Slashdot Mirror

I'll just leave this here in the delusion you'll actually fucking read it.

FREEDOM Mega Huge Internet Company Definition
1.the state of being free or at liberty rather than in confinement or under physical restraint. (Self Control)
2.exemption from external control, interference, regulation, etc. (Self Control)
3.the power to determine action without restraint. (Self Control)
4.political or national independence. (Macro Level Self Control)
5.personal liberty, as opposed to bondage or slavery: a slave who bought his freedom. (Self Control)

SELF CONTROL Mega Huge Internet Company Definition
1.control or restraint of oneself or one's actions, feelings, etc.

FREEDOM Encyclopedia Company Definition
1: the quality or state of being free: as
a : the absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action (Self Control)
b : liberation from slavery or restraint or from the power of another (Self Control)
c : the quality or state of being exempt or released usually from something oppressive (Self Control)
d : ease, facility (Self Control)
e : the quality of being frank, open, or outspoken
f : improper familiarity
g : boldness of conception or execution (Self Control)
h : unrestricted use (Self Control)
2
a : a political right
b : franchise, privilege

SELF CONTROL Encyclopedia Company Definition
restraint exercised over one's own impulses, emotions, or desires

FREEDOM Community Voted Definition
1. Something the American people just think they have.
2. Being able to make choices. Performing an action of your own choosing. Freedom will always be relative to the environment/situation which you inhabit.
3. Freedom is basically the right to be treated as an equal.
No-one has the right to exert any form of power over another, for any reason at all.
We all differ physically & intellectually; and circumstances do vary based both on merit and luck. We however diminish ourselves by using any of these 'advantages' to exert power.
Anyone who believes that they are better than another for whatever reason; is basically shallow and deluded.
If you do the right thing for the right reason and positively benefit the universe; you are far more likely to achieve happiness and essentially be at peace with yourself. Your conscience will always be there, it will always remember and it will hold you accountable. Do not delude yourself on this; the easy path often leads to great peril for your soul.
When you are doing something wrong, you are aware of it. You can lie to yourself (as many do), but what is the point? really that is just silly.
It is just as easy to make the right choice as is it to make the wrong one.
You have the freedom to disobey orders or rules (Refer norms).
You have the strength to do what needs to be done to try to benefit everything that exists.

Okay; I understand that things may already be in place; things are unfortunately not that simple. however, you can change your job, you can quit the military (hopefully), you can change how you act!!
It is possible to be in charge of a 100 people and not be an arsehole. If you are in charge of that many people you have the privilege of being able to increase the happiness of all of those souls. Sure, some of them wont appreciate it (Refer: Bogan) and there may be a price to pay, depending on the action that you take (remember: small steps still lead somewhere). But, it is still the right thing - its that simple.
Do you think you are something special? - prove it

"

So it only appears to be a contradiction, then?

I would like to introduce you to my dear friend, sarcasm (skæzm):

— n
1. mocking, contemptuous, or ironic language intended to convey scorn or insult
2. the use or tone of such language

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sarcasm:
sarcasm (skæzm)

— n
1. mocking, contemptuous, or ironic language intended to convey scorn or insult
2. the use or tone of such language

It doesn't involve truthiness at all. (You didn't know it has been accepted into the common lexicon, did you?) I do, however know what point you were trying to make, I think. However, since synergy is not a new word it also has a definition which one can easily look up. That being said, bogus definitions (4) do sometimes make it into the common lexicon. However, there is no issue with that here, as there is no ambiguity in the common lexicon.

If they're agnostic, then they are not atheist. The two things are mutually exclusive.

If they're agnostic, then they are not atheist. The two things are mutually exclusive.

Piker - Informal Noun
1) a person who does anything in a contemptibly small or cheap way.

A moonshot is a manned mission that lands on the moon.

Says who? According to Mirriam-Webster, a moon shot (TWO WORDS) is "a spacecraft mission to the moon". Dictionary.com says the same.

Yeah, Wikipedia says a moon shot is specifically a manned mission, but it says that on a short disambiguation page without any citations. Wikipedia is pretty reliable -- most of the time. Not when the article is without citations and has a short edit history.

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

Normal means, "according with, constituting, or not deviating from a norm, rule, or principle". Think normal distribution.

Funny, since the "normal" in normal distribution has nothing to do with the definition you quoted. That would be definition 5c:

(of an orthogonal system of real functions) defined so that the integral of the square of the absolute value of any function is 1.

Many of the antonyms to normal are insults, like for example normal vs sick people, normal vs insane people, normal vs handicapped people, normal vs disturbing behavior, normal vs perverted desires and so on. There are some inoffensive meanings that deal with common vs obscure and average vs extreme, but generally not being counted to one of the "normals" can be rather grossly insulting. Like "there's no elevator so you have to take the stairs but that shouldn't be a problem for normal people".

Again, it has nothing to do with security through obscurity

define: obscure. Definition number five. Staying out of notice is a type of security through obscurity.

Why would you make such a ridiculous statement, that directly contradicts what I wrote. I specifically said that far more security professionals look at Linux code than Windows code, because the Linux code is Open Source.

Exactly; that is almost definitely incorrect. Just because people can see the source does not imply more people will care to look at it. Windows is still target number one and attracts huge numbers of people looking for exploits. Whether they can see the code or not. I'm sure Microsoft employs lots of professionals to audit their code as well.

I suppose, as a completely uninformed person unable to understand what I wrote, or the complexities of software ecosystems in general, it would seem that way to you. Of course, I have extensive experience with both platforms while the same can clearly not be said by you.

I understood perfectly what you wrote and what you meant. I use both on a regular basis as well but i would never be presumptuous enough to assert that one is always better than the other. Nobody as experienced or informed as you claim to be would make such sweeping generalizations.

You keep going back to that fallacy so I'm going to assume you don't understand why it is a fallacy. no true Scotsman. You keep claiming that everyone that doesn't agree with you does so because they aren't experienced, educated or intelligent enough; if they were just smart/experienced/educated then they would know you are correct. That is extremely faulty reasoning.

You mean this word: alright?

Stolen does not mean to deprive another of ownership, it means to take without permission.

And what does take mean? When your definition was penned, taking something clearly deprived the former possessor of ownership.

I'll concede that re-using the word "stolen" isn't a terrible choice for this new "take-a-copy" action, but let's not pretend that this is what its meant all along.

Stolen does not mean to deprive another of ownership, it means to take without permission. That's what it has meant for generations.

I'd wager they know that, but are actively denying said knowledge in an act of mental gymnastics, purely for the sake of attempting justification of their unjustifiable positions.

Stolen does not mean to deprive another of ownership, it means to take without permission. That's what it has meant for generations.

Ok, so David was detained and his goods seized under Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act 2000 which states :-

Detention of property
11 (2) An examining officer may detain the thing—

(a) for the purpose of examination, for a period not exceeding seven days beginning with the day on which the detention commences,
(b) while he believes that it may be needed for use as evidence in criminal proceedings, or
(c) while he believes that it may be needed in connection with a decision by the Secretary of State whether to make a deportation order under the Immigration Act 1971.

In the first place, they had no right to detain the personal property. I wish the officers joy in explaining why he thought these items were "evidence in criminal proceedings" or were relevant to a "deportation order".

In the second place, nothing I can see therein allows them to destroy detained property, which is a very extreme response under any cricumstances. It also contradicts the intent of the section, which was to allow collection of property to be used as evidence.

Pretty ironic since the preamble states that the Act was "An Act to make provision about terrorism; and to make temporary provision for Northern Ireland about the prosecution and punishment of certain offences, the preservation of peace and the maintenance of order.". The only terrorism here I see is committed by the government.

terrorism
1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.
2. the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.

His name is Elon Musk. With a 'k'. Not "Must".

There's a big difference.

(think of the difference between something that smells musty and something that smells musky....)

In the ensuing carnage, 20 people were injured. Whoops.

Seems the word carnage does not mean any more what it used to mean.

Lets not talk about how _you_ define racism and look at how it is defined in dictionaries.

Like in the Oxford Disctionary.

racism
the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics, abilities, or qualities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races

Or Dictionary.com

racism
a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.

Racism is fundamentally a belief. As in you believe that (insert race of choice) is fundamentally superior to (lesser race). It is therefore racism to suggest that members of a particular race are more likely to be criminals purely on the basis of their race.

Alas, we literally lost...

I'm sick of the insighting of ...

Refer to my sig, please. The word is 'inciting'. Plus, I think it should be "I'm sick of the incitement of ...".

I'm sick of the insighting of ...

Refer to my sig, please. The word is 'inciting'. Plus, I think it should be "I'm sick of the incitement of ...".

nose swab in a camel [...] nare-do-wells

Never use an expression in writing that you have only heard spoken aloud.

Nare\, n. [L. naris.] A nostril. [R.] --B. Jonson.

Never give someone a ration of shit for using a word you don't understand, or you will look like an asshole. --drinkypoo

First learn what Copyright is because what you have said is...Pure rubbish

Property law....Rubbish

You are free to do as you want but remember dont cry when the cops lock your ass up and take your freedom away because you feel you got some god give right to take things that dont belong to you without permission or pay.

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

pound [pound]
noun, plural pounds ( collectively ) pound.
1. a unit of weight and of mass, varying in different periods and countries.

Source

pound noun \paund\
plural pounds also pound

Definition of POUND

1: any of various units of mass and weight; specifically : a unit now in general use among English-speaking peoples equal to 16 avoirdupois ounces or 7000 grains or 0.4536 kilogram — see WEIGHT TABLE

Source

pound
Pronunciation: /pand/

noun
1 (abbreviation: lb) a unit of weight equal to 16 oz. avoirdupois (0.4536 kg), or 12 oz. troy (0.3732 kg).

Source

It was a rhetorical question...

Correction: It was a clumsy and childish attempt at facetiousness that fell flat on its face and you're trying to dissipate your well-earned embarrassment by attempting to blame the captive audience for your personal failure.

Are you touching your penis right now?

It was a rhetorical question...

What happened to the Donner party is not genocide.

I imagine that you've set aside an emergency fund for the things you've imagined could go wrong, even if you can't imagine any of them happening anytime soon.

The irony definitely is strong in the sentence you've cited, but it's not dishonest. "Imagine" doesn't merely mean forming a mental image of something. It's also commonly used in a sense that refers more to expectations, assumptions, or beliefs. We routinely make plans for contingencies that we don't imagine will actually take place, even though we're able to imagine the idea of that thing going wrong in our heads.

And I imagine this comment won't be too useful, since I imagine that you know all of this already.

SFO thinks ridesharing companies should pay its fees. Fair enough, so SFO should sue them and recover the monies.

What they are not entitled to do, is to apply illegal coercion/pressure on the ridesharing companies by arresting their drivers. Take note that the TFA makes it clear that their officers have no powers of arrest, which is why they had to resort to the charade of making 'citizen arrests'. You might also question why, if it is the California Penal Code they claim was breached, they are taking action themselves instead of handing it over to the police.

Lets see how extortion is defined :-

extortion [ik-stawr-shuhn] noun

The crime of obtaining money or some other thing of value by the abuse of one's office or authority.

Oppressive or illegal exaction, as of excessive price or interest.

I think its pretty clear SFO has abused their authority by making the arrests. Their actions are pretty much unprecedented anywhere in the US, or in the world for that matter.

And if in turn _you_ are going to be pedantic, then let _me_ be pedantic by pointing out you are are wrong.

Electrocution, source 1:
1. to kill by electricity.
2. to execute (a criminal) by electricity, as in an electric chair.
Origin: 1885–90, Americanism; electro- + (exe)cute

Electrocution, source 2:
1: to execute (a criminal) by electricity
2: to kill by electric shock
— electrocution noun
Origin of ELECTROCUTE
electr- + -cute (as in execute)
First Known Use: 1889

Yes, the word has been dumbed down by some stupid dictionaries due to dumb people using it wrong so frequently. The derivation should be your CLUE to what the real meaning is.

Clue: you have never been electrocuted.

It's still not a sovereign authority even if you quote a Rothschild.

...why? It's NOT not a sovereign authority just because you said so.

You don't like Rothschild? How about a dictionary?

Most of the definitions do not require the one(s) with sovereign authority to be part of a government, or even human. If space aliens took over the world, they would be the ones holding sovereign authority (don't blame me, I voted for Kodos)

It's controlled by the Fed which is a mixed body with power in both private and public hands.

Semantics. Of course, it doesn't help that the Board of Governors of this supposedly independent entity have to be appointed by the President. Oh sure, the law says government had to be fair in choosing who to appoint, but remember: this is the same government that has proven itself time and time again to be untrustworthy (and incompetent, so even if they were trying to be fair, don't count on them succeeding at being fair)

So the Nobel Peace Prize = "I HATE AMERICA" Prize.

Not really. It's meant to be a prize for making the world more peaceful. Giving it to Obama was nuts, and it's now not clear if this prize has any point any more.

And the other world powers that have multicultural prime ministers and presidents are ... ? I feel like Obama's Peace Prize was more about transcending race and color finally among the world's super powers. France is super liberal but you'll never seen someone of Algerian descent as their prime minister.

You should look up racism:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/racism

You are a racist if you think it was right to give the Nobel Peace Prize to someone who had done nothing to deserve it but solely based on his race. That is the very definition of racism. Multicultural? Do you mean multi-racial? Again, who cares? There are a lot of multi-racial people around the world but what does their ethnicity have to do with winning a prize for peace making? It is supposed to be based on actions and character, not your background. The fact that they gave him that prize shows that they were racists caught up in hero worship and white guilt.

daemon

Yes it is true electric cars are not currently viable as a means of mass transit.

Says who?

According to
http://www.reference.com/motif/sports/average-commute-in-miles-for-americans
the average commute distance is 32 miles round trip. Even double that for side trips for shopping, and it's well within the distance of the lowest range stock electric cars.

(BTW, I do not yet have an electric car, but intend for my next car to be one.)

Okay, either A: you are so convinced of your viewpoint that you did not look at the links and try to learn a little more, B: you think wikipedia is a massive conspiracy out to deceive you, or C: you're a troll who is just pretending that either A or B are true. I'm really hoping it's A, because otherwise we seem to agree, and it would be relatively simple for you to just learn a little more about the subject.

In "real live" we do _not_ have superconductors, not that we can use in day to day applications at any rate. "High temperature" superconductors currently top out at about -140 C, or about -220 F. I assure you, the wires transmitting electricity from power plants to where it is used are not being cooled by liquid nitrogen (the birds that perch on the power lines are certainly not freezing their feet off) thus they are not superconductors, thus they are losing energy to heat, thus they are following the laws of thermodynamics. (Actually, superconductors follow the laws of thermodynamics too, since they aren't doing any work.)

Electicity being transmitted over our current power lines experiences loss due to resistance. "Transmission and distribution losses in the USA were estimated at 6.6% in 1997 and 6.5% in 2007." Those loses end up as heat, so it's a thermodynamic system. When the power arrives wherever it's going it is used to perform work, therefore it's a thermodynamic system.

Thermodynamics is not just volume/pressure/temperature. It sounds like you're thinking of the Ideal gas law, which is an important thermodynamic concept but not the whole of thermodynamics. Look, if you don't want to trust wikipedia, here's a dictionary definition: "the science concerned with the relations between heat and mechanical energy or work, and the conversion of one into the other: modern thermodynamics deals with the properties of systems for the description of which temperature is a necessary coordinate." It's not just PV=nRT, work and energy are involved too.

Or maybe you trust MIT? Here's a webpage from one of their courses. The bottom part has a lot of the PV=nRT stuff you think is what thermodynamics is all about, but the top part is about how work and electricity are involved.

If we _did_ have superconductors we could use to transmit all our electricity _and_ we never did anything useful with that electricity but just let it go around and around in circles, _then_ it wouldn't by a thermodynamic system, but why would we do that? Except for storing it for short periods like a battery there's no reason to produce tons of electricity but never use it to do anything. The whole purpose of generating power is to do work, and thus create/influence thermodynamic systems.

In real life, there is thermodynamics in the generation of the electricity, there is thermodynamics in the transmission of the power to the destination because of losses due to resistance, there is thermodynamics in the battery of the car (batteries do not hold charge indefinitely, they lose charge over time, even if very slowly, and those losses result in either the generation of heat or the generation of work by rearranging chemicals in the battery, thus thermodynamics) there is thermodynamics in the transmission from the battery to the engine (though admittedly the loss over such a short distance is very small) and there is most definitely thermodynamics involved in converting that electricity into mechanical force to rotate the wheels and make the car go.

If heat is generated or work is done thermodynamics is involved. Saying something has "absolutely nothing to do with thermodynamics, even if heat is produced as side product" is ignoring the very fundamentals of thermodynamics.

Inducted is not a word!

Uhh, yes it is.

Ok, I knew Layne's law of debate will need to be applied before long. Though dictionary.com agrees with this being an advertisement, especially according to the third definition, second is also somewhat applicable if web is considered digitization of print. If you are stuck on partial application of first definition, you just need to read up.

It fails the third definition as well: it says, "the action of making generally known; a calling to the attention of the public". The manual does NOT make this fact generally known, and it does not call to the attention of the general public, only that of somebody who reads the manual (print or online) to learn how to use their PS3.. So nope, still NOT an advertisement.

Yes, I am sure archive.org bought PS3 to be able to archive this.

What an idiotic strawman. Let me make an idiotic assertion to match yours: Can you prove they didn't?

Right, exactly like all other web advertisement is on YouTube.

I see crap ads from the 80s there. With so many rabid Sony-haters like you proliferating on the Net, it does not stretch the bounds of incredulity to assume that someone has managed to upload it to YT. But keep assuring yourself in your own little shell of corp-hatred that somehow they missed posting that ad on YT (or indeed, ANY PLACE ON THE WEB).

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/moot says:

verb (used with object) 4. to present or introduce (any point, subject, project, etc.) for discussion. 5. to reduce or remove the practical significance of; make purely theoretical or academic.

So meaning 4 seems appropriate. Strange that a word simultaneously means to introduce it and to remove it from consideration, but it is a pretty old word I think so it has probably evolved quite a bit.

Origin: before 900; Middle English mot ( e ) meeting, assembly, Old English gemt; cognate with Old Norse mt, Dutch gemoet meeting. See meet1

Sounds like "theory" to me. What's with the media's reporting of science and ambiguous words? :)

FTFY

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/moot says:

verb (used with object) 4. to present or introduce (any point, subject, project, etc.) for discussion. 5. to reduce or remove the practical significance of; make purely theoretical or academic.

So meaning 4 seems appropriate. Strange that a word simultaneously means to introduce it and to remove it from consideration, but it is a pretty old word I think so it has probably evolved quite a bit.

Origin: before 900; Middle English mot ( e ) meeting, assembly, Old English gemt; cognate with Old Norse mt, Dutch gemoet meeting. See meet1

Sounds like "theory" to me. What's with science and ambiguous words? :)

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/moot says:

verb (used with object)
4. to present or introduce (any point, subject, project, etc.) for discussion.
5. to reduce or remove the practical significance of; make purely theoretical or academic.

So meaning 4 seems appropriate. Strange that a word simultaneously means to introduce it and to remove it from consideration, but it is a pretty old word I think so it has probably evolved quite a bit.

Origin:
before 900; Middle English mot ( e ) meeting, assembly, Old English gemt; cognate with Old Norse mt, Dutch gemoet meeting. See meet1

Layne's law of debate, here we come. Ok, like the AC, you need to read up on the definition of advertisement, upto the third one.

Nope, that is NOT AN ADVERTISEMENT

Ok, I knew Layne's law of debate will need to be applied before long. Though dictionary.com agrees with this being an advertisement, especially according to the third definition, second is also somewhat applicable if web is considered digitization of print. If you are stuck on partial application of first definition, you just need to read up.

That is just a section from the Manual/User's Guide, which you see AFTER you buy the PS3.

Yes, I am sure archive.org bought PS3 to be able to archive this.

IF there really were an advertisement, I would assume it WOULD be on YouTube

Right, exactly like all other web advertisement is on YouTube.

Niggard : (noun) an excessively parsimonious, miserly, or stingy person. See here

Hey now, obviously you must think that you are nothing more than the sum of your parts. Personally, I think there is something more. But anyways here is the definition since you don't know what the work means. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/soul

Hmm...

Liquidity
2: the ability or ease with which assets can be converted into cash.

Volatility
3: changeable; mercurial; flighty: a volatile disposition.
4: (of prices, values, etc.) tending to fluctuate sharply and regularly: volatile market conditions.
5: fleeting; transient: volatile beauty.

The more easily stocks can be "converted into cash" the more easily the price of said stocks is able to be manipulated to change/fluctuate. Which would be the opposite of a stable situation...

Hmm...

Liquidity
2: the ability or ease with which assets can be converted into cash.

Volatility
3: changeable; mercurial; flighty: a volatile disposition.
4: (of prices, values, etc.) tending to fluctuate sharply and regularly: volatile market conditions.
5: fleeting; transient: volatile beauty.

The more easily stocks can be "converted into cash" the more easily the price of said stocks is able to be manipulated to change/fluctuate. Which would be the opposite of a stable situation...

And rapid refers to more than just missiles, though "swift" would catch the meaning as well. As far as I recall, they were named by some girl who appreciated how fast they solved something or came to help the weaker ones, something like that.

Parent post fails badly. In point of fact, the word "arguably" actually has a meaning different from "absolutely", and therefore no place in that sentence.

Moreover, ever since the first version, Gimp has offered student discounts of 500% and more over the normal retail price. None of this adds any value to the artwork created by Gimp. It does create a circus of fanbois, many of whom have a tendency to be loud on the internet.

Meanwhile, Photoshop is moving to the cloud, with insta-updates, while Gimp users are still forced to pay attention themselves to possible updates, and waste their precious bandwidth downloading updates.

</sarcasm>