Slashdot Mirror

This word, credulous. I do not think it means what you think it means.

two out of three dictionaries I consulted suggest that the proper use of append is to add to the end. You are correct that there is no such word as prepend, but it is an indelible part of the geek lexicon at this point and will probably worm its way into English. The proper word, already in the language, is prefix.

two out of three dictionaries I consulted suggest that the proper use of append is to add to the end. You are correct that there is no such word as prepend, but it is an indelible part of the geek lexicon at this point and will probably worm its way into English. The proper word, already in the language, is prefix.

You need a better dictionary.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/prepend
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/append

Yes, prepend is 'slang' as are all new words before they get officially adopted.

Yes, append can mean 'attach' and not just to the end.

But don't forget you're on a nerd site and any programmer worth his salt will immediately think 'add to the end of' if you say 'append'.

You get a few points for the technicality, but you lose quite a few more for not speaking the local lingo.

You need a better dictionary.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/prepend
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/append

Yes, prepend is 'slang' as are all new words before they get officially adopted.

Yes, append can mean 'attach' and not just to the end.

But don't forget you're on a nerd site and any programmer worth his salt will immediately think 'add to the end of' if you say 'append'.

You get a few points for the technicality, but you lose quite a few more for not speaking the local lingo.

How does that make any sense at all? People who deny that the holocaust ever happened are plainly ignoring the facts. Much like people who are denying that global warming is happening, despite the fact that there is virtually unanimous scientific agreement that it is.

Hmm. At least that's one possible explanation of the comparison he was making between my "global warming deniers" phrase and the holocaust. I can't think of what else he might possibly have been referring to. I guess he was comparing it to the phrase "holocaust denier". I wonder if he knows that the word deny actually has a long history that predates Nazi Germany by hundreds of years, and that most of us are capable of using the word without thinking of Nazis or the holocaust. He probably does and was just trying to troll me (alas, successfully).

"It's a hoax _ and it's not funny," said Gov. Deval Patrick.

"The packages in question are magnetic lights that pose no danger," Turner said in a statement. It said the devices have been in place for two to three weeks in 10 cities: Boston, New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Atlanta, Seattle, Portland, Ore., Austin, Texas, San Francisco and Philadelphia.

The Department of Homeland Security said there are no credible reports of other devices being found elsewhere in the country.

evolution
-noun
1. any process of formation or growth; development: the evolution of a language; the evolution of the airplane.

Welcome to the English language. You must be new here.

And in the end, the image as "the penultimate search engine" is the only thing that matters to these guys.

There was nothing lithological about the druidic partying habits.
Stonehenge, indeed.
They were done in by piobaireachd-n-roll.
Stupid college kids, I swear.

Anonymous shithead Coward, you just offer more chances to tell the truth about this evil Iraq War and its fans like you.

Most Iraqis want us out immediately, you insane lying warmonger.

A fagot is a bundle of sticks, you illiterate homophobe.

My mother is dead, and she still wouldn't fuck a necrophile like you.

At night, the ice weasels come and eat Anonymous pisspants Cowards.

[...] but this begs the question: How does one prove one obtained a work under a Creative Commons [...]license

[...] but this begs the question: How does one prove one obtained a work under a Creative Commons [...]license

There is no fraud without law to define it as so. emphasis mine

Hmmm...I'm afraid I'll have to disagree...

X gets the square!

Will you people please for the love of all that is holy get it straight.

Theft is theft, and copyright violation is copyright violation. If they were the same thing, we wouldn't need two different laws to handle them each.

To make it super simple:

Theft: The act of stealing; the wrongful taking and carrying away of the personal goods or property of another; larceny.

Copyright Violation: The unauthorized use of material that is protected by intellectual property rights law particularly the copyright in a manner that violates one of the original copyright owner's exclusive rights, such as the right to reproduce or perform the copyrighted work, or to make derivative works that build upon it.

Quit buying into the idiotic *AA party line that copyright violation is the same thing as theft. It is not!

Now you are getting into a semantics argument. "Proof" means different things in different contexts. In mathematics, it means it cannot logically be false. But there are plenty of contexts in which the standards for "proof" are much smaller (such as when establishing the safety of drugs). In fact, the dictionary gives 28 different definitions of the word. The mathematical definition of the word doesn't even make any sense when applied to a physical science.

I don't know where they get this "urban" sprawl factor. Actual cities discourage cars, in favor of mass transit and just redundantly available places to go that encourage walking, not driving. Cities like NYC are defined primarily by the unusual word "propinquity", "mutual proximity among things". Near enough that cars aren't practical, indeed squeezing out cars, but not so near that you don't burn a few calories walking to them.

Of course, NYC's bustling delivery services take propinquity even further to fatten the lazy. But as a delivery connoisseur who travels, I can tell you that it's only MEGAurban centers that suffer from this convenience surplus. Even in sprawling "megurbs", the outer reaches of the sprawl don't deliver.

As usual, it's the suburbs, and the cities which act like suburbs, which are throwing out the balances. By which I mean tipping the scales towards laziness and fatness.

It is retard .

"Retart" sounds like you gave somebody another round of dessert.

Technically you are right. But it is safe to assume that they are the same in this case, because as far as math is concerned, "average" and "mean" are synonymous:

http://dictionary.reference.com/help/faq/language/ d72.html

Yep, it's a word: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=terrorist ic.

It would be in the best interest of homeland security to not make such an important aspect of our economy venerable in this way.

line n. a mark or stroke long in proportion to its breadth, made with a pen, pencil, tool, etc., on a surface: a line down the middle of the page.

So, no, it's not. That definition is also backed up by the Chambers English dictionary.

</pedantry>

Huh? Why don't you look it up, if you don't understand the term? It's a generic adjective that means new and different.

All kinds of people use it, not just liberals. In fact, some of the biggest supporters of the Republicans and Bush government call themselves neoconservatives. I'm not sure why you consider it an insult - why do you think the lead character in The Matrix was named Neo?

machine /min/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[muh-sheen] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation noun, verb, -chined, -chining.
-noun
1. an apparatus consisting of interrelated parts with separate functions, used in the performance of some kind of work

7. any complex agency or operating system

What about current games about the current US "war" in Iraq? I'd bet every nickel that I own that in 100 years, history textbooks will discuss the US genocide in Iraq and the war crimes that Bush is guilty of. It's pretty horrible, gruesome, and pointless, but there are tons of games celebrating it out now.

First off I think you should spend some time and learn what genocide means in order for you to understand why the war in Iraq can not be considered a genocide.

Now using the American Heritage Dictionary definition of War Crime:

"Any of various crimes, such as genocide or the mistreatment of prisoners of war, committed during a war and considered in violation of the conventions of warfare."

The main argument that could be made for the US commiting warcrimes would be "mistreatment of prisoners of war" which I think is a bit of an exaggeration; I don't disagree that prisoners of war have been mistreated, but in comparison to prisoners in previous wars (and most prisoners of war through-out the world) I would say that the mistreatment is not grounds for the use of the term War Crime.

Now, I don't play many "War Games" so I couuld be wrong but I suspect that these games revolve around killing insurgents and terrorists which (for most of the world) is acceptable.

Disclaimer: I'm neither American nor did I support the US going to war in Iraq but I do think it would only cause further damage to the area for the US to withdraw their forces at this time.

God knows what Sealand thinks this means, but a quick google search reveals that all references to 'Kopimistic' are Sealand-related stories. Dictionary.com certainly doesn't have a clue. Making up words is a fabulous way of raising the somewhat dubious credibility of Sealand! Someone, please prove me wrong...

I fail to see how I am in error. Please explain.

Ok. It's obviously fine for you to have an opinion. When you express that opinion in the form of an accusation, it would generally be considered that the onus is on you to 1) be correct and 2) prove it. Much of our court system, for example, is based on this type of understanding. If your accusation is not correct, you would be said to have "falsely accused" someone.

In this post you say he appears to be lazy and dishonest, and make an outright accusation "you tried to extort them for something they had already paid for". Well, saying that he appears to be lazy and dishonest could be taken as just being a statement of your perception, but the accusation of extortion is a very definite accusation, so I'll deal with that.

The exact wording of your accusation is as quoted above "you tried to extort them for something they had already paid for". You stated that you made the assumption that he wrote it on work time. This assumption was incorrect. They had neither paid for code nor time to write it. It was his property, being neither purchased nor a work for hire. As for your accusation that he tried toextort them, the word means:
1. Law.
a. to wrest or wring (money, information, etc.) from a person by violence, intimidation, or abuse of authority; obtain by force, torture, threat, or the like.
b. to take illegally by reason of one's office.
2. to compel (something) of a person or thing: Her wit and intelligence extorted their admiration.

Well, he certianly didn't use violence, intimidation or abuse authority, nor force, torture, threat, or the like. He doesn't appear to have taken anything illegally. That leaves compel. So I'll quote from the parent: [the code was] "Still available, still used and everyone was happy ..." So it seems to me that if they were still using it that he did not attempt to compel them to anything. When they deleted it, he offered to work on contract. That is not trying to extort anyone. They had it, they used it for 30 days, they knew he wrote it, knew he was gone and didn't back it up. This seems to me to be a false accusation. That is where you seem to be in error.

As for lazy, he did more than was required by working on his own time. Yes, procedure would have been to back it up, but since even writing them at all was an extra effort provided without charge, this hardly qualifies as laziness.

Basically he made a bad decision(deciding to write a work related tool in his free time) and to get "revenge" for his first poor decision, he decided to not to backup his tools knowing his employer will eventually lose them and that will provide him an opportunity to get paid to re-create the tool. This is good behavior?

Alternatively: he made a generous decision (deciding to write a work related tool in his free time) and to complement his first generous decision, he decided to leave the tools available for use by his ex-employer. However, when his ex-employer deleted the tools, he set the limit at going in at no charge to rebuild them and offered to work on contract to replace them. This is good behaviour!

There is enough room for interpretation in this situation for your accusation to be unwarranted.

Well, I accept what you've said, but for the record, truth is important to me. I do not consider it to be truth that copyright infringement is theft. I also consider there are ideas, especially those of a philosophical nature, that part of the test of their truthfulness is to judge the consequences.

As for choosing what to believe, anyone certainly can. For example, I've had people do things where I questioned their motives. Sometimes, I've decided to believe that they meant no offense. We probably all make choices in that way on a regular basis. There is nothing manipulating or deceptive about it.

Counterfeiting is still a better description. I notice you didn't address that. I guess you just chose what to believe.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=fraud
1. deceit, trickery, sharp practice, or breach of confidence, perpetrated for profit or to gain some unfair or dishonest advantage.
Perpetrated for profit, you see? As far as I know, when people are charged with fraud, it is usually because they have taken something. My description was accurate.

It is a secret court. There will be no oversight without public verification. And I mean public, not just a couple of baldheads. This here is what is commonly known as a ruse.

• to appropriate (ideas, credit, words, etc.) without right or acknowledgment
• steal someone's thunder, to appropriate or use another's idea, plan, words, etc.
• To take (the property of another) without right or permission.
• To present or use (someone else's words or ideas) as one's own.
• To get or take secretly or artfully: steal a look at a diary;
• Synonyms: These verbs mean to take another's property wrongfully, often surreptitiously. Steal is the most general: stole a car; steals research from colleagues.
• to take or appropriate without right or consent and with intent to keep or make use of
• Stealing: the act of taking something from someone unlawfully

As you can see, there are several references to when the 'thing' isn't an actual physical object, ideas, information etc, are covered. There's a reference "steal a look at a diary", which is PURELY taking information that you have no right to - not taking the physical book, just looking at it. You'll also notice the mentions of 'without right', and even 'unlawfully', so even if it hurts nobody, if it's illegal, it's stealing. BUT, it also means that if something is not unlawful, and especially, if you're granted rights for something by law (ie, fair use), then the word stealing, and by extension, theft, become less relevant.

To finally wrap this thing up.

"what do you think you would lose by changing your idea of theft to not include copyright infringement?"

Integrity, trust, and the knowledge that everything I work for is build on solid foundations. Not that any of those really matter, I can't choose what I believe, I know what I know, and no matter how hard I pretended otherwise, I'd still know. I would be betraying everyone who trusts what I say, f

• to appropriate (ideas, credit, words, etc.) without right or acknowledgment
• steal someone's thunder, to appropriate or use another's idea, plan, words, etc.
• To take (the property of another) without right or permission.
• To present or use (someone else's words or ideas) as one's own.
• To get or take secretly or artfully: steal a look at a diary;
• Synonyms: These verbs mean to take another's property wrongfully, often surreptitiously. Steal is the most general: stole a car; steals research from colleagues.
• to take or appropriate without right or consent and with intent to keep or make use of
• Stealing: the act of taking something from someone unlawfully

As you can see, there are several references to when the 'thing' isn't an actual physical object, ideas, information etc, are covered. There's a reference "steal a look at a diary", which is PURELY taking information that you have no right to - not taking the physical book, just looking at it. You'll also notice the mentions of 'without right', and even 'unlawfully', so even if it hurts nobody, if it's illegal, it's stealing. BUT, it also means that if something is not unlawful, and especially, if you're granted rights for something by law (ie, fair use), then the word stealing, and by extension, theft, become less relevant.

To finally wrap this thing up.

"what do you think you would lose by changing your idea of theft to not include copyright infringement?"

Integrity, trust, and the knowledge that everything I work for is build on solid foundations. Not that any of those really matter, I can't choose what I believe, I know what I know, and no matter how hard I pretended otherwise, I'd still know. I would be betraying everyone who trusts what I say, f

I'm so sorry your English teacher failed you.

Free has several meanings, not all of which necessarily come to mind when people hear the word, and some of which are much more relevant to FLOSS than others.

The one definition above I find most useful for how "Free Software" works, would be "6. able to do something at will; at liberty: free to choose." Note the specific use of the word liberty to expound on the meaning of free in this context. We don't have a separate word in English derived from liberty to refer to an object's status, but the French do. Thus FLOSS.

PS, what do you think the etymology of the word 'liberty' is? Oh, and check the face of a French coin sometime. You might notice the lady liberty there, just like the one they made for the United States known as the statue of liberty. Using a French word to denote freedom in the liberty sense makes excellent sense historically.

If you can't read, there's no point in arguing with you either.

pollutant:

1. something that pollutes.
2. any substance, as certain chemicals or waste products, that renders the air, soil, water, or other natural resource harmful or unsuitable for a specific purpose.

... unsuitabe for a specific purpose . . . what, like breathing?

I didn't say that I believe that the law should grant them the right to decide whether you should be allowed to mediashift - for the last time - I don't!

I know. I'll quote myself "Even if it is not your intention, you are indeed working for the benefit of the *AA's by spreading that propaganda." I believe you have not understood the consequences of the stance you take. But I did misunderstand your intentions and was too harsh. Sorry.

If you convince someone that copyright infringement is theft (in the context that you think it is) you gain nothing. Nothing at all. The *AA's gain another person that much more susceptible to their propaganda. That's why I say you are working for their benefit even if you don't agree with what they are doing.

Seriously, what do you think you would lose by changing your idea of theft to not include copyright infringement? If you still considered it wrong, but not the same, in much the same way that fraud is wrong, but not the same as theft. Fraud is still taking something that doesn't belong to you. It's called fraud instead of theft because of the difference in method of taking. If you like to think of it this way, copyright infringement can still be taking something that doesn't belong to you. One of the things that makes it not theft is the difference in the method of taking. It is actually closer to counterfeiting than theft. Not less wrong, but different.

What I encourage you to do is this: think about what you would lose or have to give up if you took the above view. Professionally? Nothing, you would still have the same stance about protecting your work, but using a different (more accurate?) word. Personally? Well, maybe a bit of wounded pride, but people change their minds about things all the time.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=counterfe it :
1. made in imitation so as to be passed off fraudulently or deceptively as genuine; not genuine; forged: counterfeit dollar bills.
4. Archaic. a copy.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=theft :
1. the act of stealing; the wrongful taking and carrying away of the personal goods or property of another; larceny.

I note that theft describes the act, not the result. The results of copyright infringement could in some circumstances be similar to theft, but the act is very different. About the same degree of difference as between fraud and theft, some people might think.

It's not intellectually dishonest either. There are words that describe copyright infringment better than theft. You might like to use piracy. Despite some peoples objections, nobody seriously mistakes copying files to boarding a ship. To be sure, you could qualify it as "copyright piracy" if you liked. Counterfeit, piracy, these are words that adequately convey your meaning, accurately describe the act but don't bring you into alignment with the *AA's to the extent that calling it theft does.

If you really would like a chance of having influence against the attacks on fair use, take a page from the saleman's/marketer's/lawyer's handbook. The more times people agree with what you put forward, the more likely they will accept your conclusions. If you help bring people into agreement with the *AA's stance that copyright infringement is theft, you make it that much easier for them. Even if you don't want to.

Then, what would you gain if you took this view? An easy way to get people to understand what the *AA's are up to, even if they aren't interested enought to study up on it or have a long conversation. A couple of minutes is all it takes.

I didn't say that I believe that the law should grant them the right to decide whether you should be allowed to mediashift - for the last time - I don't!

I know. I'll quote myself "Even if it is not your intention, you are indeed working for the benefit of the *AA's by spreading that propaganda." I believe you have not understood the consequences of the stance you take. But I did misunderstand your intentions and was too harsh. Sorry.

If you convince someone that copyright infringement is theft (in the context that you think it is) you gain nothing. Nothing at all. The *AA's gain another person that much more susceptible to their propaganda. That's why I say you are working for their benefit even if you don't agree with what they are doing.

Seriously, what do you think you would lose by changing your idea of theft to not include copyright infringement? If you still considered it wrong, but not the same, in much the same way that fraud is wrong, but not the same as theft. Fraud is still taking something that doesn't belong to you. It's called fraud instead of theft because of the difference in method of taking. If you like to think of it this way, copyright infringement can still be taking something that doesn't belong to you. One of the things that makes it not theft is the difference in the method of taking. It is actually closer to counterfeiting than theft. Not less wrong, but different.

What I encourage you to do is this: think about what you would lose or have to give up if you took the above view. Professionally? Nothing, you would still have the same stance about protecting your work, but using a different (more accurate?) word. Personally? Well, maybe a bit of wounded pride, but people change their minds about things all the time.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=counterfe it :
1. made in imitation so as to be passed off fraudulently or deceptively as genuine; not genuine; forged: counterfeit dollar bills.
4. Archaic. a copy.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=theft :
1. the act of stealing; the wrongful taking and carrying away of the personal goods or property of another; larceny.

I note that theft describes the act, not the result. The results of copyright infringement could in some circumstances be similar to theft, but the act is very different. About the same degree of difference as between fraud and theft, some people might think.

It's not intellectually dishonest either. There are words that describe copyright infringment better than theft. You might like to use piracy. Despite some peoples objections, nobody seriously mistakes copying files to boarding a ship. To be sure, you could qualify it as "copyright piracy" if you liked. Counterfeit, piracy, these are words that adequately convey your meaning, accurately describe the act but don't bring you into alignment with the *AA's to the extent that calling it theft does.

If you really would like a chance of having influence against the attacks on fair use, take a page from the saleman's/marketer's/lawyer's handbook. The more times people agree with what you put forward, the more likely they will accept your conclusions. If you help bring people into agreement with the *AA's stance that copyright infringement is theft, you make it that much easier for them. Even if you don't want to.

Then, what would you gain if you took this view? An easy way to get people to understand what the *AA's are up to, even if they aren't interested enought to study up on it or have a long conversation. A couple of minutes is all it takes.

You apply for a job, they run a credit report...

Yeah, but you give them permission to those people.

It's either "sign zee papers" or starve.

"...such constraint or coercion as will render void a contract or other legal act entered or performed under its influence"

Scientist:
an expert in science, esp. one of the physical or natural sciences. [1]

Medical Doctor:
"Medicine is a branch of health science..." [2]

Hence, Crichton is a scientist.

1. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/scientist
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicine

able to speak two languages with the facility of a native speaker

The really weird thing is that neither side of the political spectrum dare oppose the whole "sex offender" legal agenda thing. Its a bit like global warming. Groupthink.

You got it backward. Global warming is contested by politicians, but accepted by the brains in the field. Sex offender registries are contested by the brains but generally accepted by politicians.

Furthermore, you don't seem to know what 'groupthink' means. I don't mean to pick on you personally, but it had to be said.

There is no "IF" in the statement, "NOTHING in this section shall affect rights, remedies, limitations, or defenses to copyright infringement, including fair use, under this title." - http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap12.html [copyright.gov] See the definition of "nothing" http://dictionary.reference.com/search?db=dictiona ry&q=nothing

No it doesn't....fucking tool

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

"
1. having an extremely bad reputation: an infamous city.
2. deserving of or causing an evil reputation; shamefully malign; detestable: an infamous deed
"

1. to take the property of another wrongfully and especially as a habitual or regular practice
2. to come or go secretly, unobtrusively, gradually, or unexpectedly
3. to steal or attempt to steal a base
   
   

1. a : to take or appropriate without right or leave and with intent to keep or make use of wrongfully b : to take away by force or unjust means c : to take surreptitiously or without permission d : to appropriate to oneself or beyond one's proper share : make oneself the focus of
2. a : to move, convey, or introduce secretly : SMUGGLE b : to accomplish in a concealed or unobserved manner
3. a : to seize, gain, or win by trickery, skill, or daring b of a base runner : to reach (a base) safely solely by running and usually catching the opposing team off guard

1. the act of stealing; the wrongful taking and carrying away of the personal goods or property of another; larceny.
2. an instance of this.
3. Archaic. something stolen.

The OP used the word "steal" not "theft".

Actually, the OP used both words: "They don't steal anything, copyright infringement isn't theft."

The start of the reply was then "Sure it is.", which is clearly a response to the "copyright infringement isn't theft" part rather than the "They don't steal anything" part, but then the definition given is for "steal" rather than "theft" -- probably because the definitions for "theft" explicitly refer to "taking and carrying away" and/or "larceny", neither of which applies to "stealing" in the copyright-infringement sense of copying ideas or words.

This thread is fully of misdirection and confusion (whether intentional or not). Be careful who you are defending.
</pedant>

You are arguing with a definition that includes the word Appropriate without looking at its definition. Here are the definitions of appropriate as a verb.

verb (used with object)
3. to set apart, authorize, or legislate for some specific purpose or use: The legislature appropriated funds for the university.
4. to take to or for oneself; take possession of.
5. to take without permission or consent; seize; expropriate: He appropriated the trust funds for himself.
6. to steal, esp. to commit petty theft.

You'll notice that apart from the last one (which is simple a circular definition in our context) they all point to removing an object. Set apart, take for oneself. Making an exact duplicate is gray area at best... and there is certainly not enough justification to say it is clearly stealing simply based on the language.

They don't steal anything, copyright infringement isn't theft. You been listening to too much **AA babble.

Sure it is. Steal: 2. to appropriate (ideas, credit, words, etc.) without right or acknowledgment.

You can agree or disagree with the concept or the severity of the crime, but at least have the balls to call it what it is.