Slashdot Mirror

The cognitive dissonance that occurs when you get laughed at by somebody who believes in magic just isn't worth it.

Let me open by saying that this line was hysterical. However, as a devout agnostic I would like to point out a fallacy that atheists often fall victim to: how do you know that "god/es/s" are simply "magic"?

Sticking to the facts: at some point, all living things die. Perhaps we then find ourselves surrounded by virgins, standing before pearly gates, or we simply cease to exist. However, how can *any* of these *theories* be scientifically tested? How could any of these opinions be proven one way or another (short of actual death)?

As a youth, I was often offended by Chrisitans who were convinced that my father was fated for hell because he was a Jew. I didn't mind that they held a seperate belief, I was offended that they used their belief to mock my own.

Couldn't the same be said of hardcore atheists?

Not trying to troll, or offend, just offering a point to ponder.

then

than

At the very least, could book reviewers and submitters please learn the difference between these two words!

then

than

At the very least, could book reviewers and submitters please learn the difference between these two words!

It's segues, not "segeways" -- segue is a fine word and it wants you to remember it and use it properly.
</Grammar Nazi>

That makes no sense. Is dodge suing everyone who calls something "dodgey"? no of course not. And thats even like slander or something, making fun of their name.

Seriously, that's just stupid. Apple has no right to the word, pod. Hell, they STOLE it.

The term POD has been used for well over a decade, in the TV & radio industry. Hell, even dictionay.com has pod listed as a slang radio/tv term.

I guess if you have enough money to pay enough lawyers to fight enough frivelous lawsuits you can steal just about anything. Even a word.

Pathetic.

Keep it up Apple, you're going to sue yourself out of business. I can tell you neither I, nor any of my friends will be buying another product associated with Apple.

The english language is the property of the people. So, from my view, you're trying to steal from me too. In TFA, it is advised we seek new words to describe the endeavours our generation has sought. (IE audiocast, audcast, etc..) I say screw that. It's OUR word to begin with. Where the hell do you think Apple got the idea from? Just mysteriously decided to give pod a new meaning? Hell no, they took an already widely spoken, common knowledge term, and applied it to their product. Now they are trying to claim rights of ownership to a word they didn't even come up with themselves?

Jesus.

I for one will vote with my dollars. And by God, if I can think of something else I can do to injure Apple's campaign to steal the english language - I will.

No-one seems to have pointed out that "to deduct human opinions from factual information" means to subtract human opinions from factual information. The intended word is deduce.

Apparently, everyone who actually knows English has now officially abandoned Slashdot. (Unless the lack of corrections is a sign that the /. audience is maturing, and no longer finds it necessary to correct every little error. Hmmm - sounds a little far-fetched...)

No-one seems to have pointed out that "to deduct human opinions from factual information" means to subtract human opinions from factual information. The intended word is deduce.

Apparently, everyone who actually knows English has now officially abandoned Slashdot. (Unless the lack of corrections is a sign that the /. audience is maturing, and no longer finds it necessary to correct every little error. Hmmm - sounds a little far-fetched...)

>>Re-use even of one's own previous work, is also academic dishonesty and in the same category as plagarism. You cannot submit a paper written for one class as fulfillment for an assignment in another class.

That's ridiculous. If you are smart enough to figure out how to answer assignments for two different classes with one turnin, you deserve an A in both classes.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=plagi arism
Plagiarism: 1. the unauthorized use or close imitation of the language and thoughts of another author and the representation of them as one's own original work.

Plagiarism is stealing other people's work, not your own.

Why is murder unfawful? Because it's intrinsically wrong? No. Because most members of society don't want some random group of people murdering them by whatever random reason they might have. So much, actually, that in some specific cases muder is allowed.

You seem to be confusing murder with execution. Murder is "The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice." [American Heritage® Dictionary] So to put a fine point on it, murder is unlawful because it is defined as such.

If you were to ask whether killing a person is wrong, then the answer is yes, because "wrong" is defined as "An invasion or a violation of another's legal rights" [American Heritage® Dictionary] -- in this case, the right to life. Of course, this is the very reason why capital punishment is seldom used, and often is in debate.

Specifics aside, I don't believe you can call a law just or unjust simply based on the number of people who agree or disagree with it. The purpose of law is not to enforce the will of the majority (although it is sometimes misused to that end, even today), but to ensure the equal and impartial treatment of everyone, no matter whether they are part of a majority group or a minority group (although you could certainly argue that some laws are unfairly biased towards certain groups **cough**RIAA**cough**)

Why is murder unfawful? Because it's intrinsically wrong? No. Because most members of society don't want some random group of people murdering them by whatever random reason they might have. So much, actually, that in some specific cases muder is allowed.

You seem to be confusing murder with execution. Murder is "The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice." [American Heritage® Dictionary] So to put a fine point on it, murder is unlawful because it is defined as such.

If you were to ask whether killing a person is wrong, then the answer is yes, because "wrong" is defined as "An invasion or a violation of another's legal rights" [American Heritage® Dictionary] -- in this case, the right to life. Of course, this is the very reason why capital punishment is seldom used, and often is in debate.

Specifics aside, I don't believe you can call a law just or unjust simply based on the number of people who agree or disagree with it. The purpose of law is not to enforce the will of the majority (although it is sometimes misused to that end, even today), but to ensure the equal and impartial treatment of everyone, no matter whether they are part of a majority group or a minority group (although you could certainly argue that some laws are unfairly biased towards certain groups **cough**RIAA**cough**)

"Together, these could be interpretted as the FSF trying to impose their will on the FOSS community."

Could be by people who already hate the FSF, GPL and Stallman.

Nice. Reminds me of the neocon trolls who, when they don't have a good reply, always fall back on "Why do you hate America?"

Doesn't work though. I mean, I think that FSF does useful work, that the GPLv2 is a work of art and that Stallman is a bit of a twat to whom we nevertheless owe a debt of gratitude. That's not exactly hatred by any reasonable definition, but I can still see the points made in TFA.

Arguably? Did the article say how they would "force" the use? Did it mention waterboarding? long periods of standing? Starvation and force feeding? Subjecting to extreme tempratures, terrorising by dogs?

Here's a fun fact: dictionary.com lists 36 meanings for force. Surprisingly, none of them require torture, and a large number of them make no reference to physical violence of any sort.

I am so glad you jumped on that word though. It shows where you lie ideologically.

Actually, I think you'll find you jumped on the word forcing, and that my comments are purely a response to that. As to where I lie ideologically, I've already stated my position. If you think that makes me a corporate astroturfer, so be it.

I have to say though that if you're going to take a attitude of "if you're not with us, you're against us", you're going to alienate a lot of moderates who might otherwise be sympathetic. Maybe you're OK with that. I suppose it all depends on what you're trying to achieve.

No, it's much more complicated. The GPL is the instrument of a long lasting, self healing commons of free code. It's the only license that guarantees that the commons will be replenished to provide more code for the future generations.

You are aware that TFA is discussing the GPLv3, aren't you? That the kernel maintainers complaining are actually bang alongside the GPLv2, but have reservations about version three? You said yourself it's a complicated issue, why do you keep tying to oversimplify it?

"in a way that could not have been forseen by those developers who gave their copyrights in trust to the FSF,"

I am sure the people who signed over their copyrights did it knowingly. Once you sign over your copyright then I don't see how you can complain about it afterwards.

Remember this bit?

These contributions have been given to the FSF not as a tribute to do with as it will but under a solemn trust, as stated in article 9 of GPLv2, only to licence the code under versions of the GPL that "... will be similar in spirit to the present version".

The point being made is that the new provisions of the GPLv3 are concerned with the politics of the DMCA and DRM rather than the freedom to read the source of, modify, learn from and distribute software. In fact the entire point of GPLv3 is that these measures can be used to control software without violating those four freedoms.

Thus the authors take the position that the changes in V3 are political rather than concerned with the original purpose of the licence, as set forth by the GPL and the FSF, and thus they infer that the GPLv3 will consistute a violation of that trust under which the copyrights were assigned.

Come to think of it the people who signed over the copyrights are not the ones who are complaining. It's the astro turfers that are complaining.

It's hard to imagine Greg Kroah-Hartman or Andrew Morton astroturfing for anyone. Certainly we haven't heard from anyone who s

You're mixing up criminal with civil, which have two very different standards for how much evidence is "enough." What would you define the word "probably" as, in terms of a percentage of likeliness? One of the definitions of "probable" is "having more evidence for than against, or evidence that inclines the mind to belief but leaves some room for doubt." Does that sound like at least 51% likely? If so, then it has met the civil burden of proof, which is what the RIAA needs.

I guess we have a different definition of "force"-if I put a gun to your head and demand your money, am I just making it a very unattractive option for you to refuse? Of course, that is physical force. What about when the IRS says "Pay your taxes or we'll seize your house?" That's not -physical- force, per se, but I'd very much call it coercive force regardless.

Certainly, the dictionary seems to have some definitions which don't involve phsyical coercion and seem to fit the bill here:

4. power to influence, affect, or control; efficacious power: the force of circumstances; a force for law and order.
13. any influence or agency analogous to physical force: social forces.
18. to compel, constrain, or oblige (oneself or someone) to do something: to force a suspect to confess.

Source: dictionary.com definition.

It seems the same would apply to underselling other competitors in the area, especially when done below cost while backed by the big corporate war chest until other businesses in the area must close down. This forces (that word again!) those who live in that area to work and shop there if no alternative is available. This -is- a blatantly coercive tactic, and it is quite evidently an attempt to force suppliers not to do business with others. And just because the suppliers per se have a "choice" (accept our dictates or don't do business with the biggest retailer in the country), does not mean they have any more of a -real- choice then you do in paying that tax bill. Monopoly abuse at its finest, and the sad part is, people actually step up to defend this type of behavior.

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

Try one, many are freely available.

The state of being enslaved to a habit or practice or to something that is psychologically or physically habit-forming, as narcotics, to such an extent that its cessation causes severe trauma.

(Origin: 1595-1605; a giving over, surrender.)

Arguing with you is pointless.

OK there buddy.

I said 'Look up the word malign. It means to maliciously and falsly accuse.'

And you were obviously wrong about the "false" part.

You said, 'there's nothing "false" necessarily or even usually implicated by the use of the word "malign."'

And I was obviously wrong about where I said it does not say that in a dictionary; I already retracted that, saying it does not say that in a GOOD dictionary.

You were the first to use the word necessarily.

Yes, and? Your first usage implicated you meant it was necessary, and to make sure, I used that word. That you subsequently used it confirmed that indeed, you considered that to be the case. That's how things are done. If at that point you had said "oh, I didn't mean necessarily, just usually," then the discussion would have taken a different turn. But you confirmed you believed, in fact, that it was necessary.

The more telling point is that you said it doesn't usually mean false

Correct.

and I think I have shown that it does usually mean false

Incorrect.

You cleverly used dictionaries that are not available on line, so no one can check the veracity of your claims

Also incorrect. I used three dictionaries. Two of the three were from THE ONE URL THAT YOU PROVIDED. The other was the dictionary included with Mac OS X, which, while not being online, is easy for many people here to check.

I used only online dictionaries, so my claims are easily verifiable.

Not that it matters, since I didn't dispute any of your claims, but you didn't give URLs, and I assumed they were not online at the time.

Sure, dictionaries may be wrong, but the first three that come up in a google search for online dictionary? That's a big coincidence, if true.

Well, for the umpteenth time, that is not true, since THE ONE URL THAT YOU PROVIDED contained one of the definitions you say was not online, even though I have pointed this out already umpteen times. Look at it again. It gives four results. You gave the first one, ignoring the next two. The fourth was medical. Even in THE ONE URL THAT YOU PROVIDED, it is 2-to-1 against you.

I will admit that I was wrong about malign necessarily meaning false if you will admit to being wrong about it usually not meaning false.

That's silly. If you are willing to admit you are wrong, it can only be because you a. believe you are wrong, or b. are willing to lie and say you were wrong even though you believe you are right. How does what I say have any bearing on whether you believe you are wrong, or on whether you are willing to say so? That makes absolutely no sense to me.

As to the rest: I cited three examples (two from THE ONE URL THAT YOU PROVIDED, one from Oxford), and none of them says it usually means false. Since I never believed it usually meant false, and the most authoritative dictionary we have here does not say it usually means false, and two of the three definitions in THE ONE URL THAT YOU PROVIDED do not say it usually means false ... no, I don't think I am going to admit something that the evidence at hand suggests is untrue.

The best argument that you can make that malign does not usually imply false is that most dictionaries are wrong, and that is a very weak and pompous argument.

No, it's not the argument I made. You said that, but I didn't. I do not believe most dictionaries say it is usually means false. You quoted three, I quoted three (two of them from THE ONE URL THAT YOU PROVIDED). I said dictionaries are often wrong, not that most are wrong.

Even if I did make that argument, there's nothing pompous about it. Dictionaries are written by people, and I have many times identified where some of those people get things wrong. Hell, you are willing to concede that

Actually, no, it doesn't. There's nothing "false" necessarily or even usually implicated by the use of the word "malign." Not sure where you get that from, but it wasn't a dictionary.

Actually, yes, it does. It necessarily implies false. That's from dictionary.com, which is based on the Random House dictionary. Merriam Webster says this: "MALIGN suggests specific and often subtle misrepresentation but may not always imply deliberate lying." Cambridge says "to say false and unpleasant things about someone or to unfairly criticize them" Not sure where you got the idea that it doesn't imply false, but in any case, you need to take a refresher course in vocabulary before you go spreading more misinformation about what words mean or don't mean.

Based on that, the rest of your points are moot. Now I understand why you said what you said. You simply didn't know the definition of malign. As you have shown yourself to be less than informed about the meanings of basic words and unable to present a rational defense of your own stated position, I see no reason to continue this conversation.

Good day, sir.

How exactly is this partisan, and who is it partisan towards? I'm not following. I think you're trying to say that the submitter has a republican bias because he is pointing out that although republicans are often maligned (meaning to speak harmful untruths about; speak evil of; slander; defame) for exploiting flaws in electronic voting system, in this case it is the democrats who are opposing moving back to paper ballots. But I'm really not sure. Could you clarify, please? Is it that you think the republicans really do exploit flaws in the electronic voting system, and you object to the use of the word maligned, which implies that that is false and malicious?

> If I like the artist then I go out a buy there CD.

There wolf. There castle. There dictionary.

theft

He was saying like what you like without shame.

Why is this flamebait? Seems rather insightful to me.

I don't agree with this guy's view about the election being "stolen" at all. I'm on the side that thinks those complaining were indeed sore losers. However, I'm not going to mod this guy down because I don't agree with him. Which is precisely what happened here...

What I do agree with is his encouragement of debate, and questioning of "facts."

If you have mod points, try to be objective (look at #5). If you can't be objective, don't waste your moderator points on an agenda. You do us all a great disservice.

Quick, mod this post as flamebait and/or "Off Topic" -- Thanks.

2. The basic guidelines for the trier of fact must be: (a) whether "the average person, applying contemporary community standards" would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest, Roth, supra, at 489, (b) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law, and (c) whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. If a state obscenity law is thus limited, First Amendment values are adequately protected by ultimate independent appellate review of constitutional claims when necessary.

1. inclined to lustfulness; wanton; lewd: a lascivious, girl-chasing old man.
2. arousing sexual desire: lascivious photographs.
3. indicating sexual interest or expressive of lust or lewdness: a lascivious gesture.

a cultural item that is transmitted by repetition in a manner analogous to the biological transmission of genes.

A unit of cultural information, such as a cultural practice or idea, that is transmitted verbally or by repeated action from one mind to another.

It is a viral infection of the worst sort. It deserves to be described as such.

Grandparent post was requesting that we choose our words carefully and accurately so as not to mislead or misinform because the terms referred to have very specific definitions when used in the context of computers. Grandparent was not suggesting DRM isn't lame or that it's always accurately represented.

Let's review.

A "trojan" is a program that appears to do one thing, but actually does another. DRM in general does not meet this standard. You seem to imply that you're aware of a specific case where DRM misrepresents itself to the user, but you make no reference to this case, nor does the original Zune topic refer to such a case.

The term "virus" refers to a piece of code that silently reproduces itself. It does not refer to software that is simply harmful to the user (that's "malware"). I am unaware of any case DRM propagates by adding itself to files silently or without the users knowledge, so I don't believe it's really an appropriate use of the term. If you're aware of such a case, speak up. And although the Zune does add DRM to files shared wirelessly with other Zune players, this DRM is limited and does not propagate to other files.

"Infection" typically refers to a normal file that has unrelated (and often malicious) code added to it, typically without the user's knowledge. If you are aware of a case where DRM is added to a file without the users knowledge, that would certainly be a case of "infection" and a valid use of the term.

Feel free to look up "virus" and "trojan" at http://dictionary.reference.com/ and scroll down the the definitions supplied by the Free On-line Dictionary of Computing for more complete definitions. See also "worm".

Camping is cheap, but it's not cheating. Any decent game will be designed with the idea of alleviating that problem.

Someone playing really well is different from someone outright cheating. To use a previous example, it's the difference between playing a chess grandmaster and playing some no-talent cheater just switching the pieces around.

Your idea of fun by taunting and agitating people sounds sociopathic. Do you have an obsession with fire? Do you enjoy harming animals? Did you have a longer than usual period of bedwetting? If you answered yes to two of those questions, that indicates a very strong tendency towards sociopathy.

literally? literally literally!?

the word you are looking for is figuratively

http://m-w.com/dictionary/genuine

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=genuine&x =12&y=22

What kind of linguist are you, if you don't even know how to use a dictionary and then go and write an entire blog post based on that error?

No, they don't. The creator has a monopoly by the virtue of a system that grants copyright on creation. This is something that's only as new as the 1970s. Before that point, you had to actually register to obtain this monopoly.

When I paint a painting, or write an original manuscript - I have a monopoly on that item. Only one exists. You didn't understand what I was saying.

Fine. You have a monopoly on the master copy. The problem is, most people don't place much higher value on the master copy of something with duplicates are virtually identical (ie, the degredation in quality of a copy is so low that it decreases the amount of sub-generation copies possible with acceptable quality from something on the order of 100 to 99). Further, presenting your manuscript or painting to the public in any way inherently removes your monopoly, as there's nothing to stop a person from reverse engineering how you created your work and making a virtually identical duplicate. All of this falls under simple privacy laws, not copyright.

Wrong. Plagarism is the act of misattributing an idea as if it were one's own. Copyright infringement is misusing too much or in an unacceptable way part or whole of a copyrighted work. You can commit plagarism on works that aren't copyrighted. The fact is, some reference works can be copyrighted because the artful arrangement of information can be considered a creative work and hence copyrightable. Obviously the phone book isn't artful and can't be copyrighted.

You need to look at the definition for Plagiarism.

"a piece of writing that has been copied from someone else and is presented as being your own work" -- http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=plagi arism

If I copy a sentence out of a copyright book, that's probably fair use, even if it's plagiarism. And if I copy a sentence out of a non-copyrighted book, that's simple plagiarism without copyright infringement. People have sued others over plagiarism specifically because it *isn't* copyright infringement. The only thing copyright would be advantageous for is to offer proof that you're the original source for the idea. Unfortunately, since you don't have to register anywhere anymore for a copyright, it's the case that a default copyright doesn't really help much because each person can simply claim they copyrighted it first and there's no simple third party to necessarily prove it true.

As for artists being able to mimic or copy each other, flat out copying wouldn't be any more copyrightable than using a xerox machine.

Not true. Sometimes what people are interested in buying is an artists style. The comparison of someone copying a masterwork by hand and using a xerox machine is inaccurate. The mechanism used for duplication makes all the difference in this area as it is a regarded element of these goods.

Okay, so instead of xerox machine it's a robot that mimics the artistic style of others. When it comes down to it, if that machine makes ten copies of the same thing, each painted version doesn't get its own copyright. There's a lack of creativity in duplication, and it's creativity that is the underpinning for granting copyright.

Actually, playing a work live could be considered a performance, and that entails paying money to the copyright holder. Further, samlping sections of a song and using them in your song is rather questionable, especially if you plan to copyright and sell such a song.

Sorry, playing a song live is not a performance. Performing a play is a performance. Performing a whole album by another band, recording the live show, and then selling the album is a performance. The content in question is taken into account on

No, they don't. The creator has a monopoly by the virtue of a system that grants copyright on creation. This is something that's only as new as the 1970s. Before that point, you had to actually register to obtain this monopoly.

When I paint a painting, or write an original manuscript - I have a monopoly on that item. Only one exists. You didn't understand what I was saying.

Wrong. Plagarism is the act of misattributing an idea as if it were one's own. Copyright infringement is misusing too much or in an unacceptable way part or whole of a copyrighted work. You can commit plagarism on works that aren't copyrighted. The fact is, some reference works can be copyrighted because the artful arrangement of information can be considered a creative work and hence copyrightable. Obviously the phone book isn't artful and can't be copyrighted.

You need to look at the definition for Plagiarism.

As for artists being able to mimic or copy each other, flat out copying wouldn't be any more copyrightable than using a xerox machine.

Not true. Sometimes what people are interested in buying is an artists style. The comparison of someone copying a masterwork by hand and using a xerox machine is inaccurate. The mechanism used for duplication makes all the difference in this area as it is a regarded element of these goods.

Actually, playing a work live could be considered a performance, and that entails paying money to the copyright holder. Further, samlping sections of a song and using them in your song is rather questionable, especially if you plan to copyright and sell such a song.

Sorry, playing a song live is not a performance. Performing a play is a performance. Performing a whole album by another band, recording the live show, and then selling the album is a performance. The content in question is taken into account on every matter. Stanford has pretty good material on the subject. Sampling is questionable in a case by case basis.

Again, fair use isn't so clear cut as to say that a lack of profit is sufficient to say that George Lucas is unable to stop people from using "Light Saber" in a work. This is especially the case when one is writing fiction of one's own and not simply citing it as a non-fiction reference. Obviously, non-fiction will have a smaller market effect on fiction than other fiction.

You're right. It also has to negatively impact the revenue generated by the creator's original work. See the Stanford link above.

How? Is the land the product of creativity (and I mean the land itself, not its usage which itself is not what land ownership is about; such would be land usageship)? I guess in some extent, managing to claim ownership of land is an amount of creativity, since clearly that's not an innate property of land. But the abstract idea of owning land stopped being creative and unique the second someone else was doing it too. The idea for land ownership is based on the innate finiteness of land. You can't copy land nor can two people utilize the same land in all ways at the same time. The same can't be said of copyrighted works.

You're over analyzing. The land is finite. The created work is finite at inception. Do not confuse the creative work (a finite resource) with the delivery vehicle of the creative work (often renewable, and in the case of digital infinte, resource). While the creative work may be emulated, duplicated, or built upon. The original work created is very finite.

compare:
populace (a noun -- note the nounish -ace ending, like in "grimace" or "terrace" or "surface") vs
populous (an adjective -- note the -ous ending, which hints that it's an adjective, just as in "obnoxious" or "presumptuous" or "vexacious", which you might use to describe people who correct spelling on slashdot)

HTH

compare:
populace (a noun -- note the nounish -ace ending, like in "grimace" or "terrace" or "surface") vs
populous (an adjective -- note the -ous ending, which hints that it's an adjective, just as in "obnoxious" or "presumptuous" or "vexacious", which you might use to describe people who correct spelling on slashdot)

HTH

"PAY-TENT, PAY-TENTLY, PAY-TENTS"

That is how we say it in Australia, and it's how it's said in England, where the word comes from http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=patent&x= 0&y=0 I see that you say patent like, pat-ent, which is fine I guess, makes more sense from the way it's spelt. But really, the US is a treasure trove of horribly mangled english words.

I happy that you at least get one example of hearing a word pronounced in a way that you don't like, we get FAR more US media here than you get Australian/English media, and we cringe A LOT!

Actually, a good portion of the islamic fundamentalists should be considered fascists.

Then again, here's an exert from a reference.com's entry on fascism:

Fascism is also typified by totalitarian attempts to impose state control over all aspects of life: political, social, cultural, and economic. The fascist state regulates and controls (as opposed to nationalizing) the means of production. Fascism exalts the nation, state, or race as superior to the individuals, institutions, or groups composing it. Fascism uses explicit populist rhetoric; calls for a heroic mass effort to restore past greatness; and demands loyalty to a single leader, often to the point of a cult of personality.

Rather a good description of the home team, too, it seems...

A 'satisfied' customer has no need of 'customer service'. I suspect your definition of 'satisfied' is something like 'well, life sucks, you know, but that's the way it is, so I'm content' where the actual definition is "Filled with satisfaction; content: a very satisfied customer." http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=satisfied If you are 'filled' with satisfaction, you cannot be more satisfied.

The satisfied customer does not feel the need to have any issues solved. They do not call up customer service to chat about how much fun they are having. They call up to have customer service fix a problem they are having, real or imagined. This includes 'expectations outside of the norm' and 'irregular event's.

If I buy a black toaster, and it arrives yellow... I call customer service.

If I buy a black toaster and the cord is 2 ft long and this displeases me and I think they should do something about it, despite the 10 inch tall letters on that ordering form stating this... I call customer service.

If I buy a black toaster and hate the 2 ft long cord and don't call customer service, this does -not- mean I am satisfied. Merely that I an unwilling to deal with the hassle of trying to get a better cord or my money back.

If I buy a black toaster and it's black and has a standard 4ft cord. I'm satisfied. I do not call customer service and tell them how satisfied I am.

Customer service for MMORPGs is no different. Just because they don't try the AOL 'you can't quit' crap doesn't mean it isn't customer service's job to do their best to satisfy this customer. (Who will now probably be both an ex-customer and a potential re-customer.)

If you are in the customer service industry and you honestly believe that customer service is not about satisfying customers, please quit your job and find something else to do.

My very educated mother just showed us nine ... hmmm...

Couldn't they have at least chosen something with a P since they've demoted Pluto?

circumvent /srkmvnt, srkmvnt/
-verb (used with object)
1. to go around or bypass: to circumvent the lake; to circumvent the real issues.
2. to avoid (defeat, failure, unpleasantness, etc.) by artfulness or deception; avoid by anticipating or outwitting: He circumvented capture by anticipating their movements.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=circumven t&x=0&y=0

According to the American Heritage Dictionary's second definition of racism, "all the animé fans that keep telling [you] how hott Japanese women are, are racists too". http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=racist Racism is best described in that second definition. A racist has the ablility to discriminate between people of different races. Many times a negative connotation is attached to the word, meaning the racist believes one race is somehow entirely superior to another race, but this is only a social connotation, not intrinsic to the word itself. The word you're looking for is "bigot", not "racist".

There is not such thing as intellectual property. That is just an slogan

I had typed a long, thoughtful response to your comment, but then /. went down before I submitted it, so now you get the Reader's Digest version ;-)

Mostly your post amounts to semantics. The usage of the word "steal" refers to the act of taking something that doesn't belong to you -- in most Western nations it is illegal to install software for which you do not have a license (or, to use your own words, software for which you have usurped the "distribution privilege" of its creator). This is commonly refered to as stealing, but to be technically correct as you point out, the crime is indeed copyright infringement. As regards my use of the work "pirate", again, one common definition of the word (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=pirate) is to describe someone who copies software for which they do not have a legal license. I am not misusing this word in this context at all. The RIAA came along AFTER the word "piracy" was in common use, and they adopted the terminology, expanding it to cover copying of music.

It sounds to me like you really don't agree with the IP laws on the books in most western nations. They apparently clash with your views of how the world should work. But we are nations of laws, and however inconvenient or inconguous with our basic belief systems those laws might be, to violate them is to commit a crime. We are not all free to make our own interpretations of what constitutes a crime. For example, if an individual believed in life after death, then in their mind it is not "murder" to kill someone, since they go on living in the afterlife. So such an individual could say "there no such thing as 'murder'" and be just as correct as your "these is no such thing as intellectual property" assertion. I know this is an extreme example but I think it is illustrative.

IANAL but perhaps all we need is to define hacking.

v. hacked, hacking, hacks
v. tr.
          1. Informal. To alter (a computer program): hacked her text editor to read HTML.

          2. To gain access to (a computer file or network) illegally or without authorization: hacked the firm's personnel database.

The prosectution rests...

Nope, it's impossible to be racist against white people, in fact it's impossible to be racist if you're not white actually. Not nice, but an inconvenient truth.

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you're not trolling, since at least one other person thought your post was "informative". The definition of a racist says nothing about white people at all and is, in fact, specifically relative in its wording. Please, share with us your derivation of your definition of a racist and what word we're supposed to use about non-whites who hate other races.

The plural of any kind of person is "persons". "People" is the plural of the kind of "person" who is human.

Corporations don't actually conduct business. The people who own or work for corporations conduct business. The corporation is either an inaccurate collective term for those people, or a legal term for them and the property assigned to it. It doesn't have a "word". People issue statements in the name of the corporation, and the corporation is used to shield them from liability. Even if you take statements officially issued by the corporation, that's not its "word" the way a human has a "word", with any moral backing, conscience, heart, or actual thoughts. There's only the legal simulation of those actual human properties.

As a purely legal entity, as opposed to a "natural person" (as humans are known to the law), the only "word" that binds a corporation is one that is legally binding. These pledges are just PR, and not legally binding. They are not even a legal analogy to a human's "word". The closest is a "contract" (which this pledge isn't), and that's not like a human's word, either. A human's "word" is our "bond", more than just a legal bond. It is the incarnation of our honor. Corporations have nothing like honor, which is a purely human characteristic.

- A generation ago is NOT 1994. A generation ago would have been more like 1976, so...WRONG

- According to a 2001 article published by a Doctorate in Psychology on behalf of another branch of the government you so choose to blindly believe in(Außenministerium); and I quote, "There are more than 70 million children in the United States under the age of 18, comprising 26 percent of the population. Violent crime against children was relatively high in the 1980s and early 1990s -- " AGAIN, whether you choose to use the date of the article or the date of the statistical analysis, this is NOT a generation ago, THEREFORE your claim that we(in which you included, or at least implied in the inclusion, children) are safer now than we were a GENERATION ago is...WRONG.

- Here's another fun filled quote from our completely objective and accurate "trusted" Minitrue website: "Sources: Rape (excluding sexual assault), robbery, and assault data are from the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS). Ongoing since 1972, this survey of households interviews about 134,000 persons age 12 and older in 77,200 households twice each year about their victimizations from crime."

Firstly, they DIDN'T include crimes against children UNDER the age of 12, which makes their sources questionable at best with regards to the decline of violent crime against all children.

Secondly, Ohhhhhhhhhh look at that....They interviewed a whole 134,000 people, out of the current population(according to another branch of Minitrue) of 298+ MILLION U.S. Comrades, a purported 26%, or 7,7595,496, of which they say are children. I'd hardly call it conclusive truth AT BEST.

Now let's take a look at the source of their "facts":

"BJS criminal victimization data collections
National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) is the Nation's primary source of information on criminal victimization. Each year, data are obtained from a nationally representative sample of 77,200 households comprising nearly 134,000 persons on the frequency, characteristics and consequences of criminal victimization in the United States. The survey enables BJS to estimate the likelihood of victimization by rape, sexual assault, robbery, assault, theft, household burglary, and motor vehicle theft for the population as a whole as well as for segments of the population such as women, the elderly, members of various racial groups, city dwellers, or other groups. The NCVS provides the largest national forum for victims to describe the impact of crime and characteristics of violent offenders.
Ongoing from 1973; Redesign 1992."

And who designed and owns the NCVS? The Bureau of Justice Statistics.

And what Minitrue arm is the BJS a part of...well looky here, the DOJ.

So, based on the inadvertant admissions of your Minitrue's sites, they summarize an ENTIRE NATION'S crime statistics based on interviews with less than 1% of that same population, using their own methodologies which cannot be verified by an outside independent source, and you take that at face value.

Way to lack critical thinking skills, comrade.

... is that although it's difficult to spell, the correct spelling is bureaucracy. Look at it in two pieces "bureau cracy" and it's easier.

It's like goldy or bronzy, only it's made out of iron.

irony /arni/
-adjective
consisting of, containing, or resembling iron.

#1: I am not Indian. Where do you get off on assuming that?
#2: You are labelling me with all kinds of lovely labels in defense of your wonderful system of personal psycho-analysis, and so, in your rush to attack me further, here is a word you might want to put on a t-shirt of appropriate size, and wear proudly around your little universe..

Oops, relevant not revelant or irrelevent. My bad. Typed it wrong.

Rather than the clunky, misleading, and overly broad use of "Earth like," I wish articles like this would use the perfectly good term "terrestrial."

common use? it means pertaining to, consisting of, or representing the earth as distinct from other planets, which is pretty close to precisely the opposite of the distinction you are trying to make here, and the natural interpretation from the etymology is "earthlike". For use to a non-astronomically-technical audience, "rocky world" is probably best, and "Earth-like" is no less clear than "terrestrial".

I actually think that it is neither emphasis nor impetus, but burden, or onus, that is intended here.