Slashdot Mirror

Irregardless is not a fucking word
Irrespective and regardless are words.

You, sir, are trying to propulgate the notion that mash-ups ain't English.

Yes, it is.

In fact I did provide exactly such proof.

Thats odd, I don't see any "proof" other than your own baseless claims and opinion.

The idea that one person is inherently better than another to the extreme that it's ok for the one to own the other is entirely 100% right wing by definition.

Apparently you are so smart you don't need to check the definition of "right wing" before you declare that your opinion is the definition
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/right%20win g

Instead of using your false statements and opinions as proof, maybe you can cite an example showing your definition of "right wing". Specifically your assertion that it is a person that inherently believes they are better than another. I have yet to see you cite a single source.

Further more, these are really pretty simple concepts which I've explained to you several times. The fact that you keep spouting the same nonsense without a grasp of the definition of "right wing" even though the dictionary clearly states this definition does say a lot about you, none of it good, that is my opinion, not a fact like you would claim.

What other words would you use to describe somebody who uses words they don't know what mean and continually tries to pretend that the Democrats have remained unchanged for a hundred years?

Actually I was stating that the Democrats have not changed over the last generation, say 50 years. Proof as indicated by continually promoting racist policies like affirmitive action and keeping former KKK members like Robert Byrd in there ranks. You fail to acknowledge either fact or cite any facts disproving said points other than your eloquent opinions like:

You are a deeply ignorant person. You have proven that repeatedly. Stating that isn't an insult it's the statement of a fact.

Actually sir, that is your opinion, not a fact. Oh and here are your other "facts"

The fact that the American people are, in general, ignorant of things which it's their responsibility to know is again a basic simple fact.

Again your opinion. Can you cite an example other than your opinion please?

I'm certainly not going to pretend that I don't in order to make you feel better about yourself. Sorry, but that's life. I'd recommend you get used to dealing with it before you move out of your Mom's place.

Thats odd, I own my own home. Again you spew baseless crap, without any evidence to back up your "facts".

I do know more than most people about these topics, because I actually care enough to inform myself.

Gee, thanks for the info, maybe next time you can prove that you know something by citing your knowledge with real examples, definitions and facts other than resorting to name calling, and then refering to your name calling as a fact.. I believe your knowledge is well summed up in your GENIUS sig. Another Opinion of yours...

So your idea of the correct decision would be to reelect the same scum who make up the most currupt congress in our history who have looted this country blind?

I could possibly be convinced of this if you would provide maybe some numbers, some links, anything will do, other than your baseless claims and opinion... At least qualify your statement with "One of the most corrupt" so you don't look dumb when someone else proves your opinion wrong with REAL proof other than an opinion.

You may really think your a smart well informed person. Perhaps you are, I will not speculate your an idiot or ignorant like you so aptly like to do since I don't really know you. Doing so would indicate some real ignorance on my part. I think your name calling specifically points to your weak arguments, your baseless facts and possibly more weaknesses in your ideology than anything else. I am sure you feel at home here on /., many agree wit

Plain

Plane

Plain

Plane

Neither one is true, Fuck has been in the English language for centuries. "[Origin: 1495-1505; akin to MD fokken to thrust, copulate with, Sw dial. focka to copulate with, strike, push, fock penis]" (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=fuck) It is not an acronym. Read your way down to the bottom of the link for the first known use of the word in print.

"A consumer is a person who buys something then consumes it"

There is now a gap between the term "consumer" and the idea "one who consumes". Media/content is simply not consumed, unless it is some expiring pay-per-use program. See the definition: there's no devouring, destroying, or expending going on.

"Someone who doesn't buy something, but consumes it anyway is usually referred to as a "pirate", "leech", "theif", "i'll pay you tommorrow guy", or "one of those open source hippies"

Actually.... those leeches neither by nor consume.

Is that a made up word?


No .. just misspelt: likeliness

I suspect the phrase he was looking for was contract of adhesion . Or here, though I am reluctant to push Wikipedia because of their inaccuracy in other areas of this discussion. That said, this doesn't support his argument. Contracts of adhesion are generally enforceable, though there is more scrutiny applied to them and the party with limited freedom of negotiation gets the benefit of the doubt with some terms...

Please learn the definition of empire, and stop throwing it around because it's popular.

APA:
empire. (n.d.). Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.0.1). Retrieved November 02, 2006, from Dictionary.com website: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=empire&x= 0&y=0
MLA:
"empire." Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.0.1). Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006. 02 Nov. 2006. http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=empire&x= 0&y=0>
Chicago Style:
empire. Dictionary.com. Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.0.1), Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006. http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=empire&x= 0&y=0 (accessed: November 02, 2006).

Please learn the definition of empire, and stop throwing it around because it's popular.

APA:
empire. (n.d.). Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.0.1). Retrieved November 02, 2006, from Dictionary.com website: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=empire&x= 0&y=0
MLA:
"empire." Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.0.1). Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006. 02 Nov. 2006. http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=empire&x= 0&y=0>
Chicago Style:
empire. Dictionary.com. Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.0.1), Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006. http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=empire&x= 0&y=0 (accessed: November 02, 2006).

Yes. Making some region more habitable to humans or life in general. Irrigation is a classic example of Earth-based terraforming. So are cities.

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.

Mars has water, ground, and plenty of solid matter near at hand. Ground means no mass restrictions on your colony other than what the ground can structurally bear.

The restrictions on colony building are limitations on resources, of which "ground" is only one factor, and probably not really an important one. Having "solid matter" isn't the same as having processed raw materials, such as metals. Some of the real questions to ask are which type of colony "takes more resources," "how cheap/available are these resources" and "are there other benefits (higher/lower gravity, temperature, pressure, etc.) which may offset any resource advantage"? This will take more study and evaluation, and is really more of a long term self-sustaining question.

For the short term, initial colony founding, and probably for a relatively long time thereafter, raw materials will most likely need to be shipped in from off-planet, for both Venus and Mars. Filtering and processing gasses from the atmosphere is one thing, mining, smelting, and ore-processing in an extraterrestrial environment is quite another. While it's true that this will almost certainly be easier on Mars, it probably won't be a concern for quite some time.

For a Venus habitat to make sense, you'll either have to move mass to Venus from elsewhere, or mine it on the surface or from the atmosphere. Metals in particular will be difficult to come by on Venus.

As I said, you'll have to import mass from off-planet for a good long while with any extraterrestrial colony. Mining metals from asteroids may be a good idea here. Mining on Venus is not currently technologically feasible, but I'm sure it will be at some point. Perhaps the high temperature and pressure will actually make smelting and processing easier? Again, more study is needed. "Mining" the atmosphere is technologically feasible, at least for some materials. The largest component of the Venusian atmosphere is CO2, from which you can extract carbon, useful for carbon fiber structures, nanotubes & similar (once the technology is further developed), even diamond for integrated circuits (with even more technological development).

Venus also has sulfuric acid, including the altitude you want.

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.

The increase solar flux means that anyone outside the Venusian atmosphere (eg, people traveling to Venus) would experience increased exposure to radiation for what that's worth.

At least the trip is shorter to Venus than Mars, although we will need to develop good methods for shielding for trips to both planets. It's doubtful that we can develop shielding which makes it possible to go to Mars safely, but not Venus.

Mars is somewhat easier to obtain useful rocket fuels since CO2 and H2O can be readily decomposed into methane and oxygen

CO2 is certainly plentiful on Venus, and H2O can be generated from H2SO4.

Due to the lower gravity has a far

Show me any "financial product" and I can explain how the profit margin is generated through ignorance on the buyer's part.

Well, this is technically correct... but it is technically correct for almost any kind of service. With a few exceptions which require extremely expensive specialized equipment(medical services comes to mind), the difference between you & the person you're paying for a service is knowledge and/or time.

While I could try to do all my own taxes, I realised about two years ago that paying an accountant a few hundred to do that saves me several hundred more. While I could fight a traffic ticket myself, or just pay it, spending two fifty on a lawyer might save me almost a thousand over the next three years.

The fact is, nobody is smart enough to be able to do everything in a society that's generated as much knowledge as ours has. And I'd rather do a few things well than a bunch of things poorly, Mr. Heinlein notwithstanding.

YES, IT DOES. Your reference is wrong.

Shouting doesn't make you right. Please use your "inside voice".

The American Hertitage Dictionary beats a Wikipeida article (especially one flagged as not citing references) as a source, and it says: "Having sense perception; conscious...Experiencing sensation or feeling."

To have an experience or perception (as opposed to a mechanical/chemical reflex) requires consciousness. You or I or my dogs can have an experience, our nervous systems can organize sense data into perceptions; a mechnical device (even one with sensors), an bacterium (even with sense organelles), or a plant (even with sense organs) cannot.

Indeed, had you read the entire Wikipedia article you link to, you would see a mention of the sense of "sentient" that's exactly relevant here: "In the philosophy of animal rights, sentience is commonly seen as the ability to experience suffering."

(Oh, and looking at Latin or Greek roots is a lousy way to understand English. "Tragedy", for example, does not mean "goat song".)

"Sentient" just means it has senses.

No, it doesn't:

1. having the power of perception by the senses; conscious.
2. characterized by sensation and consciousness.

According to the American Heritage Dictionary, misspelt is an acceptable alternative spelling.

What about all the plants that you kill? They're sentient too

No, they're not. "Sentient" implies conscious, which implies a complex nervous system or analagous structure.

How else do plants turn towards the sun?

Are you suggesting that heliostatic photovoltaic panels are sentient?

It's not iD Software it's id Software and it has always been pronounced just like the word it comes from:

id -noun Psychoanalysis
the part of the psyche, residing in the unconscious, that is the source of instinctive impulses that seek satisfaction in accordance with the pleasure principle and are modified by the ego and the superego before they are given overt expression.

Ever notice how the most pedantic know-it-alls are, in fact, the stupidest people of all?

I was hoping that just reading games.slashdot.org twice a month would be enough to make me appear a shining gammer

How would reading games.slashdot.org make you look like an old woman? Sorry, I just couldn't resist ;-)

The GP overstated the scope of the decision, but the documents cited on the website in question clearly show:

Court order to file under seal the relevant material pertaining to the identification requirement.

US DoJ files the relevant material under seal, reiterating that is ex parte and in camera.

Court order affirming that the material filed under seal is ex parte.

The key legal term is ex parte , which means that the opposing side is not allowed to see the filed material. So, it is effectively secret and the plaintiff was not allowed to review or formulate a challenge.

This doesn't appear to have been a factor in the subsequent decision. But, I think there's a legitimate concern here: the TSA has made policy that is effectively law, but the actual policy is not public. That means that TSA is free to interpret it and change it without any oversight.

I think it's funny that "metrosexuals" are regarded as effeminate. Most of that type are in excellent shape, and the reason they spend so much time on clothes, hair, etc. is to attract women.

The idea that caring about how you look is somehow "unmanly" is almost surely a temporary phenomenon.

The iPod Nano and Shuffle never supported FireWire, and FireWire support was finally dropped entirely from the product line with the launch of the USB-only 5th generation iPod.

1. all of the products carried by a manufacturer, wholesaler, or retailer. 2. a group of products of the same manufacturer having similar or related characteristics and intended for similar or related markets.

In Soviet America, Martial Law is Enabling Bush!

That schtick is not nearly as funny as it was back when it was just a joke.

Google is going to return what people think censorship is. This is like the case of commonly misused words--the general population is not the group to trust. Try the dictionary. Or I can make it easy on you: censorship is the act deletion by an official for the purpose of suppressing parts deemed objectionable on moral, political, military, or other grounds.

This guy is full of shit. The foulest, most vile stinking kind of shit. A corporate marketing droid shoveled it into him.

When answering a question about IE's lousy standards support (#9), he uses interoperability as a defense. What the fuck.

Let's play with word prefixes for a moment.

• Inter- : Between; among

Lots of people have heard of interoperability. Most people understand it to mean "operability between or among platforms.

• Intra- : within

Obviously, intraoperability would be "operability within a single platform".

What he's actually talking about is how standards compliance would affect Windows as a whole. Help files, Office, Outlook, a lot of things depend on MS' 8 year old (or more) decision to merely pay lip service to web standards and/or pervert them for their own internal uses.

MS doesn't care one bit about other platforms. They don't even consider the existence of other platforms most of the time. That's their business. Closed source, closed minded.

But to dismiss developers' demands in favor of not having to fix their platform? That's not caring about developers, customers, or anyone other than themselves. MS has the same attitude about lots of topics, including security. All their past design choices are coming back to haunt them.

Fact: IE7 still sucks at web standards, and MS doesn't care. They're even whispering to people that it doesn't (among the roar of UI catch up). They just had to whip up the token effort that is IE7 so people would get distracted from Firefox. People are fed up with IE, especially web developers. The best, most secure browsing experience? Certainly not with IE, and maybe not even on Windows.

This guy is full of shit. The foulest, most vile stinking kind of shit. A corporate marketing droid shoveled it into him.

When answering a question about IE's lousy standards support (#9), he uses interoperability as a defense. What the fuck.

Let's play with word prefixes for a moment.

• Inter- : Between; among

Lots of people have heard of interoperability. Most people understand it to mean "operability between or among platforms.

• Intra- : within

Obviously, intraoperability would be "operability within a single platform".

What he's actually talking about is how standards compliance would affect Windows as a whole. Help files, Office, Outlook, a lot of things depend on MS' 8 year old (or more) decision to merely pay lip service to web standards and/or pervert them for their own internal uses.

MS doesn't care one bit about other platforms. They don't even consider the existence of other platforms most of the time. That's their business. Closed source, closed minded.

But to dismiss developers' demands in favor of not having to fix their platform? That's not caring about developers, customers, or anyone other than themselves. MS has the same attitude about lots of topics, including security. All their past design choices are coming back to haunt them.

Fact: IE7 still sucks at web standards, and MS doesn't care. They're even whispering to people that it doesn't (among the roar of UI catch up). They just had to whip up the token effort that is IE7 so people would get distracted from Firefox. People are fed up with IE, especially web developers. The best, most secure browsing experience? Certainly not with IE, and maybe not even on Windows.

"You have brought nothing to the table except your "world is flat" dismissals."

Nice way to change the subject from the fact that actual numbers of media voices show that there is no media consolidation.

"When you consider that Clear Channel used to own a paltry 41 before the Telecommuncations Act of 1996, and has now ballooned to over 1200 stations"

How misleading when you conveniently leave out that this is a small fraction of the total number of stations.

"but there are several others who have gobbled up television and radio stations and newspapers in markets all across the U.S."

Each of which controlls far less than what Clear Channel controls. How many do all of these control between them? 30% or 40% or something like that?

"That is media consolidation whether you want to admit it or not"

How can I "admit" something that there is no evidence for?

"The trend since 1996 has been cosolidation because the FCC relaxed the rules on how many media outlets a particular company could own. This is fact. "

The fact is that the FCC has relaxed the rules, but there has been no consolidation. Looking at the definition, "to bring together (separate parts) into a single or unified whole; unite; combine: They consolidated their three companies.", it is clear that nothing like this has happened.

From Ted Turner: "When I was getting into the television business, lawmakers and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) took seriously the commission's mandate to promote diversity, localism, and competition in the media marketplace"

In other words, the FCC ignored the First Amendment and meddled in the media to try to dictate preferred content. Good riddance.

From Ted Turner: "They wanted to make sure that the big, established networks--CBS, ABC, NBC--wouldn't forever dominate what the American public could watch on TV."

Yet, when the FCC had much tighter control, we only had ABC,NBC,CBS. With the relaxation of control, we've had more and more new voices getting added. The "forever" domination" of those few voices is over.

From Ted Turner: "They believed in the value of competition."

And there is more such competition now than ever before. Do you want me to link to other new media voices aside from the ones I linked to above? It's like Ted had no idea what he was saying, which could be summarized as "Back when the FCC encouraged competition, we only had 3 news networks. Now we have less competition and more news networks."

"The debate here is whether or not media consolidation is happening or not"

I guess that is true. It is hardly a debate since there is no evidence of media consolidation.

"As I'm sure you're aware, the Dixie Chicks(sp?) made a comment about the president back in 2003 while on tour in London. Even though they are still around and touring, this comment cost them dearly"

Cost them? How so? Do you have any idea what cost means? They ended up more popular than ever, selling more music than ever. They are more than "still around".

"There was a corporate mandate "from on high" that dictated that none of the stations would play thier music after their comment."

Worked so WELL, didn't it? I'd never heard them on the radio before. After the Bush comment flap, I started to hear them on the radio.

" That is the kind of power media consolidation gives corporations. I'm sorry you can't understand this, but it's right there in front of your face"

What, the power to make musical artists like the Dixie Chicks more popular and more rich?

"Apparently you aren't aware of what happened to Pacifica during the 90's."

I followed this as it happened. Does not change the fact that Pacifica is a corporation.

Ya know, those people who thought the earth wasn't the center of the universe when everyone else clearly knew it was. they were Zealouts.

You realize that the people with the opposite view, that the earth was at the center, were also zealots? They imprisoned people after all, maybe even tortured and killed some.

And those people who believed that religion and government should be chosen by individuals and not kings, they were zealots also.

You realize that the people with the opposite view, that the only law is God's law, were/are also zealots? They killed/kill people after all.

And those people who wanted to kill slavery and the US plantation system and go up against the big business plantations, they were also zealots.

You realize that the people with the opposite view, pro slavery, were also zealots? They started a war after all.

And those black people who wanted to use the same bathrooms, and sit at the front of the bus. They were zealots too.

You realize that the people with the opposite view, segregationists, were also zealots? They killed people after all.

On second thought, the heroes above do not seem like zealots. They are a little too peaceful, reasonable, non fanatics. However the villains I mentioned certainly do seem to better match the definition of zealot, actual fanatics:

zealot
1. a person who shows zeal.
2. an excessively zealous person; fanatic.
3. (initial capital letter) a member of a radical, warlike, ardently patriotic group of Jews in Judea, particularly prominent from a.d. 69 to 81, advocating the violent overthrow of Roman rule and vigorously resisting the efforts of the Romans and their supporters to heathenize the Jews.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/zealot

Well FUCK. The copyright cartell trys to treat information exactly like it's a property right when it's clearly not, and then force massive government regulations down our throat to fence off every bit of it, and then those of us who try to secure our right to share information freely in the information age - we're called the zealots? God fuckin dammit ... what's it gonna take. From the very first day we have been "warned" that our zealot IP attitude is going to ruin Linux and open source, well more bullshit.

Oh dear, that certainly sounds fanatical. I'm afraid you seem a zealot, in the actual derogatory sense, not the false sense you portrayed above. You also seem a little clueless, but that is typical for fanatics/zealots I suppose. The GPL only exists because copyrights exist and are enforceable. If information were *truly* free I could take Linux, tweak it, and use it in my proprietary commercial product and provide no access to the source code.

One of these days they're going to realise that they need us more than we need them, and that they're the followers while people like RMS are the leaders.

Another example of the delusions of zealotry? For example no one needs Linux. If Linux were to somehow vanish then servers and infrastructure would simply move to a product of the evil corporations and government, BSD. Linux is not a necessity, it is one of several options and it is sometimes the most convenient or reasonable option.

Yeah, a long response, but I still waiting for Ubuntu 6.10 to download. ;-)

fornicator

n : someone who commits adultery or fornication [syn: adulterer] WordNet ® 2.0, © 2003 Princeton University

Still you never answered the comment on stoning as a punishment.

No they're loosely related tho totally seperate areas of law that have nothing to do with property. Follow the links and use a dictionary to look up any words you don't understand.

"Less" and "fewer" have different meanings.

"Less" and "fewer" have different meanings.

"However, if you and your 10,000 closest friends end up with copies of the artists song and the artist ends up with ZERO, NADA, begging for food on the street corner when they should have rightfully had at least a few grand then something bad happened and all your weasel wording won't hide that fact."

You have to realize that there are a lot more crimes than just theft and that pointing out that a particular crime is not theft is not a justification for that crime. The only "weaseling" here is in calling copyright infringment "theft".
We can use your specific example of the "artist begging for food on the street corner". How can this happen? Copyright infringement is one way. Another way is a violent crime which leaves him severely disabled. Another way is arson (burning down his house and his bestseller novel inside). Why point these out? These are all crimes, which can result in what you describe. However, none of them is "theft".

"Artists *should* be compensated for new works by people who consume those new works"

Speaking of abusing words, I recall a major recording artist who said "If you are consuming my music, you are doing something wrong". Look up the definition of "consume" at http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/consume There's no way you can consume music by listening to it in an MP3 player unless it has some sort of DRM which makes the song get "used up" after multiple listens. The only time I ever consumed music was when I played a modern LP in an old Victrola. The heavy needle made it a one-play-and-that's-all situation.

"You see it all the time- people do things wrong and rationalize it to themselves that it's not wrong and then they get in trouble because they lose proper caution."

....which has nothing at all to do with pointing out the cold, clear, and simple fact that copyright infringment and theft are different crimes.

"Put another way-- it's one thing to have a joint at a concert surrounded by 20,000 strangers and quite another to have one in the starbucks or casually walking down a major thoroughfare."

This is actually a sort of apt analogy, because smoking a joint is theft no less than copyright infringement is.

"I know that pro-infringers like to argue that and I've got just a few mp3's myself."

If pointing out that infringement is not theft makes one "pro-infringement", I have a question. Is murder the same as theft? If you deny it, that makes you pro-murder!!!!

...but companies targeting the enterprise sector may be wary of relaying on used...

The correct word is relying .

ed-i-tor
-n
1: a person responsible for the editorial aspects of publication; the person who determines the final content of a text (especially of a newspaper or magazine)

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

Hope this helps.

stump speech
a political campaign speech, esp. one made on a campaign tour.
[Origin: 1810-20, American]
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.0.1)
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.
WordNet - Cite This Source

stump speech

n : political oratory

Actually, check the dictionary. Piracy is not limited to Blackbeard and friends robbing Spanish ships at sea, and stealing is not limited to taking physical property. As to who owns it, no, it belongs to the copyright holder. The fact that the goal of copyright is to benefit society is irrelevant to its ownership, especially when you consider that such a justification was used for most property laws (read Adam Smith). And the government can be justified in taking physical property (or do you run and hide under a rock every April), so that point is not valid either.

But anyways, we are not talking about the RIAA, MPAA, and BSA here. We are talking about this particular story. Please come up with something less childish than "well they are booger faces" next time.

Actually, check the dictionary. Piracy is not limited to Blackbeard and friends robbing Spanish ships at sea, and stealing is not limited to taking physical property. As to who owns it, no, it belongs to the copyright holder. The fact that the goal of copyright is to benefit society is irrelevant to its ownership, especially when you consider that such a justification was used for most property laws (read Adam Smith). And the government can be justified in taking physical property (or do you run and hide under a rock every April), so that point is not valid either.

But anyways, we are not talking about the RIAA, MPAA, and BSA here. We are talking about this particular story. Please come up with something less childish than "well they are booger faces" next time.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=Taber nacle

Ah. Let me introduce a new word into the discussion, then: hyperbole.

The bit about crawling over broken glass was mere rhetorical flourish. The serious statement is the bit before that, where I said I think it's absurd to try to get to the polls those who aren't concerned enough to vote when it's as easy as it is. The Republic is better off if such lazy and unconcerned folks don't vote. Do you disagree?

satire - noun
1. the use of irony, sarcasm, ridicule, or the like, in exposing, denouncing, or deriding vice, folly, etc.
2. a literary composition, in verse or prose, in which human folly and vice are held up to scorn, derision, or ridicule.
3. a literary genre comprising such compositions.

The word "antisemitic" has a different definition. Why not look up the word I used? If you knew what it meant you would not have typed this. I actually argued as you do on this word at one time. Then I bothered to look up the word and found that I was, as you are now, wrong about the term: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/antisemitic . The article from your chosen source, wikipedia, is rather unequivocal: "While the term's semantics may imply that anti-Semitism is directed against all people of a Semite descent, it is in fact used exclusively to refer to hostility towards Jews..

I know how it is used, that does not mean that it is correct.

Since when is it not racist to criticize a "people"?

Since I was not claiming every jewish person to be evil or bad or whatever, rather, I was pointing at the fact that a group of people from jewish origin (hence jewish people, read again, I am not saying ALL or MOST jeweish people) were involved in a certain situation. Their jewish origin being relevant because of culture and religion.

It would be racist if I would criticize people because of them being jewish, but I don't. I do criticize those people because of certain actions they took or supported. As it happens, the people involved strongly indentified with jewish culture and religion, so that serves as an easy identification of that group, but that does not matter for if what they did is right or wrong, neither does it mean that everyone else who indentifies with said group is right or wrong. To make it a bit easier, shall I call them Israelites instead?

(see bold characters) It does not divert attention, but instead focuses on the root cause of it: Arab/Muslim intolerance for Jews.

Hmm yes.

'Leave the people of the book in peace'
'Follow me as you followed Abraham'
'All that believe in god and the day of judgement will surely get their reward'

Those are among the things Islam has to say about jewish people. Sadly enough often forgotten by muslims (eventho the second one is something many a muslim will be saying 35 (!) times a day) and non muslims alike.

Shall we take a look now at how well christians treated jewish people for the last 1500 or so years? The muslim world has some catching up to do if it wants to come close.

"So that was some half a century after the founding of a jewish organisation that had the stated goal of re-establishing Israel."

This was a movement that consisted by and large of immigrants buying land and living on the land they bought. You bring this up as if this is some sort of provocation. The situation was not militarized until much later, in reaction to Arab atrocities against the Jews who had been there and these settlers buying land.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semitic [wikipedia.org] and don't abuse the word."

The word "antisemitic" has a different definition. Why not look up the word I used? If you knew what it meant you would not have typed this. I actually argued as you do on this word at one time. Then I bothered to look up the word and found that I was, as you are now, wrong about the term: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/antisemitic . The article from your chosen source, wikipedia, is rather unequivocal: "While the term's semantics may imply that anti-Semitism is directed against all people of a Semite descent, it is in fact used exclusively to refer to hostility towards Jews.. This particular Wikipedia article is not even under dispute. You did not even look at your own source (the entry on the word "semite") which happens to mention that the term "antisemitism" refers exclusively to anti-Jewish sentiment.

"Second, when you call every kind of critisism of jewish people or the state of Israel anti-semitic then fine, but it is just diverting attention away from any possible solutions."

Since when is it not racist to criticize a "people"? (see bold characters) It does not divert attention, but instead focuses on the root cause of it: Arab/Muslim intolerance for Jews.

Nope, said what I meant. http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=sextu plet

If you can say it, it's a word.

Dictionary's reflect language; language doesn't wait for the next Webster-Merriam standard revision.

Besides, demerger is a word, even in that context.

In the real world, where people use the word "understand" and not "grok" because they don't use a, for them, archaic command line interface

How vain do you have to be to prefer a nice GUI to having several hundred dollars in your pocket?

"However, some degree of foolishness can be excused in this case because AV vendors have cried wolf too many times over what they knew were actually innocuous proof-of-concept examples that infected nobody outside the research community (who deliberately infected themselves for test purposes)."

Its not "crying wolf" when there really are exploits out there that could do damage. "Crying wolf" refers to giving out a warning when there is no danger, here this is a danger that just has yet to manifest itself into actual damage. You want people to pay attention to these kinds of things before they become problems, not after.

"I find this claim rather interesting, because ClamAV is neither a company or the product of a company, and AFAIK never has been."

Please don't bicker about semantics like those other guys who are claiming these exploits don't count because they worms, not "true viruses". It is obvious what I meant. It was the first AV product I mentioned, and actually can be classified as a company very easily (there is no requirement that a company be run by a CEO or sell anything).

There are other American English expressions that have a similar sarcastic inversion of an apparent sense, such as Tell me about it!, which usually means 'Don't tell me about it, because I know all about it already'. The Yiddish I should be so lucky!, in which the real sense is often 'I have no hope of being so lucky', has a similar stress pattern with the same sarcastic inversion of meaning as does I could care less.