Slashdot Mirror

Frankly, a single server in some guy's basement, selling porn on Debian stable, is still a server. That is part of the server market.

No, that's part of installed user base of servers. Market is a word that is very much related to sales. If the guy didn't buy debian, he's not a part of the server software market, as it would be recognised by businesses. The nature of Free software, and a great benefit, is that it is not restricted to the marketplace.

What part of the marketplace does Debian have? None, really, not if you define marketplace as something you can track via sales.

Market:
1. an open place or a covered building where buyers and sellers convene for the sale of goods; a marketplace: a farmers' market.

Market is indeed defined by sales, not the installed user base. IBM would probably be only interested in sales.

No, to believe something is to think it's true. The definition of "believe" says nothing about whether it's proven or not.

na-ah... http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/vacation

intransitive verb, w/o object

No, it is correctly stated as "obviated" as in

To anticipate and dispose of effectively; render unnecessary.

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

They're saying that the companies supporting Linux have enough of a patent library that should MS try to go after Linux, Microsoft will find itself in hot water.

Who, exactly, is the high school dropout?

You do not call attempting to incite others into a riot combative?

Irrelevant, since he in no way attemped to incite a riot; but no, this guy was in no way "combative". "Combative" means "ready or inclined to fight"; a guy who lies down on the floor is pretty much demonstrating an disinclination to fight.

Oh, and you do not hear about regular white folk getting tazered because no one cares, not because it does not happen.

I didn't say "regular white folk", obviosuly white criminals as well as black criminals get tasered. I mentioned anti-abortion protestors. Can you show me a case of right-wing non-violent anti-abortion protestors getting shocked or sprayed with toxic chemicals, rather than being relatively gently carried onto a bus to jail? Are you suggesting that it would not be all over the news if something like that happened?

I am fully opposed to police brutality. This however is not an example of it.

Brutality:

1. The state or quality of being ruthless, cruel, harsh, or unrelenting.
2. A ruthless, cruel, harsh, or unrelenting act.

("brutality." The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. Houghton Mifflin Company, 2004. 21 Nov. 2006. <Dictionary.com http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=brutality >)

Was it ruthless? Certainly. The officer cared only about his convenience. He wasn't even threatened so you can't chalk it up to safety. Cruel? Tasering someone five times in a row is certainly cruel. He may not even have been able to stand. We may never know. Harsh, unrelenting? I think we know these things apply.

Therefore, it was brutality.

I'm happy to admit they could have handled things better, but the idea that this is even in the same universe as something like the Rodney King beating is ridiculous.

These things happened in the same city so by definition they happened in the same universe. What are you, an idiot? (Don't answer that, I think I know already.) The simple fact is that both this and the rodney king beating came from the same mentality - we're the cops, you're the bad guy, so it's okay if we do bad things to you. Thus, they are directly comparable - although I never brought up Rodney King. By the way, you don't think the LAPD invented police brutality just for Rodney, do you? If a cop intentionally bounces someone's head off the door of the patrol car, THAT is police brutality, even if they only do it once. Your grasp on English is regrettably poor.

Insult me or armchair psychoanalyse me all you like

Okay. You're a stupid misanthropic fuck who should have his testicles removed before someone is stupid enough to have sex with him and the result is pregnancy.

And psychology is something of a psuedoscience to begin with; I have little respect for psychologists in general and basically none for any armchair types. I do think you're incredibly fucked up in the head but I say that not because of any faith in head shrinking but simply because you're demonstrating that you're an asshole by saying that this guy deserves to be repeatedly assaulted simply because he was annoying and stood up for his rights.

but at the end of it all, people like you are sheep crying wolf, you aren't doing yourselves or your cause any favours.

I'm calling this police brutality because it is. I'm calling attention to it because I believe that it must stop.

If you really think that these were acceptable actions, then there is nothing more to say; you have no respect for decency or the law, both of which are concepts which in this case were shit upon by the police, whose actions were clearly illegal and not just contemptible. Contempt is what I have for people like you. Prison is where I would like to put people like cops who taser someone five times in a row, telling them to get up. He probably couldn't get up! That's what tasers are fucking for, making people unable to get up.

Let's recap what happened here. The kid is leaving, albeit slowly. The cops grab his arm. He goes limp. He gets handcuffed. He gets told to get up, then he's tasered so he can't get up, then he's told to get up, then he's tasered... this is like a school bully telling you to get out of his sight, then grabbing you and throwing you in the dumpster, then telling you to get out of the dumpster, and then hitting you every time you try to get out so that you fall back in. This cop is a bully, plain and simple, he got off on his power trip and now he must be removed from

The word you want here is "exacerbating", not "exasperating." Their similar, but exasperate usually refers to a person and exacerbate doesn't

The word you want here is "exacerbating", not "exasperating." Their similar, but exasperate usually refers to a person and exacerbate doesn't

The word you want here is "exacerbating", not "exasperating." Their similar, but exasperate usually refers to a person and exacerbate doesn't.

The word you want here is "exacerbating", not "exasperating." Their similar, but exasperate usually refers to a person and exacerbate doesn't.

Obviously cars and an email protocol are not exactly the same. This is called an analogy. An analogy is used to describe a situation that somebody does not understand (changing SMTP would screw over many companies) against a situation that person might understand (small vehicles would screw over tall/large people).

You see, if we forced a change from large vehicles to small vehicles, you would be unhappy. If we forced a change from SMTP to another protocol, many companies would be unhappy.

Changing to another email protocol would not be technically difficult. However, group x would likely be screwed because all of their money has been spent on writing email clients. The software writers who have written clients would be unhappy because they have to re-write their programs.

Changing to smaller vehicles would not be technically difficult, but group y would likely be screwed because all of their money has been spent in developing large vehicles, and group z (that would be you) is unable to fit in the vehicle.

Kids are still allowed safety seats. They fit in the car.

Boxen: A fanciful plural of box often encountered in the phrase "Unix boxen", used to describe commodity Unix hardware. The connotation is that any two Unix boxen are interchangeable.

You can believe what you want about what these people really believed inside their heads but never wrote about, but unless you have some sort of supporting evidence for it it's just wild conjecture.

Actually, if it can't be pronounced as if it were a word then technically it's not an acronym, just an initialism. NASA is an acronym, NSA is only an initialism. Useful info huh!

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/acronym
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/initialism

Actually, if it can't be pronounced as if it were a word then technically it's not an acronym, just an initialism. NASA is an acronym, NSA is only an initialism. Useful info huh!

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/acronym
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/initialism

Fair enough. Meritocracy is based on ability and talent (meritocracy). Technocracy is based on technological skill and talent (technocracy).

Meaning that you can have technical skills and have merit, but there are more valuable things in society than just technical skills.

Fair enough. Meritocracy is based on ability and talent (meritocracy). Technocracy is based on technological skill and talent (technocracy).

Meaning that you can have technical skills and have merit, but there are more valuable things in society than just technical skills.

Are you saying that taking something that belongs to someone, without their permission, could not to be considered "theft" until there was legislature to say that it was?

No, I'm saying that there were already laws against theft. If copyright violation was theft, there would have been no need for a new law, the laws against theft would have been sufficient protection of your property. Since copyright violation is sufficiently different to theft to require a different set of laws, it is sufficiently different that is it appropriate to use a different term to describe it.

Understand what I'm saying: I'm not saying it's less serious or less wrong than theft, just that it's different. Comparable to the difference between fraud and theft. The definition of fraud does not contain the word theft. They are different, even though they have similarities.

That said though, it is only wrong because the law says it is. For thousands of years it was not considered theft to use someone elses ideas, songs, copy inventions etc. Is there any religion or philosophy that grants monopoly on inventions or ideas? On what basis do you claim ownership of these works that for most of human history have not been subject to individual property rights? Only the law gives you this right. Now, I believe in the rule of law, so I say go ahead, claim and enforce your rights under law, but if the law changed so you didn't have those rights, to what authority would you appeal? On what basis would you claim your goods had been stolen?

Methinks you don't quite know what per capita means.

I can see that you're making a joke, but if it's a spelling joke, you might want to know that his spelling is the correct one, and it's unambigious in English as far as I know.

(The reverse pun is fun, too, especially when people do the misspelling thing and ask others to be "very discrete".)

I can see that you're making a joke, but if it's a spelling joke, you might want to know that his spelling is the correct one, and it's unambigious in English as far as I know.

(The reverse pun is fun, too, especially when people do the misspelling thing and ask others to be "very discrete".)

The article is not factually untrue per se. But its representation as a news article is deceptive. See definitions 4 and 6.

false (fôls)
adj. falser, falsest

1. Contrary to fact or truth: false tales of bravery.
2. Deliberately untrue: delivered false testimony under oath.
3. Arising from mistaken ideas: false hopes of writing a successful novel.
4. Intentionally deceptive: a suitcase with a false bottom; false promises.
5. Not keeping faith; treacherous: a false friend.
6. Not genuine or real: false teeth; false documents.
7. Erected temporarily, as for support during construction.
8. Resembling but not accurately or properly designated as such: a false thaw in January; the false dawn peculiar to the tropics.
9. Music. Of incorrect pitch.
10. Unwise; imprudent: Don't make a false move or I'll shoot.
11. Computer Science. Indicating one of two possible values taken by a variable in Boolean logic or a binary device.

"false." The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. Houghton Mifflin Company, 2004. 16 Nov. 2006.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=false

The upshot is that lawyers now have a new income source.

I hardly find this to be an upshot...

That's only because you don't know what upshot means.

The dictionary is your friend. Learn to use it, or be ignorant forever.

(with) tongue in cheek, ironically or mockingly; insincerely.

Better tell the Dictionary then.

It's only incorrect from two prespectives:

1) The Americas aren't, as believed by Columbus, east India. That doesn't change the fact that the term caught on, just like "chips" caught on in England, or any other regional dialectal examples you care to think of.
2) Its primary definition is different in non-American English. That doesn't change the fact that the original poster was, apparently, American, just like the poster who wrote about "Marks & Sparks" yesterday was apparently English.

It simply evolved to encompass a different group of people than it did originally.

Words are nothing more than verbal utterances agreed upon by a significant amount of people to represent and object or idea. They're inherently and involuntarily democratic, and they change over time. If a majority of people decide they mean one thing, then that's what they mean.

I agree that it's needlessly unspecific to use the term "Indian," but to say it's culturally insensitive is like saying that German is culturally insensitive because Germans call themselves Deutsch.

This hippy PC crap has got to stop.

Although you are right, it so happens that in English (and in practically all European languages for that matter), Indian also refers to American Natives (American as in from any of the Americas). Yes, it's due to a mistake made over 500 years ago, but it's officially in the language, look it up in a dictionary.

Here you have one:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/indian

We may not like the misuse of terms like Indian and American, but unfortunately we will have to live with them.

Communication skills (The ability to understand and be understood, both written and verbal)

THEN
THAN

English, motherfucker, do you speak it?

THEN
THAN

English, motherfucker, do you speak it?

"The only destruction is exclusivity. Both the thief and the owner now can distribute."

How can there be a "thief" in the above sentence if nothing was stolen? If the so-called "thief" is not taking exclusivity, but is actually destroying it so neither person has it?

"The opportunity for compensation is obviously lessened when the owner loses control over distribution and that constitutes a clear loss"

Replace "obviously" with "possible". Copyright infringements can sometimes cause such a "lessening", but quite often do not. Therefore, no "clear loss."

"Since dictionary definitions of "theft" don't always mention loss this subject is moot"

They do mention it: see the word "taking". When something is taken or carried way, a loss occurs at the place/person it was taken from. Loss is necessary for theft to have occured, since taking is necessary for theft (same dictionary definition I have offered before) to have occured. Loss is a necessary component of taking: if it's not lost, it certainly was not taken.

I agree with some of the comments here; what exactly is a hero?

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hero

So if we boil it down to good, courageous, and noble deed...

How is giving away source code for an operating system kernel good, courageous, or noble?
A lot of people still don't have computers, and even more have no clue how to install an operating system, so "common good" doesn't seem to apply (does anyone need a computer?)

Did Torvalds put his life in harms way to implement said good? Was there perril?

And then nobility... take admirable/impressive over rank/cast... has no one ever produced a kernel before? Even a free one? Was this the bestest kernel ever conceived by man?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minix

How can any invention based on a string of memes be considered heroic?

From the dictionary definition of "hero"

hero
-noun
1. a man of distinguished courage or ability, admired for his brave deeds and noble qualities.
2. a person who, in the opinion of others, has heroic qualities or has performed a heroic act and is regarded as a model or ideal: He was a local hero when he saved the drowning child. .....

5. a large sandwich, usually consisting of a small loaf of bread or long roll cut in half lengthwise and containing a variety of ingredients, as meat, cheese, lettuce, and tomatoes.

I vote for number 5 myself with mayo and mustard.

Anarchy doesn't forbid society, it forbids government. A government is, simply defined, an entity which has a monopoly on force. A government uses this monopoly to restrict freedoms or coerce certain actions from other people. Anarchy is the absence of this entity and its force-monopoly. There is nothing about anarchy that would preclude the formation of social groups, it's just that all of the created groups would be completely consensual and people could join or leave the groups at will, without any harm or artificially imposed repercussions.

Anarchy is not a pipe dream, because anarchy is not chaos. Actually, dictionary.com provides a good definition of anarchy: a theory that regards the absence of all direct or coercive government as a political ideal and that proposes the cooperative and voluntary association of individuals and groups as the principal mode of organized society.

Riches could still be generated by societal structures, the innate human psychological "need" for society and organization could still be realized--it would all simply be voluntary instead of forced. Something about that tickles me in a warm, fuzzy kind of way. People cooperating for a common good not because they have to or because they feel obligated to or because they feel frightened into doing so, but because they want to.

Your Japanese may be fine, but your English sucks. "How do you do" is not the same as "how are you". :-)

"O-genki desu ka" (literally, "are you healthy?") is closer to "how are you?" than to "how do you do".

As for a translation of "hajimemashite" (roughly literally, "we have begun"), "nice to meet you" and "how do you do" are, at least in my opinion, equally close as translations to English idioms.

Disclaimer: English is my second language, and I'm just starting to learn Japanese. ;-)

How are kids supposed to learn proper spelling & grammar?

Anyone remember "Ebonics"?

"...some sort of devolvation..."

No results found for devolation ...

It looks like it's already devolving now.

Just to relieve the hyperbola, a War is a condition that results in mass destruction of life, culture and property for some arbritrary greater good. Brains and meat sprayed over the road, orphans, legless combatants. That is War. It is important to recognize the difference. Linux vs Microsoft is not War. Pick another word. Try not to be such a twit.

I'd like to point out the following: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=war

Especially number 5.

I'd also like to point out that the word war is not a proper noun and it is grammatically incorrect to capitalise it the way you have.

Gotta watch those screenwriters:

http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Isoroku_Yamam oto's_sleeping_giant_quote

rj

Actually, I think "tinny" might be a good description of procedural graphics as they are now. How do you create a formula that looks natural? It can create a decent approximation, but not quite perfect if you look closely. So it's "tinny".

Man, that sucks. Surely your state has a telecommunications ombudsman or something similar? (I linked to dictionary.com 'cause I'm not sure what your local term is...) That mayor dude is holding back progress, man.

Impact

Are you stupid or something?

Oh for fuck's sake. Have you never heard of a word having more than one meaning? Has it really been unclear by the context whether I'm referring to the non-criminal-tendency vs. the criminal act?

Let me clue you in on the basic freaking vocabulary that you think I'm having a problem with. Here's the six dictionary definitions of "pedophilia" that dictionary.com comes up with, listed with their sources. Note that four of them refer to the act:

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.0.1)
sexual desire in an adult for a child.
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.

American Heritage Dictionary
The act or fantasy on the part of an adult of engaging in sexual activity with a child or children.
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

American Heritage Stedman's Medical Dictionary - Cite This Source
The act or fantasy on the part of an adult of engaging in sexual activity with a child or children.
The American Heritage® Stedman's Medical Dictionary
Copyright © 2002, 2001, 1995 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company.

Merriam-Webster's Medical Dictionary
sexual perversion in which children are the preferred sexual object
Merriam-Webster's Medical Dictionary, © 2002 Merriam-Webster, Inc.

WordNet - Cite This Source
n : sexual activity of an adult with a child [syn: paedophilia]
WordNet ® 2.0, © 2003 Princeton University

On-line Medical Dictionary
Sexual fondness and activity of adults with children.pedophilia is a form of paraphilia (deviant sexual behaviour).

No. Try reading http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/terraform and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terraforming. From dictionary.com: "To transform (a landscape) on another planet into one having the characteristics of landscapes on Earth." It comes from "terra" (Earth) "form" (to make). You can't "terraform" Earth, since Earth is what you are comparing to in the first place.

Saying it has to be a planet other than Earth is IMHO an artificial distinction, which incidentally, the Wikipedia article and the first dictionary definition don't make. Irrigation, urban development, even reforestation and channel dredging are forms of terraforming on a small and local scale. Among other things, it's a positive example that terraforming can be done once people live somewhere else.

The sulfuric acid is really a double-edged sword. Yes it is corrosive, and will need to be protected against, however it is also a very useful industrial chemical. You can even generate water and hydrogen from it, making it quite useful indeed.

Good point.

Well, that's the tradeoff of lower gravity. Yes, it's far easier to launch things on Mars, and I believe it is even possible to build a space elevator with current engineering materials! On the downside, you have potential health effects from living at significantly reduced gravity. If this turns out to be a large concern (again, more study is needed), then it may be a deal breaker for permanent settlement on Mars, unless everyone want's to live in centrifuges on the Martian surface, or never be able to travel back to Earth.

Another good point. My opinion though is that existing human life can be adapted to low gravity environments. We probably will be able to do this for adult humans in a modest amount of time using sufficiently advanced biotechnology, allowing one to live in arbitrary gravity environments (along with lower pressure and temperature in the case of Mars) as long as the adaptation process is followed first. And I might add, I think that developing this sort of biotech partial solution (in a reversible way!) will probably end up easier than terraforming Mars or Venus.

I already addressed this. The fact that aerostats aren't currently designed to stay aloft indefinitely is a function of need, not technological limitations.

I don't think it's that simple a problem, but Venus would be a considerably better environment for such things, and the technology isn't that far out of reach.

There are pros and cons of both planets, engineering is a study of tradeoffs. My main point is that Venus' atmosphere is the most Earth-like environment of any other place in the solar system, and deserves more study and attention. Besides, it doesn't have to be "either-or", why don't we work to colonize both?

I agree, liberals are Satan incarnate. Yup being open-minded and progressive. I'm pretty sure liberals will destroy us all with their anti-hate rhetoric.

Liberal

liberal /lbrl, lbrl/ -adjective

1. favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs.
2. (often initial capital letter) noting or pertaining to a political party advocating measures of progressive political reform.
3. of, pertaining to, based on, or advocating liberalism.
4. favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, esp. as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties.
5. favoring or permitting freedom of action, esp. with respect to matters of personal belief or expression: a liberal policy toward dissident artists and writers.
6. of or pertaining to representational forms of government rather than aristocracies and monarchies.
7. free from prejudice or bigotry; tolerant: a liberal attitude toward foreigners.
8. open-minded or tolerant, esp. free of or not bound by traditional or conventional ideas, values, etc.

I had no idea what the word "epistemologically" meant. Here's the definition in case you were dumbfounded by this word as well.

The draft of the institute's intellectual property crime report, sighted by The Australian shows that copyright owners "failed to explain" how they reached financial loss statistics used in lobbying activities and court cases.

drop any piece of standard PC hardware in into it without having to worry about weird compatibility issues (eg: "non-Mac" video cards)

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/unauthorize dly

I suspect this was lost in the translation from the original article.

That's not precisely true: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/irregardles s

It's also listed similarly in the OED, the online version of which is pay-only.

Give it another 30 years, and it'll be a word like any other.