Slashdot Mirror

White man says white man in strange place = "adventurous explorer"

Adventurous: inclined to undertake new and daring enterprises
think venture capital, historicaly we know that europeans traveled to the new world looking for money/gold and land.
We know that they took slaves and killed lots of people.

Adventurer: One that seeks adventure, One that attempts to gain wealth and social position by unscrupulous means.

White man says black man in strange place = "slave"
We know that these Adventurers took slaves from Africa to the new world.

When we find African bodies in the new world we can be pretty sure that they were taken there by Europeans as either slaves or as indentured servants.
Indentured servants are not slaves, in that they can buy out their "contract", but I've no information about how long they had to work to do so, and what amount of freedom they had while they paid this off.

In short whats your point?

"Capitalism also brings you your computer, the internet, the clothes you are wearing, or at least I hope you are wearing as you read this, ..." [snip]

Actually, he's wrong. Capitalism is a political system.

No, capitalism is an economic system. Whoever is teaching you politics is either (a) a fool or (b) wise and in the business of manipulating fools.

capitalism
An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=capitalis m

What brings us the TV, computer, car and the clothes is the industry.

And the industries bringing those goods are based upon capitalist economic systems.

What Capitalism brings us is an excuse for criminals to gain power.

You do realize that the far left lies just like the far left?

Cactus, Cacti.
Octopus, Octopi.
Hippopotamus, Hippopotami.

See a pattern? Most people do and apply it even if its wrong. As a bonus, they get to watch people stumble all over themselves to be the first to show off how smart they are by pointing out the mistake.

Cactus, Cacti.
Octopus, Octopi.
Hippopotamus, Hippopotami.

See a pattern? Most people do and apply it even if its wrong. As a bonus, they get to watch people stumble all over themselves to be the first to show off how smart they are by pointing out the mistake.

Cactus, Cacti.
Octopus, Octopi.
Hippopotamus, Hippopotami.

See a pattern? Most people do and apply it even if its wrong. As a bonus, they get to watch people stumble all over themselves to be the first to show off how smart they are by pointing out the mistake.

alleged Pronunciation Key (-ljd, -ljd)
adj.

        Represented as existing or as being as described but not so proved; supposed.

Virii is not correct and I don't know why so many people seem to think it is. Also, it sounds stupid.

To bad it IS a word AND can be a verb.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=leverage

Get a job.

Sorry to be a grammar Nazi on this. The media uses such hyperbole that words change meanings based on the emotional cliches spewed by the plastic hairdos on the news networks. Remember when there were no bad connotations to the word "hacker"? I do.

From: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=disaster

disaster n.

1. An occurrence causing widespread destruction and distress; a catastrophe.

Challenger accident was not a disaster. To say that money makes the difference between a tragic accident and a disaster is to devalue the real disasters - such as tsunamis.

I was working in the astronaut training facility in 1986 when Challenger blew up. Like many others that day, I didn't see it live, but I did see it on the first replay. My desk didn't have a line-of-site to the office TV and I was plinking away at some code on a 8088 PC.
The sound of a dozen coworkers watching friends die got me up and to the TV.

To those of us at NASA who worked with the crew, it is and will always be an accident.

Because accidents can be prevented, but disasters can't.

What you're doing is called equivocation.

Funny...that works exactly against you, as I am simply not holding that there is a difference between them, so the "equivocation" (from the root of equivocal) in the "misleading" sense (as provided by dictionary.com on equivocal) would be from the scientific community...in other words, the scientific community desires the "falsification by means of vague or ambiguous language" (dictionary.com on equivocation).

FYI - I am not playing the semantics game as claimed in #14572699 by Dimensio (311070) - rather the scientific community is, and purposefully so in order to do exactly what you essentially claimed above - mislead.

Quite similar to what is done in the scientific & medical communities with the word fetus, which while on account of the scientific community English has adopted a slightly different definition - the meaning is essentially "baby" when translated from latin properly. But that's a whole other topic.

What you're doing is called equivocation.

Funny...that works exactly against you, as I am simply not holding that there is a difference between them, so the "equivocation" (from the root of equivocal) in the "misleading" sense (as provided by dictionary.com on equivocal) would be from the scientific community...in other words, the scientific community desires the "falsification by means of vague or ambiguous language" (dictionary.com on equivocation).

FYI - I am not playing the semantics game as claimed in #14572699 by Dimensio (311070) - rather the scientific community is, and purposefully so in order to do exactly what you essentially claimed above - mislead.

Quite similar to what is done in the scientific & medical communities with the word fetus, which while on account of the scientific community English has adopted a slightly different definition - the meaning is essentially "baby" when translated from latin properly. But that's a whole other topic.

What you're doing is called equivocation.

Funny...that works exactly against you, as I am simply not holding that there is a difference between them, so the "equivocation" (from the root of equivocal) in the "misleading" sense (as provided by dictionary.com on equivocal) would be from the scientific community...in other words, the scientific community desires the "falsification by means of vague or ambiguous language" (dictionary.com on equivocation).

FYI - I am not playing the semantics game as claimed in #14572699 by Dimensio (311070) - rather the scientific community is, and purposefully so in order to do exactly what you essentially claimed above - mislead.

Quite similar to what is done in the scientific & medical communities with the word fetus, which while on account of the scientific community English has adopted a slightly different definition - the meaning is essentially "baby" when translated from latin properly. But that's a whole other topic.

I applaud your research and clever pulling out of context statements, although the one site was not out of context, it was just repeating myth of someone not understanding the difference between 'adopting' a technology and being the basis of the technology.

Again I will repeat this for the slow learners, MPEG4's codecs were not based on Quicktime Technology, and the original MPEG4 codec technology was written by Microsoft.

Everyone else, don't be trolled by the above post, do a simple freaking google search for yourself on: Microsoft MPEG-4 v3 or
MS-MPEG4 v3 or even Microsoft MPEG-4 v1.

I will also again repeat. DIVX is nothing more than a 'hack' of the original Microsoft of the MPEG4 codec technology.

Here, I will do a quick Google for the causal reader:

http://www.doom9.org/index.html?/codec-faq.htm
What's the difference between DivX and MS MPEG4 v3?
There's none, really. DivX is basically a step farther from the original hack of the MS MPEG4 v3 codec


http://www.am-soft.ru/fourcc.html
"Microsoft MPEG-4 V1, V2 & V3 Microsoft MPEG4 Frozen These codecs were developed by Microsoft by draft MPEG-4 specs and were available some time ago with their Windows Media Tools (WMT) and MS NetShow package. However Microsoft has restricted the functionality of these codecs so that only native tools from Microsoft could use these compressors. The DivX team made a binary hack of MS MPEG4 V3 codec and called it DivX.

And of course how about posting a link to MPEG Specifications Body itself, cause apparently that would have not allowed the above poster to distort facts:
http://www.m4if.org/mpeg4/

And now let's address your revisionist history of MSDOS and Stacker... You quote the Internet Myth regarding the lawsuit between Microsoft and Stac, but have you or any of your other drones actually read about the ruling 'specifically'.

If you had, you would see that it was a PATENT lawsuit, and NO CODE WAS STOLEN. PERIOD. (Go ahead and edit Wiki or keep saying it to yourself, it will not make it true.)

Let me repeat, MS did NOT use or STEAL any code from Stac. - Go read the lawsuit, for the love of God...

Here, let me give you a link to get you started if you want to find truth on the subject:

http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Stac_Electron ics
Stac sued Microsoft for infringement of two of its data compression patents, and won; in 1994, a California jury ruled the infringement by Microsoft was not willful, but awarded Stac $120 million in compensatory damages, coming to about $5.50 per copy of MS-DOS 6.0 that had been sold. The jury also agreed with a Microsoft counterclaim that Stac had misappropriated the Microsoft trade secret of a pre-loading feature that was included in Stacker 3.1, and simultaneously awarded Microsoft $13.6 million on the counterclaim.
While Microsoft prepared an appeal, Stac was able to obtain a preliminary injunction from the court stopping the sales of all MS-DOS products that included DoubleSpace; by this time Microsoft had already started shipping an "upgrade" of MS-DOS to its OEM customers that removed DoubleSpace

As you see, NO CODE was Stolen by Microsoft, and the reason 6.21 even had to be released was because of the injunction by Stac to 'extort' Microsoft, which worked, as Microsoft basically bought the failing company.

And if you look at the case, the only thing MS did was create a technology that 'infringed' on their PATENTS - NOT STOLE CODE as you incorrectly state.

However, Stacker Willingly used a MS Trade Secret that was disclosed to them during this time, so Stac is the company that actually STOLE anything.

And you my friend are the one that needs a history lesson, next time try to provide facts instead of bloviating about old Internet Myths...

Sereiously, not to impune anyone

I think you meant impugn not impune.

Sereiously, not to impune anyone

I think you meant impugn not impune.

However, I was certain that they would have still been alive. The underside of all shuttles are designed to withstand the heat of re-entry, which should have been as hot or hotter than the heat of the explosion (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=explosio n's definition of an explosion) which forced the shuttle away from the fuel tank and booster rockets. But, I also believed that the cockpit should have survived the impact into the water, and the crew died whilst waiting (concious or not) for NASA to get over their shock and send a Search & Rescue crew out to them.

If one thing is to be learned from Challenger & Columbia, is that the crew quarters should be designed to separate in times of dire emergency, and be equipped to fall to Earth in the same manner as the crew quarters on a manned rocket mission

Just another added note, to all of you clinging on to evolution being a theory, and not a belief.

from Stephen Hawking: "Any physical theory is always provisional, in the sense that it is only a hypothesis; you can never prove it. No matter how many times the results of experiments agree with some theory, you can never be sure that the next time the result will not contradict the theory. On the other hand, you can disprove a theory by finding even a single repeatable observation that disagrees with the predictions of the theory."

Yes everything in science is a theory, nothing can ever be proven outright since there's always the possibility that some new evidence will come along and that's why its called the theory of evolution. 'Theory' in the scientific sense of the word (not the common colloquial usage which is more like a synonym of speculation or conjecture), ie. 'A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.' (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=theory).

More Info: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.htm l

So, I propose a theory based on a common belief, one which a large majority of the world has, and thus points to truth. The theory is: "God exists".

Just because a lot of people believe something doesn't make it true - we all believed the earth was flat for centuries for example. Science is based on evidence, not getting people to believe. A scientific theory can still be valid if no-one believes it as long as there's evidence to support it.

It cannot be disproven, and is thus as valid a theory as Evolution

No its not as valid as Evolution since evolution can be disproven and can be tested, making it a valid scientific theory. The idea that god exists or not is purely conjecture or faith and is not incompatible with Evolution since Evolution says nothing about wether god does or does not exist.

A bad one, perhaps, but a theory none the less.

Its not a theory in the scientific sense of the word, see above.

That's simply a matter of definition. From dictionary definition of agnosticism and atheism, what you (and atheists.org) describe as atheism fits in more with agnosticism.

The etymology could go either way, atheist coming from the greek "without God" and agnostic coming from the greek "without knowledge" [of God presumed].

If your definition holds, then how do you define "Agnostic"? and how do you reconcile the bifurcation of Atheism camps, one having lack of belief, and one believing in the non-existance of God?

I don't think it's a moral high-ground issue if we both agree we believe (or don't rather) similarly yet disagree on what to call ourselves :)

That's simply a matter of definition. From dictionary definition of agnosticism and atheism, what you (and atheists.org) describe as atheism fits in more with agnosticism.

The etymology could go either way, atheist coming from the greek "without God" and agnostic coming from the greek "without knowledge" [of God presumed].

If your definition holds, then how do you define "Agnostic"? and how do you reconcile the bifurcation of Atheism camps, one having lack of belief, and one believing in the non-existance of God?

I don't think it's a moral high-ground issue if we both agree we believe (or don't rather) similarly yet disagree on what to call ourselves :)

Who says "Don't trade in China" isn't the important thing. The important thing is the end result--no, or very limited, trading in China.

And something has to be pronounced sarcastically to be sarcastic? That would make written comments impossible to be sarcastic. This doesn't say anything about tone of voice.

I think Goggle hold true to their motto of "Do No Evil". Perhaps they should change it to "Decipher No Perniciousness" (using the the thesauraus). In seeing it in this context, it does mean "to filter [bad content]."

How is this hypocrisy?

Simply because they do not fight every "blitzkrieg" for Joe Schmoe makes them "Evil"? C'mon, they stood up to Bellsouth in a much more evil litigation.

I think Goggle hold true to their motto of "Do No Evil". Perhaps they should change it to "Decipher No Perniciousness" (using the the thesauraus). In seeing it in this context, it does mean "to filter [bad content]."

How is this hypocrisy?

Simply because they do not fight every "blitzkrieg" for Joe Schmoe makes them "Evil"? C'mon, they stood up to Bellsouth in a much more evil litigation.

In a closed/isolated system entropy CANNOT DECREASE

In scientific usage, a theory does not mean an unsubstantiated guess or hunch, as it often does in other contexts. Scientific theories are never proven to be true, but can be disproven. All scientific understanding takes the form of hypotheses, or conjectures. A theory is in this context a set of hypotheses that are logically bound together (See also hypothetico-deductive method).

Funny how the definition of theory for science is just a rewording of the definition for other contexts. There's a reason why the same word is used - it's the same thing. Get over it.

And for those of you that insist upon calling it the same thing and making it seem like there is a huge difference between them, check out its definition on sites like Dictionary.com: Definition of Theory.
If you notice, it's the same. (It does have a "scientific" clause under one of them, but it's still basically the same.)

The difference is that in all cases (scientific or otherwise) it appears to be an "unsubstantiated guess or hunch", but in all cases (scientific or otherwise) it is still based on information that may (or may not) be available to the person calling it "unsubstantiated" - which just means it has not been proven, or shown that the evidence proves it true - corroborating it - to the point where nothing else could be possible.

In scientific usage, a theory does not mean an unsubstantiated guess or hunch, as it often does in other contexts. Scientific theories are never proven to be true, but can be disproven. All scientific understanding takes the form of hypotheses, or conjectures. A theory is in this context a set of hypotheses that are logically bound together (See also hypothetico-deductive method).

Funny how the definition of theory for science is just a rewording of the definition for other contexts. There's a reason why the same word is used - it's the same thing. Get over it.

And for those of you that insist upon calling it the same thing and making it seem like there is a huge difference between them, check out its definition on sites like Dictionary.com: Definition of Theory.
If you notice, it's the same. (It does have a "scientific" clause under one of them, but it's still basically the same.)

The difference is that in all cases (scientific or otherwise) it appears to be an "unsubstantiated guess or hunch", but in all cases (scientific or otherwise) it is still based on information that may (or may not) be available to the person calling it "unsubstantiated" - which just means it has not been proven, or shown that the evidence proves it true - corroborating it - to the point where nothing else could be possible.

Main Entry: theory
Pronunciation: 'thE-&-rE, 'thi(-&)r-E
Function: noun
Inflected Form: plural -ries
1 : the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art
2 : a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain natural phenomena --see ATOMIC THEORY, CELL THEORY, GERM THEORY
3 : a working hypothe

Either way: "Of, relating to, affecting, or influenced by the human mind or psyche; mental."

Or at least make up your own words that mean little to nothing!
Azureus!
Shareaza!
Audacity!
Fink!

Or at least make up your own words that mean little to nothing!
Azureus!
Shareaza!
Audacity!
Fink!

If the TOS expressly limits the secondary market for the songs that are sold through their service, and you break it by selling a loaded iPod, then the RIAA (or Apple) has a claim.

It doesn't matter at all what the license agreement or ToS says. Apple, iTunes, the iPod, the store where you bought the cd, the shrinkwrap license, the damned RIAA...none of them have the right to tell you that you cannot resell a legally purchased piece of their intellectual property.

Why? The First-sale doctrine. The Copyright Act states that the owner of a lawful copy can "sell or otherwise dispose of" the copy. In this context, "otherwise dispose of" means renting, lending, or leasing your copy.

As long as the item you are selling is a legally purchased, original copy, then the Copyright Act expressly allows the resale of your copy.

The word 'oxymoronic' does not mean what you want it to mean.

Incidentally, intellectual property seems to capture the essence of the concept, at least to me. What is your objection?

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

They can only find known virii. Maybe being 'protected' from tens of thousands of viruses comforts you

You used both spellings within 10 words of each other, that's what prompted me to action. Sorry. Look, virii is NOT A WORD. the correct plural is VIRUSES, please take note for the future. Thanks! :)

Funnily enough, I had eggs and spam this morning for breakfast. And wonderful Spam it was too! Eggs, Spam, potatoes and Spam (sotto voce - (dictionary.com) spam spam spam spam spam spam spam SPAMDIDDY SPAM!!

Really, no really. I did!

"viruses"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plural_of_virus
http://dictionary.reference.com/help/faq/language/ v/virus.html

It's a joke about Cheney not having a heart in the figurative sense. Look up the word heartless.

grammer? or grammar?. Ahh, the irony...

Fascism is about corporate rule, not the people's government.

No corporation are at the mercy of the fascist government as well. Just like the citizens the corporations will only survive and prosper if they suck up and obey the dictator.

What has confused you is that in the same way that the nuts on the right call everyone communists, the nuts on the left call everyone fascists. They used to just call everyone nazis but then the audience blew them off as the nut cases they are. Dialing the rantings back to fascist helped the nut case's credibility.

Look it up sometime.

You should practice what you preach:
"A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent *socioeconomic* controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism."
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=Fasci sm

In the future you may want the use AC when making posts that dumb.

No, trust me, APR stands for Annual Percentage Rate. I think the Federal Reserve, the American Heritage Dictionary, and even the Wikipedia community are going to be know more about what APR stands for than some random preacher you found on the Internet. All that link could possibly prove is that the net is full of idiots, something you have already proven with your "Ted Turner is the leader of a massive Jewish conspiracy" signature. Although I think that guy may have known what APR really means and was just using a common literary device to add humor to his sermon.

Bad news - you forgot Rule #1 of internet discourse - don't smugly point out someone else's spelling error while at the same time making a spelling error of your own.

You were even crass enough to make an error in your correction of the same word. You then rail at everyone who points this out as if it weren't important - which will make them wonder why you brought it up in the first place. You then have the temerity to attempt to blame Google for your error. Ever heard of a dictionary? They even have them online now, too.

I mean, I'm really not trying to be rude, but sheesh, what a dick.

After all, the medium is, as they say, the message.

"Vouch" has two different meanings (see either American Heritage Dictionary or Oxford English Dictionary), but only one of them implies an element of personal assurance. Since the poster wrote in the potential form, " can vouch", it is merely a claim that vouching could be provided but the claim itself is not an act of vouching.

Tricky? I think you're inserting uneeded complexity. Realistic: "Tending to or expressing an awareness of things as they really are".

The price something really sold at is its realistic price. The price something "should have" sold at is it's ideal price, and clearly will vary by perspective, as everyone has their own idea about what something "should have" sold at.

I'm afraid I have to call a non sequitur on you. The point is, no amount of wishing will remove you from the environment and it's benefits and consequences. We are inextricably linked. In this model, the concept of acquired value is sort of meaningless.

The counter arguments only work because the constituents of exchange are isolated. The truth of the statement "a virus alone in the universe in neither good nor evil" says nothing about the truth of my assertions. You can't claim an obvious truth implies falsehood of a position.

Against my better judgement, I'm going to cast petrol on the fire. Saying healthy ecosystems is an acquired value is merely a rhetorical slight of hand. It's taking an important concept, eg finding balance between environment and industry, and saying something esoteric is at stake--you're rights are in danger. Framed this way, irresponsible industrial activity is easier to argue for.

Here's some satire: Industrial advertising tag line: "Breathing. It's an acquired value."

How about this from a conservative think tank: "The Krebs cycle. You acquired this value because liberal, humanist teachers indoctrinated you with their evil science when you were young and impressionable."

Ok. THIS IS IT!

THE PLURAL OF VIRUS IS _NOT_ VIRI OR VIRII! Its viruses.
For to many years I have been pestered and laughed at on forums and IRC for calling it viruses.
But once and for all, one virus, several viruses. NOT virii.

Take a look here: http://dictionary.reference.com/help/faq/language/ v/virus.html
 
And to think that english isnt even my native language.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=robot

2. A machine or device that operates automatically or by remote control.

Tomahawks, AMRAAM, LGB, or good old sidewinder are all automatic robotic weapon since they all just automatically engage a target designated by their human master.

Also..."parsing" and "double parsing"? You're not a freakin' compiler or an interpreter, you're a human being.

Erm.. the computer-related word "parsing" derives from the word.. erm.. "parsing", which means:

To break (a sentence) down into its component parts of speech with an explanation of the form, function, and syntactical relationship of each part.

I think its use was fully justified, as was the "double parsing" analogy in my original post.

Also..."parsing" and "double parsing"? You're not a freakin' compiler or an interpreter, you're a human being.

Erm.. the computer-related word "parsing" derives from the word.. erm.. "parsing", which means:

To break (a sentence) down into its component parts of speech with an explanation of the form, function, and syntactical relationship of each part.

I think its use was fully justified, as was the "double parsing" analogy in my original post.

Well, you provided the flamebait, but I won't provide you the satisfaction. Learnt, verb, past tense. From: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=learnt v. learned, also learnt (lûrnt) learning, learns v. tr. 1. To gain knowledge, comprehension, or mastery of through experience or study. Also, I spell it "Ugh". 2. To fix in the mind or memory; memorize: learned the speech in a few hours. 3. 1. To acquire experience of or an ability or a skill in: learn tolerance; learned how to whistle. 2. To become aware: learned that it was best not to argue. 4. To become informed of; find out. See Synonyms at discover. 5. Nonstandard. To cause to acquire knowledge; teach. 6. Obsolete. To give information to.

I have personally met people not only with extremely poor communication and literacy skills, but fairly odious personal habits too, but they have proven to be incredibly wise and inciteful in spite of their personal flaws.

As long as they don't incite a riot with their incitefulness, I guess.

Phew, I'm glad there was no chance of me misreading you there. :-)

I hate to be a party pooper, but I have doubts about this whole article. I spent many years working in image analysis (not that long ago!) and the claims they make seem extreme to me. Granted, they give no technical details, so I can't give a proper opinion. One point that worries me, though, is the reference to "chromofours (or acne-causing bacteria)". To the best of my knowledge there is no such thing. Google returns no hits; Google scholar returns no hits; dictionary.com returns no hits. There is such a thing as a 'chromophore', but it's not just a typo because a chromophore is 'A chemical group capable of selective light absorption resulting in the coloration of certain organic compounds.' Not a type of bacterium. Anyone know what they could be referring to? I think the article's just company puffery.