Slashdot Mirror

I think he meant onus (literally, "burden"), that is: the ball is not on the EU's court, but on Microsoft.

How working on last year's Office suite can curtail Europe's productivity escapes me completely.

Who knows, maybe he meant onus. They all end in a similar "iss" sound after all, what kind of genius could possibly tell them apart?

I think you mean impetus. Editors?

And Slashdot still supports "editors" posting launched it's Amazon Unbox.

There are two certainties on Slashdot: interesting stories make for melted servers aka the "Slashdot Effect" and postings using contractions instead of pronoun modifiers (showing possession).

I can barely stand "CD's" instead of "CDs", but when you've got a little time before hitting the [submit] button, it's a bit slack.

I passed a pool hall the other day ("Chalkies" - no smoking - where the Black Widow hangs out) and there was a big sign in the window dealing with "Scheduling Party's") and all I could think was, "a Slashdot editor must have done that."

There's more to proofreading than balancing parentheses, making sure there are a couple of periods, and validating the links.
__________________________

To the inevitable declaration of "Grammar Nazi!", I offer these two thoughts:

1. Are you willing to tinker with Godwin's Law so quickly?
2. Such a declaration is usually made by a Grammar Idiot.

What the hell does this mean?

> Gambling is bad.

To whom?

> Gambling leads to crime.

Eh?

> Gambling plays on human obscessions, exploit human weaknesses,

So does religion. If you can get that banned, I think that would have much better net effect on humanity. You should devote your energy in that direction (IMHO).

> gamlbing is usury.

You should re-check that definition. Here's a helpful link: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=usury.

(And watch those typos.)

Would that be because it comes pre-built with crust, like computing on a thick-crust pizza?

Somehow, I think you mean cruft, which is a standard feature in every copy of Windows XP (see 2, 4, and possibly 3 on that definition).

I work at a bank, and we have to take yearly courses on Pre-Text calling

No, there isn't actually and it's beliefs like this that scare me.

Alright, so let me get this straight...

I can't say it enough times: all of this information could quickly and easily be found in one location before - facebook.com.

could:http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=cou ld&x=0&y=0 to be able to; have the ability, power, or skill to:

found:http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=fou nd&x=0&y=0 to come upon by chance; meet with:

as compared to....

RSS:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RSS_(file_format) In the typical scenario of using web feeds, a content provider publishes a feed link on their site which end users can register with an aggregator program running on their own machines; when instructed, the aggregator asks all the servers in its feed list if they have new content; if so, the aggregator either makes a note of the new content or downloads it. Aggregators can be scheduled to check for new content periodically.

publish:http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=p ublish&x=0&y=0 to issue (printed or otherwise reproduced textual or graphic material, computer software, etc.) for sale or distribution to the public.

And to clarify yet again.... to be able to to come upon by chance this data, is the same as a content provider distributing to the public this data?

Security through obscurity will be the death of us...

That ain't the only thing either...

No, there isn't actually and it's beliefs like this that scare me.

Alright, so let me get this straight...

I can't say it enough times: all of this information could quickly and easily be found in one location before - facebook.com.

could:http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=cou ld&x=0&y=0 to be able to; have the ability, power, or skill to:

found:http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=fou nd&x=0&y=0 to come upon by chance; meet with:

as compared to....

RSS:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RSS_(file_format) In the typical scenario of using web feeds, a content provider publishes a feed link on their site which end users can register with an aggregator program running on their own machines; when instructed, the aggregator asks all the servers in its feed list if they have new content; if so, the aggregator either makes a note of the new content or downloads it. Aggregators can be scheduled to check for new content periodically.

publish:http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=p ublish&x=0&y=0 to issue (printed or otherwise reproduced textual or graphic material, computer software, etc.) for sale or distribution to the public.

And to clarify yet again.... to be able to to come upon by chance this data, is the same as a content provider distributing to the public this data?

Security through obscurity will be the death of us...

That ain't the only thing either...

No, there isn't actually and it's beliefs like this that scare me.

Alright, so let me get this straight...

I can't say it enough times: all of this information could quickly and easily be found in one location before - facebook.com.

could:http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=cou ld&x=0&y=0 to be able to; have the ability, power, or skill to:

found:http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=fou nd&x=0&y=0 to come upon by chance; meet with:

as compared to....

RSS:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RSS_(file_format) In the typical scenario of using web feeds, a content provider publishes a feed link on their site which end users can register with an aggregator program running on their own machines; when instructed, the aggregator asks all the servers in its feed list if they have new content; if so, the aggregator either makes a note of the new content or downloads it. Aggregators can be scheduled to check for new content periodically.

publish:http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=p ublish&x=0&y=0 to issue (printed or otherwise reproduced textual or graphic material, computer software, etc.) for sale or distribution to the public.

And to clarify yet again.... to be able to to come upon by chance this data, is the same as a content provider distributing to the public this data?

Security through obscurity will be the death of us...

That ain't the only thing either...

No, there isn't actually and it's beliefs like this that scare me.

Alright, so let me get this straight...

I can't say it enough times: all of this information could quickly and easily be found in one location before - facebook.com.

could:http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=cou ld&x=0&y=0 to be able to; have the ability, power, or skill to:

found:http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=fou nd&x=0&y=0 to come upon by chance; meet with:

as compared to....

RSS:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RSS_(file_format) In the typical scenario of using web feeds, a content provider publishes a feed link on their site which end users can register with an aggregator program running on their own machines; when instructed, the aggregator asks all the servers in its feed list if they have new content; if so, the aggregator either makes a note of the new content or downloads it. Aggregators can be scheduled to check for new content periodically.

publish:http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=p ublish&x=0&y=0 to issue (printed or otherwise reproduced textual or graphic material, computer software, etc.) for sale or distribution to the public.

And to clarify yet again.... to be able to to come upon by chance this data, is the same as a content provider distributing to the public this data?

Security through obscurity will be the death of us...

That ain't the only thing either...

No, there isn't actually and it's beliefs like this that scare me.

Alright, so let me get this straight...

I can't say it enough times: all of this information could quickly and easily be found in one location before - facebook.com.

could:http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=cou ld&x=0&y=0 to be able to; have the ability, power, or skill to:

found:http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=fou nd&x=0&y=0 to come upon by chance; meet with:

as compared to....

RSS:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RSS_(file_format) In the typical scenario of using web feeds, a content provider publishes a feed link on their site which end users can register with an aggregator program running on their own machines; when instructed, the aggregator asks all the servers in its feed list if they have new content; if so, the aggregator either makes a note of the new content or downloads it. Aggregators can be scheduled to check for new content periodically.

publish:http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=p ublish&x=0&y=0 to issue (printed or otherwise reproduced textual or graphic material, computer software, etc.) for sale or distribution to the public.

And to clarify yet again.... to be able to to come upon by chance this data, is the same as a content provider distributing to the public this data?

Security through obscurity will be the death of us...

That ain't the only thing either...

No, there isn't actually and it's beliefs like this that scare me.

Alright, so let me get this straight...

I can't say it enough times: all of this information could quickly and easily be found in one location before - facebook.com.

could:http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=cou ld&x=0&y=0 to be able to; have the ability, power, or skill to:

found:http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=fou nd&x=0&y=0 to come upon by chance; meet with:

as compared to....

RSS:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RSS_(file_format) In the typical scenario of using web feeds, a content provider publishes a feed link on their site which end users can register with an aggregator program running on their own machines; when instructed, the aggregator asks all the servers in its feed list if they have new content; if so, the aggregator either makes a note of the new content or downloads it. Aggregators can be scheduled to check for new content periodically.

publish:http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=p ublish&x=0&y=0 to issue (printed or otherwise reproduced textual or graphic material, computer software, etc.) for sale or distribution to the public.

And to clarify yet again.... to be able to to come upon by chance this data, is the same as a content provider distributing to the public this data?

Security through obscurity will be the death of us...

That ain't the only thing either...

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.0.1) - Cite This Source new!
encyclopedia /nsaklpidi/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[en-sahy-kluh-pee-dee-uh] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation

-noun 1. a book or set of books containing articles on various topics, usually in alphabetical arrangement, covering all branches of knowledge or, less commonly, all aspects of one subject.
2. (initial capital letter) the French work edited by Diderot and D'Alembert, published in the 18th century, distinguished by its representation of the views of the Enlightenment.

American Heritage Dictionary - Cite This Source new! encyclopedia (n-skl-pd-) Pronunciation Key
n.
A comprehensive reference work containing articles on a wide range of subjects or on numerous aspects of a particular field, usually arranged alphabetically.

[Medieval Latin encyclopaedia, general education course, from alteration of Greek enkuklios paideia, general education : enkuklios, circular, general; see encyclical + paideia, education (from pais, paid-, child. See pau- in Indo-European Roots).]

WordNet - Cite This Source new!
encyclopedia

n : a reference work (often in several volumes) containing articles on various topics (often arranged in alphabetical order) dealing with the entire range of human knowledge or with some particular specialty [syn: cyclopedia, encyclopaedia, cyclopaedia]

WordNet ® 2.0, © 2003 Princeton University

Hmm - I don't think so ... ... whereas I get no results for floccipaucinihilipilification...

Simon.

No, but neither were they called terrorists. The term wasn't much in use before 9/11.

That's bullshit. The term terrorist was in wide use before 9/11. I remember it being used in the 1980s - for example to describe the suicide truck bombing of American Marines stationed in Beruit. I also remember it being used to describe the Unabomber and the Oklahoma City bombing.

Are you seriously suggesting that 1 in 3 of those Mac users I see on the train every morning and around the city are running around (or sitting at home) with some of these:

Not at all. I do not think the article was suggesting even a small fraction of these users are running around with older models s you say. The article is only suggesting that 1/3 of Mac Owners *keep* as in retain ownership. I'm pretty sure the article was referring the second definition of keep: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=keep&x=0& y=0 when they made the statement:

1 in 3 Mac users keep their computers for more than fifteen years

I toss mine - thats 0%
My buddie says he was ones even older - thats 50%


The article is winning!

I'm amazed anyone would even have the gaul to propose this kind of thing, let alone try to actually pass it.

You're amazed anyone would have the French to propose this kind of thing? The word you're looking for is gall.

I'm amazed anyone would even have the gaul to propose this kind of thing, let alone try to actually pass it.

You're amazed anyone would have the French to propose this kind of thing? The word you're looking for is gall.

"Somebody has decided when you turn 70 you lose a lot of your mind. I find this is ridiculous."

This lady is obviously intelligent, she spelt rediculous correctly...

"Suspension of disbelief" is a skill exercised in creating a movie - specifically, it's the art of creating a movie that is unrealistic, but not so unrealistic that it triggers the "wait, this is a load of crap" instinct in the watchers. It's the difference between reasoned speculation and juvenile wish-fulfillment. It's the trick of creating a movie that "makes sense" even though it's fiction. It's okay to be unlikely but you have to avoid unreasonable or impossible or the intelligent parts of the audience are going to (rightly) say that your movie sucks.

The willing suspension of disbelief is the viewer-side term for the phenomenon. What you're describing, the author-side element, is called verisimilitude. That is, the creator's ability to infuse a believability into their work, even if that work involves unrealistic elements.

tanks? sceptical is a real word and means the same as skeptical unless I've fell out of my tree and you mean something else thats went over my head :D http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=sceptical &x=0&y=0

troll1 (trol))
v. trolled, trolling, trolls
v. tr.

1. 1. To fish for by trailing a baited line from behind a slowly moving boat.
   2. To fish in by trailing a baited line: troll the lake for bass.
   3. To trail (a baited line) in fishing.
2. Slang.. To patrol (an area) in search for someone or something: " [Criminals] troll bus stations for young runaways" (Pete Axthelm).

"trolling." The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. Houghton Mifflin Company, 2004. 01 Sep. 2006. <Dictionary.com http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=trolling& x=0&y=0 >

troll1 (trol))
v. trolled, trolling, trolls
v. tr.

1. 1. To fish for by trailing a baited line from behind a slowly moving boat.
   2. To fish in by trailing a baited line: troll the lake for bass.
   3. To trail (a baited line) in fishing.
2. Slang.. To patrol (an area) in search for someone or something: " [Criminals] troll bus stations for young runaways" (Pete Axthelm).

"trolling." The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. Houghton Mifflin Company, 2004. 01 Sep. 2006. <Dictionary.com http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=trolling& x=0&y=0 >

A "planet" is a "wanderer", a "wandering star" seen from Earth. We should define a planet as any body orbiting a star that could be seen by a (20/20) human from 1AU from that star, either unaided or with a 33x telescope (Galileo's) on a clear, dry moonless night, or any body that could be seen in those conditions to disturb the orbit of a planet.

That was the definition used by humans for many thousands of years, which is why even scientists are still attached to it. Let the ITU haggle about the definition of "planetoid" in whatever objective terms serves science. Pluto and its dinky fellow travelers can be "dwarf" planetoids together, while Pluto remains a "planet". And it will be easier for everyone to imagine distant solar systems when described in familiar terms to which we can relate.

The emotional and subjective definitions of planet are important to humans using science to relate to the universe and our place in it. Throwing that under the bus discredits science in the public mind while losing the value that the public mind brings to producing new science.

He didn't ask for a definition of "anti-social behavior". In fact, he didn't ask for a definition of antisocial. He merely used antisocial in a completely unrelated context to that wikipedia article. If you'll view the definition of antisocial, you'll notice two definitions the first one corresponding to the GP's context and the second one corresponding to the wikipedia article's context. Note that dictionaries generally list the more common and generally applicable usages of words before the narrower and less common ones. Dictionary.com backs that up too.

Notice that the wikipedia article you linked to isn't even about the general concept of "antisocial", it's in several Psychology categories and links to several aricles about various pieces of legislation. It's an article discussing a jargon term and completely independant of the broader meanings associated with the word antisocial.

censor /snsr/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[sen-ser] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
-noun

1. an official who examines books, plays, news reports, motion pictures, radio and television programs, letters, cablegrams, etc., for the purpose of suppressing parts deemed objectionable on moral, political, military, or other grounds.

2. any person who supervises the manners or morality of others.

3. an adverse critic; faultfinder.

4. (in the ancient Roman republic) either of two officials who kept the register or census of the citizens, awarded public contracts, and supervised manners and morals.

5. (in early Freudian dream theory) the force that represses ideas, impulses, and feelings, and prevents them from entering consciousness in their original, undisguised forms.

-verb (used with object)
6. to examine and act upon as a censor.
7. to delete (a word or passage of text) in one's capacity as a censor.
[Origin: 1525-35; L cnsor, equiv. to cns(re) to give as one's opinion, recommend, assess + -tor -tor; -sor for *-stor by analogy with derivatives from dentals, as tnsor barber (see tonsorial)]

Main Entry: religion. Part of Speech: noun. Definition: belief. Synonyms: adoration, bent, ceremonial, church, communion, connection, conscientiousness, consecration, creed, cult , ....

...I always thought it'd be a place full of ducts, designer ducts for your discriminating taste.

No, "realise" is the British spelling. Man does not live by Google alone. ;)

Actually, you are wrong.

Whinge

From the American Heritage Dictionary:
whinge
intr.v. Chiefly British whinged, whinging, whinges
To complain or protest, especially in an annoying or persistent manner.

[Dialectal alteration of Middle English whinsen, from Old English hwinsian.]
whinger n.
whingingly adv.

It is correct... but the first definition that came to my mind, given the 624 hours of Star Trek, was "Excessive."

Superlative.

... a Lake Express snow (11) storm.

(Yeah, yeah. I'm _really_ stretching this one.)

What contract did the mother and fetus sign giving the fetus possesion of the body?

They "signed" a natural law contract. The intrinsic design of human beings requires a host in order to grow for the first nine months of life. Therefore, the fetus has an "easement", if you will, on the mother's body. The mother created the life, therefore, she created the easement requirement.

You would force a person to support a creature that for all intents and purposes is not a full, independent human being but a parasite incapable of living on its own? That, my friend, is socialism. I'm a socialist and I still wouldn't go that far.

Yes, I would force that person to support the internal child, just like I would force them to feed, clothe and house their external children. It's not socialism, it's simple human societal requirements. We require parents to care for their offspring. It's exactly the same concept.

A baby is not a "full, independent" human being, but presumably you would not argue that the parents have the "right" to kill the baby. Also note that a newborn baby is NOT sentient. Human babies are born before their brains are fully developed, because the head size would be too big if they were kept full to term.

"Pederasty" is defined explicitly as a man having sexual relations with a boy, and if you want to go by a reference for pederast, they get even more explicit and define it as "A man who has sexual relations, especially anal intercourse, with a boy". The term is often found juxtaposed with the term pedophilia in modern lexicon (well, when one is around those keen enough to absorb and use terms like "pederast" or "lexicon" in a sentence, of course).

Secondly, a comparison between physically reprimanding one's child, even with a belt, and sexually molesting/raping one's child is fucking ludicrous. Of course, we can't compare right now because the article is talking about someone seeking to molest someone else's children (in most cases), and there is a damned ocean between what it's like for a child to be molested by their parents and someone else. Strictly speaking, the developemental mind can readily cope with physical pain, it's part of how we learn about the world and grow; lo and behold, the reason most ignorant parents smack their kids is to simply trigger the most base instinct of "If something bad happens after you do something, try not to do it again. Rinse and repeat until memorized." Sometimes people do need the firmest of reprimands, particularly with the trend of modern society to romanticize drug use and criminal activity. This can get out of hand, but not too often, and usually the victims just have to take anger management courses later on in life.
I'm running of no sleep right now, so I'm having difficulty putting the difference between physical abuse and sexual abuse into words, so let me put it as simply as I can: Physical abuse causes rage and anger in a child, an evolutionary "Fuck off!" response to something causing undue harm to you. Sexual abuse, particularly in the fragile state of a kid and particularly when it's the parents doing the molesting, quite simply makes something snap. Let's see... you know that fear that men have of ticking off the wrong person in jail and being raped? Right, take that, take away all of the mental toughness and emotional durability you've built up since you hit puberty and transplant yourself back to the days of Thunder Cats and then seeing your father disrobe you and decide it's time you learned damned fucking well the meaning of "pederasty".

Sexual molestation absolutely annihilates most every chance for that child to grow up and lead a normal, mentally healthy life. Will most of them go on living and get past it? Yes, of course. That doesn't mean they aren't completely fucked in the head, which rather neatly explains why the difficulty of going through life with broken set of circuitry calls many of them to simply not live; the exact phenomenon occurs when someone is slowly dying of an incredibly painful disease and they want to be euthanized.

Honestly. I have allergies to Spruce/Pine/Fir (SPF) and most softwoods that end up as the pulp feedstock for paper. I'm also allergic to my current residence, which is constructed mostly of SPF. I actively purge dead-tree materials in favor of electronic equivalents. The "textbook" and "newspaper" smells that some people praise are anathema to me. However, putting adverts in reference material is just as bad.

That said, the college textbook requirements have always been a scam perpetrated by the university(ies) in collusion with the publishers. The university environment is one that isn't subject to free-market forces, and will abuse the students to their tolerance limit. The university can dictate terms. It's in the publisher's best interest to play along. Consider it the price of admission.

The reason poor people exist is because the entire human race started out poor, not because what they had was taken from them. And we don't just move wealth around - even sharpening a stick into a spear creates value - you can now feed your family more easily.

Of course, you can't back any of this up, because it's just a product of the strong belief that most people have that "the end is near" or "things are just going to get worse" or "this is our peak". People have predicted the end of civilization for as long as there's been civilization, but we're still here. This is just you accepting your intuitions at face value.

Interesting stuff, but all it shows is that Quinn dislikes our culture and is willing to interpret everything it does as bad. His stuff doesn't even qualify as philosophy, it's just a rant.

Okay you got me on semantics. Argumentative much? I was trying to be concise! I thought the subject line made my point clear...

1069 is not a vigilante.

1 - 1069's action was arguably illegal but not immoral (considering intent)
2 - it was not violent
3 - it was appropriate, surgical even, use of expertise - no tampering
4 - no risk to any third parties or innocents by his hack

Oh yeah and did you read the part where the COPS TOLD HIM TO DO IT?

1069 did the right thing and he handled himself honorably. He could have just as easily broadcast the suspects' info all over the net, forcing them to turn themselves in to avoid inevitable 'sidewalk justice'.

From: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=abstract+ thought&x=0&y=0

abstract thought

n : thinking that is coherent and logical [syn: reasoning, logical thinking]

Even if we never liked Microsoft, it is sad to watch this mightly sparing partner collapse under the weight of mutual self-destruction.

What is this "mutual self-destruction" you speak of? Is Microsoft some kind of dual-entity? Like Ernie and Bert? And they're both forced to commit suicide, for some inexplicable reason?

Dude, don't use words when you don't know what they mean. Don't repeat phrases that you heard some Republican pundit throw out on some radio show. The term you were likely thinking of is "mutually-assured destruction". It requires at least two parties, each with the capability to destroy on another. Your perversion of that phrase makes no sense. There's only one party involved here: Microsoft. How this destruction can be "mutual" when only one entity is involved makes absolutely no sense.

Who defines "official"? All you have to do is go look it up in a dictionary:

a. Also called major planet. any of the nine large heavenly bodies revolving about the sun and shining by reflected light: Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune, or Pluto in the order of their proximity to the sun.

b. a similar body revolving about a star other than the sun.

And that's where this astronomical committee runs into trouble. They're redefining a word which has an English definition that will now be distinct from their technical definition. Anyone who speaks English can go on calling Pluto a planet, without qualification - there's nothing to unlearn, unless you plan to have a discussion with an excessively anal astronomer who believes that classifications like this somehow constitute science. Puh-leeze.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=pedophile &x=0&y=0
the dictionary disagrees. Next time run it through there before you try to act smart.

That's absolute bull. Science is TRUTH, religion is completely founded upon FAITH: FAITH: 2. belief that is not based on proof. If you want to force-feed me truth, then so be it. I suppose the knowledge of the universe isn't a bad thing to be forced to learn. If you want to force feed me faith, which is the absolute repudiation of truth, then you are a fool!

They almost certainly don't jive, but more importantly, they dont jibe (look at definition 3). Could you people finally get this right?

Jesus, I'm getting tired of ostensibly intelligent people doing this. Other words like this: tact and tack. One does not take a tact, one uses tact. One may take a tack, but this can be done in both a tactful or tactless manner. And, no, I'm not going to give you the link for the other two. Look it up yourself. A pirate would know this (these being nautical terms and all), so if you don't stop, the FSM will curse you. Consider yourself warned...

They almost certainly don't jive, but more importantly, they dont jibe (look at definition 3). Could you people finally get this right?

Jesus, I'm getting tired of ostensibly intelligent people doing this. Other words like this: tact and tack. One does not take a tact, one uses tact. One may take a tack, but this can be done in both a tactful or tactless manner. And, no, I'm not going to give you the link for the other two. Look it up yourself. A pirate would know this (these being nautical terms and all), so if you don't stop, the FSM will curse you. Consider yourself warned...

since 'furthist' is not a word (try farthest).

"Furthist" is an obvious typo for furthest, which is a perfectly fine word.

This thread is done as far as I'm concerned.

Good idea - you've slipped back to looking really stupid. You haven't used linux recently (I love the way you avoid mentioning which distro you use, can't be too specific when you're bullshitting can you?) If you had used linux recently, you'd know most modern distro's provide meta-packages to install nvidia/ati stuff. No xorg configs, no kernel recompiles, no command line at all.

No, all scenarios are the facets of the same issue - free (beer) software in Linux.

No, one issue is the execution of closed binary blobs on your own system. The other is using information provided by a proprietary system.

One executes code on your system that you have no control over, the other is just obtaining information.

I note that you've changed your argument in every post in this thread - I'm glad you've given up, I'm sick of slapping down your half-baked ideas.

BTW - I suggest you look up the definition of facile before using it in a sentence again. (and yes, they are facile insults - your stupidity makes you easy to insult.)

Jeebus: It's = it is "It is been ... seconds since you last sucessfully posted a comment..." It must stuck to be born in the US and still get pwned grammatically by an ESL exchange student from Dubai.

Well gee, if you were a native English speaker or bothered with dictionary.com you'd know that it's also = it has. Go take a look here: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=it's&x=0& y=0

Or you know what, I'll just copy and paste it here for you and save you some precious time and effort.

8 results for: it's Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.0.1) - Cite This Source new!

it's /ts/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[its] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation

1. contraction of it is: It's starting to rain.

2. contraction of it has: It's been a long time.

GG