make sense either way.

Shibboleth, I'm not sure what you mean by that.

Look up words before you lecture people about them and call "naive or uninformed" in the same sentence:

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

Free has a lot of definitions. May I direct your attention to definition 11 below. You'll notice there's no requirement specified under #11 that says that any of the other definitions also have to be true in order for something to be considered free.

free
-adjective
1. enjoying personal rights or liberty, as a person who is not in slavery: a land of free people.
2. pertaining to or reserved for those who enjoy personal liberty: They were thankful to be living on free soil.
3. existing under, characterized by, or possessing civil and political liberties that are, as a rule, constitutionally guaranteed by representative government: the free nations of the world.
4. enjoying political autonomy, as a people or country not under foreign rule; independent.
5. exempt from external authority, interference, restriction, etc., as a person or one's will, thought, choice, action, etc.; independent; unrestricted.
6. able to do something at will; at liberty: free to choose.
7. clear of obstructions or obstacles, as a road or corridor: The highway is now free of fallen rock.
8. not occupied or in use: I'll try to phone her again if the line is free.
9. exempt or released from something specified that controls, restrains, burdens, etc. (usually fol. by from or of): free from worry; free of taxes.
10. having immunity or being safe (usually fol. by from): free from danger.
11. provided without, or not subject to, a charge or payment: free parking; a free sample.
12. given without consideration of a return or reward: a free offer of legal advice.
13. unimpeded, as motion or movement; easy, firm, or swift.
14. not held fast; loose; unattached: to get one's arm free.
15. not joined to or in contact with something else: The free end of the cantilever sagged.
16. acting without self-restraint or reserve: to be too free with one's tongue.
17. ready or generous in giving; liberal; lavish: to be free with one's advice.
18. given readily or in profusion; unstinted.
19. frank and open; unconstrained, unceremonious, or familiar.
20. unrestrained by decency; loose or licentious: free behavior.
21. not subject to special regulations, restrictions, duties, etc.: The ship was given free passage.
22. of, pertaining to, or characterized by free enterprise: a free economy.
23. that may be used by or is open to all: a free market.
24. engaged in by all present; general: a free fight.
25. not literal, as a translation, adaptation, or the like; loose.
26. uncombined chemically: free oxygen.
27. traveling without power; under no force except that of gravity or inertia: free flight.
28. Phonetics. (of a vowel) situated in an open syllable (opposed to checked).
29. at liberty to enter and enjoy at will (usually fol. by of): to be free of a friend's house.
30. not subject to rules, set forms, etc.: The young students had an hour of free play between classes.
31. easily worked, as stone, land, etc.
32. Mathematics. (of a vector) having specified magnitude and direction but no specified initial point. Compare bound1 (def. 9).
33. Also, large. Nautical. (of a wind) nearly on the quarter, so that a sailing vessel may sail free.
34. not containing a specified substance (often used in combination): a sugar-free soft drink.
35. (of a linguistic form) occurring as an independent construction, without necessary combination with other forms, as most words. Compare bound1 (def. 11).
36. without cost, payment, or charge.

-- http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=free

I don't get it. If you're trying to imply "likeliest" is not a perfectly cromulent word, I'm afraid you're wrong, it definitely is a real word. If there's no sarcasm / tongue in cheek and you do literally wish to point out the word does exist, I don't understand why you'd pick on "likeliest" instead of any of the other words they used which do exist :)

jibe3 /dab/
-verb (used without object), jibed, jibing.
to be in harmony or accord; agree: The report does not quite jibe with the commissioner's observations.
[Origin: 1805-15, Americanism; orig. uncert.]

--Synonyms conform, accord, fit.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=jibe&x=0& y=0

First rule of being a spelling/grammar nazi - ALWAYS look it up before you correct someone.

(Let the Fight Club jokes begin.)

"""
How then, AC, do you explain the good number of people who have been obese all their lives living well into their 80s and 90s?
"""

How do you explain people in there 80's and 90's that smoke?

You're using the exception to the rule to disprove it. This is a logical fallacy. To prove what you're trying to prove you're going to have to show that the /vast majority/ of people who are obese live "well into their 80s and 90s".

"""
Also, how do you explain the fact that those who are extremely obese (The kind that appear on Springer and Maury, we're talking immobile 800+ pound people) always die WHEN they try to lose weight drastically?
"""

First, I'll take your "always" as hyperbole.

Let me see. A severely stressed body being put under *a lot* more stress gives up the ghost. Go figure.

You DON'T lose weight drastically. That's just plain stupid.

Now what do you not see all the time? The success cases. Why? Because it is done though a constant (slow) increase in exercise as well as a change in diet mostly through portion size at first. This (typically) takes years and such a reality is beyond the typical americans attention span threshold. Also, most americans won't even consider such an action as it doesn't satisfy there "instant satisfaction" society. Therefore, for them, its "not a solution".

This was even seen in "Rob & Big" on MTV. Big went to a nutritionist and she told him NOT to exercise any more than 2 times per week and that they were going to primarily work on portion size at first.

Again, you DO NOT put a overly stressed, ready to give up body under more stress than necessary. That's just asking for trouble. Which, by your own admission, is what most people get.

"""
And then you've got 14 year olds who aren't even over 160 lbs getting gastric bypass surgery, and people dieting (fails most of the time), putting MORE weight back on as a result, and doing MORE harm to their bodies than if they never "dieted" at all.
"""

What does this have to do what we are talking about? I never brought up gastric bypass surgery nor did I bring up going on a diet. Btw, the former is a last resort and the latter *rarely* works. For that matter, I'd like you to cite people who have had gastric bypass surgery and gained weight afterward. B/c it seems to me, by the very nature of the surgery, you can't really gain weight afterward.

"""
This whole Obesity "Epidemic" makes me sick. Even the name is misleading. Epidemic is meant for things that are contagious. You can't "catch" being fat.
"""

Perhaps you should actually lookup the word before you start trashing people for using it.

>>>
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Epidemic

4. a rapid spread or increase in the occurrence of something: an epidemic of riots.
>>>

As you can see, it IS appropriate to use.

"""
Though the world, dumbasses that they are, sure treat even the chubbiest of people like they've got the damn plague.
"""

What the hell are you talking about?

I'd also appreciate, if you reply to this, to actually respond to what I've posted. B/c you certainly didn't do that here.

In my view, debris is the result of the actions of intelligence

That's nice. Nobody fucking cares.

You could, you know, look it up in the Dictonary. Or an enscyclopedia (which may not do you much good: "This article is about the philosophical position. For the Russian political and revolutionary movement, see Nihilist movement. The factual accuracy of this article is disputed. Please see the relevant discussion on the talk page. Some information in this article or section does not attribute its sources and may not be reliable. Please check for inaccuracies, and modify and cite sources as needed.")

Yay wiki, teh REAL nihilist!

And you, sir, are a libertarian.

> They may have a capital but they don't deserve one.

Actually, I thought the GP meant they should be given lots of money (5) or taken advantage of (7).

> They may have a capital but they don't deserve one.

Actually, I thought the GP meant they should be given lots of money (5) or taken advantage of (7).

Imply means "To involve by logical necessity; entail: Life implies growth and death." It is what I meant, but please play again!

(wierd capcha today, is there supposed to be a space between "frag" and "rant"?)

No, there isn't.

I never claimed it existed

You claim it doesn't exist, because of lack of evidence. In the absence of evidence, science is agnostic; it knows that lack of evidence is not evidence of lack.

Are you asserting that the supernatural is undetectable? If so, prove it. Note that lack of detection is not proof of undetectability, or proof of lack of existence, or proof of lack of influence in day to day life.

If it is detectable, it is natural. Your argument is that the supernatural is somehow a different and magical realm where science cannot address it. The only way for that to be the case is if it is undetectable.

The supernatural is defined as everything that is not bound by the laws of nature -- magic is a good word to use. If magic existed, why couldn't it be detectable?

Faith is nothing more than the axioms of a person's belief system.

No faith is acceptance of beliefs without regard to evidence.

No, faith is belief without proof. People change their "faith" every day when it disagrees with the evidence they observe. Faith describes our belief in things that have insufficient evidence, which is probably the vast majority of the things we believe (very little in our day to day lives has been scientifically proven, or proven to the extent that it would hold up in a court of law.)

Here's something that I believe through faith: the scientific method is a valid way to determine how things work.

Nonsense. You believe that on the grounds of evidence.

My belief is consistent with my observations, but correlation with observations is not proof. Logically, we know that just because something happens 100 times in a row doesn't mean that it will happen the 101st time, but in practice humans tend to believe it anyway.

That doesn't preclude it, in theory, if it exists, from affecting our universe; the concept of "supernatural" is not bound by natural laws.

In what theory?

That's what "super"natural means: "Unexplainable by natural law or phenomena."

I could change that Wikipedia article to make it agree... though, I am at a loss where it disagrees at all.

It says "The scientific method seeks to explain the complexities of nature in a replicable way." Also: "Natural sciences, which study natural phenomena, including biological life." (emphasis mine) The point is that science is about nature, not about things outside of nature, if any such things exist.

It's one thing to claim the supernatural exists and is magically exempt from science. It's another absurd step to say that theologians have magical powers to figure out things about the supernatural. It's yet another thing to say that the unsolved problems in science are supernatural, and that the supernatural exists in such a way that it can exist without existing.

I don't claim that the supernatural exists, I claim that science can't tell whether or not the supernatural exists. If I'm wrong, please explain why (continuing to assert that the supernatural doesn't exist isn't explanation).

Theologians have personal testimony, which isn't scientific evidence, but is still evidence; they, and philosophers, also have logic and reason. Testimony, logic/reason, and domain-specific vocabulary are the tools of theologians and philosophers that I referred to a few posts back.

I don't claim that the unsolved problems in science are supernatural, but I do claim that the unsolved problems in science disprove your claim that science

I never claimed it existed

You claim it doesn't exist, because of lack of evidence. In the absence of evidence, science is agnostic; it knows that lack of evidence is not evidence of lack.

Are you asserting that the supernatural is undetectable? If so, prove it. Note that lack of detection is not proof of undetectability, or proof of lack of existence, or proof of lack of influence in day to day life.

If it is detectable, it is natural. Your argument is that the supernatural is somehow a different and magical realm where science cannot address it. The only way for that to be the case is if it is undetectable.

The supernatural is defined as everything that is not bound by the laws of nature -- magic is a good word to use. If magic existed, why couldn't it be detectable?

Faith is nothing more than the axioms of a person's belief system.

No faith is acceptance of beliefs without regard to evidence.

No, faith is belief without proof. People change their "faith" every day when it disagrees with the evidence they observe. Faith describes our belief in things that have insufficient evidence, which is probably the vast majority of the things we believe (very little in our day to day lives has been scientifically proven, or proven to the extent that it would hold up in a court of law.)

Here's something that I believe through faith: the scientific method is a valid way to determine how things work.

Nonsense. You believe that on the grounds of evidence.

My belief is consistent with my observations, but correlation with observations is not proof. Logically, we know that just because something happens 100 times in a row doesn't mean that it will happen the 101st time, but in practice humans tend to believe it anyway.

That doesn't preclude it, in theory, if it exists, from affecting our universe; the concept of "supernatural" is not bound by natural laws.

In what theory?

That's what "super"natural means: "Unexplainable by natural law or phenomena."

I could change that Wikipedia article to make it agree... though, I am at a loss where it disagrees at all.

It says "The scientific method seeks to explain the complexities of nature in a replicable way." Also: "Natural sciences, which study natural phenomena, including biological life." (emphasis mine) The point is that science is about nature, not about things outside of nature, if any such things exist.

It's one thing to claim the supernatural exists and is magically exempt from science. It's another absurd step to say that theologians have magical powers to figure out things about the supernatural. It's yet another thing to say that the unsolved problems in science are supernatural, and that the supernatural exists in such a way that it can exist without existing.

I don't claim that the supernatural exists, I claim that science can't tell whether or not the supernatural exists. If I'm wrong, please explain why (continuing to assert that the supernatural doesn't exist isn't explanation).

Theologians have personal testimony, which isn't scientific evidence, but is still evidence; they, and philosophers, also have logic and reason. Testimony, logic/reason, and domain-specific vocabulary are the tools of theologians and philosophers that I referred to a few posts back.

I don't claim that the unsolved problems in science are supernatural, but I do claim that the unsolved problems in science disprove your claim that science

Sorry dude.

OK, then, it's on you: prove whether or not the supernatural exists.

I don't. You can certainly question the supernatural, debate its existence, discuss it, etc. You can't examine it using science, though: you have to use theology and philosophy (which, fortunately, includes logic).

There are no skills found in theology or philosophy which make the undetectable, detectable.

Are you asserting that the supernatural is undetectable? If so, prove it. Note that lack of detection is not proof of undetectability, or proof of lack of existence, or proof of lack of influence in day to day life.

--- These three assertions cannot be scientifically proven, though lots of people believe them through faith.

Faith is a fallacy.

On the contrary: you appear to use it to believe the three assertions above. Faith is nothing more than the axioms of a person's belief system. What do you or I believe without proof? That's faith. Here's something that I believe through faith: the scientific method is a valid way to determine how things work. It can't be proven, but I believe it anyway.

The point of science it to discovery what our universe does and why. If something doesn't do something in our universe, only then does it avoid science.

This is very close. The point of science is to discover what our universe ("nature") does and why. The supernatural, by definition, exists outside of our universe; it is not natural. That doesn't preclude it, in theory, if it exists, from affecting our universe; the concept of "supernatural" is not bound by natural laws.

Everything credited to the supernatural, to date, has been anything but. Start of life, existence of life, start of the universe, function of the brain, order of the planets, structure of the atom.

You have quite a bit of faith. Investigate further and you will find that scientists studying the start of life, existence of life, start of the universe, function of the brain etc. have more questions than answers.

The idea that there are different subject areas is amusing but false. Staking claim on everything non-science doesn't help you very much when everything that interacts or exists in this universe is subjected to it.

Others disagree. That's why they call it "natural science". If the supernatural does not exist, then the domain of natural science is all that there is, but we can't prove that scientifically one way or the other.

*sigh* The word you're searching for is lobotimize.

http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Ubuntu_(ideol ogy) ;)

That's vs. Thats

Actually 'howzat' is the exclamation made when a batsman's wicket has been hit and one or both of the bales fall down or the umpire is otherwise appealed to in order to have the batsman put out:

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

Main Entry: howzat
Part of Speech: interj
Definition: an exclamation that is a shortened form of 'how's that?'
Example:
Etymology: used in cricket when questioning an umpire's call
Usage: British
Note:

Webster's New Millennium(TM) Dictionary of English, Preview Edition (v 0.9.6)
Copyright © 2003-2006 Lexico Publishing Group, LLC

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_(cricket)

I'm just sayin'

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

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.

How about: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/cockup

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

I've _*never*_ heard it called that, always et cetera. I mean, even pretty much every definition of 'et cetera' fits.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=et+cetera
"""
and others; and so forth; and so on (*used to indicate that more of the same sort or class might have been mentioned, but for brevity have been omitted*):
"""
etc ;)

I'd like to know how someone could call it extended tool chest. There is _not_ any tools in there, only configuration files.

"Censorship" is the wrong word because it refers to the removal of information by government officials...

I wish you fellows would learn about dictionary.com and wikipedia!

From the dictionary: "deleting parts of publications or correspondence or theatrical performances" is one definition; most posted there are circular, "the act of censoring" and a few talk of Roman censors.

Wikipedia's writeup is far more informative: "Censorship is the removal of information from the public, or the prevention of circulation of information, where it is desired or felt best by some controlling group or body that others are not allowed to access the information which is being censored. Typically censorship is undertaken by governments, or by established bodies (religions or the mass media), although self-censorship and other forms also exist."

You might want to use that dictionary to look up the word "typically". You'd think nerds would know how to lkook stuff up, wouldn't you?

Um...Yeah. Meanwhile, look at http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/steal, particularly definition 2. My goodness. It's sad when you have to break out a flippin' dictionary when talking to a supposed PhD student.

My fault. I'm Italian, in my language "to steal" is usually translated with "rubare", that has the meaning I referred to. You can say "rubare un'idea" - "steal an idea" would be the translation, but it's a metaphor, not an actual meaning.

However OK, you can call it "stealing" if you like, but this doesn't hurt the bottom of my argument -that we can rewrite this way: it is not about "stealing" as in breaking a window and taking a good his previous owner cannot more benefit of, it is about "stealing" as in copying information to another party so that both parties can benefit about it. If you build a car, and someone has some magic wand to copy your car 1:1, would you call it "stealing your car"? Maybe yes, but you agree these are two completely different events.

So the bottom line is that you don't want people from stealing from you but you gladly steal from others. What a hypocrite.

No, no. I am perfectly fine with people "stealing" from me in that sense. If someone gives me attribution and doesn't profit, I'm perfectly OK. That's what I want (I already said it repetitiously, but...): free *non-profit* *with attribution* sharing. If you want to take my ph.d. thesis (when I'll write it, next year) and give it to your friends, provided there is my name on it and you don't sell it, I'm perfectly fine with it, and I'd be glad if you ask a copy (it will be about protein biophysics -wonderful for sleeping, probably).

I'm confining it to the right definition according to dictionaries and common use. You can always create a new word defining what you mean.

Demanding monetary compensation I would think would be a different matter. If not extortion, how about blackmail?

Waiver isn't a verb. You mean waver.

micro from the Greek word meaning "small." cosmos from the Greek word meaning "world." A microcosm is a small subsystem that is part of a larger one. I am using it in much the same way that Deleuze uses micropolitics to refer to a molecular understanding of things (particularly, in this case, with fascism and capitalism) from his (and Gauttari's) two-part Capitalism and Schizophrenia. Oh, and if you'd have checked the dictionary, you'd have found it.