Slashdot Mirror

I think you're looking for 'exacerbate'.

Exuberate - To be exuberant (Full of unrestrained enthusiasm or joy).
Exacerbate - To increase the severity, violence, or bitterness of; aggravate.

Also, meddling is spelled with two 'd's.

exuberates

Here is what I found so far...

http://www.catb.org/~esr/halloween/
http://archive.corporatewatch.org/profiles/microso ft/microsoft.pdf
http://www.proudlyserving.com/archives/2005/03/dis liking_micro.html
http://www.salon.com/tech/special/microsoft/
http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Microsoft
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft#1995.E2.80. 9399:_foray_into_the_Internet_and_other_venues
http://uk-linux.news-view.co.uk/topic-6268.html

Unfortunately, I didn't find a comprehensive timeline of Microsoft's misdeeds.

...and who exactly would it be deciding what is absolute WRONG and absolute RIGHT ? would that be you or me? and who exactly will be enforcing good behaviour?

moral relativism is the only logical choice unless you feel comfortable enforcing your moral code on the rest of the world. ( oh and if you do feel comfortable enforcing your moral code on everyone else... go look up hubris in the dictionary!)

• A small object, usually built to scale, that represents in detail another, often larger object.

*1900s British Womans Accent*
Eaves dropping. To drop from ones eaves and hear what one will will hear, unless hearing is shundered by that blasted babble device.

Babble, one shall hear not a thing!

*1900s British Womans Accent*
Eaves dropping. To drop from ones eaves and hear what one will will hear, unless hearing is shundered by that blasted babble device.

Babble, one shall hear not a thing!

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

There's no dictionary entry for "pergatory".

Please remember to learn the English language before being an asshole. Especially when the usage you are taking issue with is so fucking common in addition to being correct.

It also has 2.

Thanks.

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

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

"Enroll" -> two -> most common spelling. One 'l' is also okay, but, not around where I sit.

Nope. It seems to me.

...in the sense that gravity and electricity "are just theories"; you wanna walk off a tall building or stick your tongue in a live outlet and argue about those theories too?

OK, in seriousness - "just a theory" is one of those cunning linguistic tricks the fundies use to attempt to obfuscate matters. Here's a great detailed definition of the word theory as used by scientists. I'll wait while you absorb it. Check out the equally important but longer article on the scientific method, too, but it takes a while to wade through so you may want to skip it for now.

~~~

Done? Good. See? Theories predict things, explain factual observations, can be repeatedly and reliably verified, and select for good info over bad or flawed info. You could say they evolve into better and more robust explanations for reality over time, and thus allow us to do neat things our less-advanced ancestors were incapable of, like going to the moon, having an average lifespan over 30 years, and using cheap & powerful computers with fast internet connections so we can argue online while downloading loads of free porn to masturbate to.

Got a better or alternate theory? Share it with the world! We'd love to see it. If it sucks, people

...in the sense that gravity and electricity "are just theories"; you wanna walk off a tall building or stick your tongue in a live outlet and argue about those theories too?

OK, in seriousness - "just a theory" is one of those cunning linguistic tricks the fundies use to attempt to obfuscate matters. Here's a great detailed definition of the word theory as used by scientists. I'll wait while you absorb it. Check out the equally important but longer article on the scientific method, too, but it takes a while to wade through so you may want to skip it for now.

~~~

Done? Good. See? Theories predict things, explain factual observations, can be repeatedly and reliably verified, and select for good info over bad or flawed info. You could say they evolve into better and more robust explanations for reality over time, and thus allow us to do neat things our less-advanced ancestors were incapable of, like going to the moon, having an average lifespan over 30 years, and using cheap & powerful computers with fast internet connections so we can argue online while downloading loads of free porn to masturbate to.

Got a better or alternate theory? Share it with the world! We'd love to see it. If it sucks, people

I don't have a dictionary handy

• http://www.tfd.com/leverage
• http://www.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary? sourceid=Mozilla-search&va=leverage
• http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=leverage

Obviously a satirical article. Much akin to the satire contained in A Modern Proposal by Jonathan Swift (1729).

Y hallo thar! You seem to have confused amoral and immoral! Please to allow me to help you with that sirs! Distinction very important of!

Y hallo thar! You seem to have confused amoral and immoral! Please to allow me to help you with that sirs! Distinction very important of!

The AC is right.

After reading your other posts and then your sig, here's another word for you to look up:

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

How is being an "Evangelist" actually "Help[ing] Others"? You are trying to impose your ignorance.

'But the trains are really too noisy (underground) to have an intelligent conversation.'

Uhh.... what makes him think that most of the people talking on cell phones are having an intelligent conversation?

The submitter obviously meant an intelligible conversation. Or that is what he would have meant had he been more intelligent.

'But the trains are really too noisy (underground) to have an intelligent conversation.'

Uhh.... what makes him think that most of the people talking on cell phones are having an intelligent conversation?

The submitter obviously meant an intelligible conversation. Or that is what he would have meant had he been more intelligent.

Your. Spelling. Sucks. ;)

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=your
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=you're

You should at least master the basics before going on to higher education.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=your
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=you're

You should at least master the basics before going on to higher education.

There's a couple...

Here

(I recently had this discussion with a female coworker, was an interesting conversation)

Internet Explorer monopoly?

Market Share of IE in July 2005

Definition of "monopoly"

How does 87.2% of the market constitue an exclusive control?

A real geek knows the difference between id est and exempli gratia.

tenderloin (tndr-loin)
n.

      1. The tenderest part of a loin of beef, pork, or similar cut of meat.
      2. A city district notorious for vice and graft.

[Sense 2, after the Tenderloin, an area of New York City (from the easy income it once afforded corrupt policemen).]

• Term does not derive from San Francisco
• Term is not specific to any one city
• Next time, try looking it up

Science is free inquiry, and all of its results are tenative, thats why falsifiability is part of any scientific theory.

Science is not a free market, because the criteria are not supply and demand, but agreement with experiments ... Opinions are not falsifiabile!

The "free market of ideas" is only an analolgy - ideas (supply) compete for a limited number of minds (demand) - just don't make it more than a metaphore. And while opinions are not falsifiabile, scientific theories are - if they aren't, then experimentation is pointless, and it isn't science.

Can you imagine Microsoft saying...

Yes, that's called "going out of business". :)

communism is actually a way to liberate man from [uninteresting] labor

But which way? You've given technology and culture as possible routes, these seem quite distinct:

The technological path would happen naturally, and no change in ideology would be necessary. People could still be quite selfish, and could still privately own their nanoreplicators and AI servants (means of production). Since collective ownership is not required in this type of labor-free society (people would almost never be required to interact) I can't even call it communism. I'd love to live here, though.

The path of altering human nature is quite different, and even if it is possible, I just don't see the point. If tech will get us there no matter what, why the community ownership? This seems to be an independent goal that's unrelated to getting rid of work.

As for Soviet success/failure, I won't comment. China, though, is doing much better now that they've allowed some private ownership. And I really do believe that free markets will get us to the posthuman stage faster than any artificial system.

I hope you're being sarcastic, because chemical elements are chemicals, by definition! Even better, chlorine is an element, and by your thinking, not a chemical weapon. You might as well say nukes aren't WMDs because when one goes off, large parts of the planet are untouched.

Even meriam webster defines chemical weapons as a mixture.

Nope! Please try again.

He's not a "terrorist". His actions were apparently not politically motivated.

B (terrorists) is a superset of A (terrorists with political motives>, so for every x in A, x in B is implied; I believe we agree on that. What you just said is that x is not a member of A, therefore he isn't a member of B too, which logically is flawed.

What do you call someone who threats to bomb a building unless they are offered a large amount of money? Do they have to actually bomb the building to earn the title "terrorist"?

a Very high up Sony technicrat "retire" early, as in Seppuku ?

1)Unless you're a soulist, the mind is a product &reflection of the physical.

Technically speaking, you mean vitalist.

This is the materialism vs. vitalism debate.

Vitalism: (philosophy) a doctrine that life is a vital principle distinct from physics and chemistry. (life is the non-material 'spark' that animates the physical. -me)

Materialism: Philosophy. The theory that physical matter is the only reality and that everything, including thought, feeling, mind, and will, can be explained in terms of matter and physical phenomena.

Both are philosophies. IMHO, there is more 'scientific' evidence supportive of vitalism than there is supportive of materialism, but I guess that just depends on what you'd rather believe...

See Ingo Swann's _Psychic Sexuality_ (a self-published book, search for the author's website) for more on this topic.

1)Unless you're a soulist, the mind is a product &reflection of the physical.

Technically speaking, you mean vitalist.

This is the materialism vs. vitalism debate.

Vitalism: (philosophy) a doctrine that life is a vital principle distinct from physics and chemistry. (life is the non-material 'spark' that animates the physical. -me)

Materialism: Philosophy. The theory that physical matter is the only reality and that everything, including thought, feeling, mind, and will, can be explained in terms of matter and physical phenomena.

Both are philosophies. IMHO, there is more 'scientific' evidence supportive of vitalism than there is supportive of materialism, but I guess that just depends on what you'd rather believe...

See Ingo Swann's _Psychic Sexuality_ (a self-published book, search for the author's website) for more on this topic.

ethics (from dictionary.com) # A set of principles of right conduct. # A theory or a system of moral values

ethic (from Marriam- Webster) 1 plural but singular or plural in construction : the discipline dealing with what is good and bad and with moral duty and obligation 2 a : a set of moral principles or values b : a theory or system of moral values c plural but singular or plural in construction : the principles of conduct governing an individual or a group d : a guiding philosophy

Ethics at least concerns itself with defining right or wrong, so I'm not sure what you're saying.

I have a problem with this, because it was what crazy people say (I don't care if 90% of the population says I'm insane, I am sane). You yourself said you have to draw a line, that line should be in line with the 90%. Or are you the one supporting tryanny, saying that 10% should enforce their will on everyone?

Kant says there are absolutes in ethics -- that there are certain things which are not done. So do Jesus, Buddha, and many others who might be considered wise.

I am not at all saying the 10% should enforce their will -- that would itself be a wrong. However, it does not make them wrong or insane to believe in the right thing.

Pathological insanity is a measurable disease in that it prevents someone from functioning due to an imbalance in brain chemistry. Disagreeing with 90% of the world does not make you pathologically insane, but having bad brain chemistry does

Legal insanity is a different issue (IAAL), and is a societally constructed idea. It may or may not relate to chemistry.

"Chomp at the bit" is wrong though, just like "for all intensive purposes" and "deep-seeded". http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=champ %20at%20the%20bit

private control of resources ... necessitates state force

And this is where a natural rights supporter would disagree - you are believe that legal and moral claims to property are the same, while they believe that the moral claim comes first, then the legal one comes along afterward, as a way of protecting that moral right. Their belief is similar for the right to live - you always have a moral right to live (even with no government to protect it), while laws against murder are just a legal recognition of that pre-existing moral right.

Natural rights supporters would say that even when legal rights are lost the moral and ethical rights still exist. Your "Native American's kicked off their land" example makes that point quite well. They had no legal right to the land (at least under US law), but we still believe that action to be unethical, because they had a moral right to it.

It contrasts with socialism, an economic system based on the exchange of labor.

That's the strangest definition of socialism I've ever seen, could you elaborate? On the other hand, if you're talking about the labor theory of value, that was the prevailing theory (even among capitalists) during Marx's time, but it's been well-refuted for quite a while.

As for your ideas, in the words of every long-lived thrill-seeker, "you go first". Form a commune or town, run it on those ideas, and we'll see what happens. No matter how it turns out, we'll then have empirical evidence rather than conjecture, which would make this more of a scientific, as opposed to philosophic, discussion.

What do you bet that spyware/rootkits on music CDs disappear for the next few years?

Uh, a pyrrhic victory is one in which the winner suffers tremendous losses. It certainly does not only apply to human casualties. The prediction is that Sony will win the format war but the economic cost to do so will be great.

Maybe they meant pyric victory, in that Blu-ray DVD burners will be cheaper than HD-DVD burners ;)

Actually I have good word that OSTG just received a large check for U.N. slashvertisements.

The article at the same time tomorrow will be about Cotecna.

But to truely break down the numbers, we'll have to know how large the trees being discussed are supposed to be. When chopped down, the wood from those trees would be measured as a cord which conveniently is 128 cubic feet of wood, so a MegaT, multiplied by tree size and divided by 128 will determine its MegaCords of equivalent burning power. For tree size, ask Sun what standard they were using in their million tree hyperbole... er, calculations.

Courtesy of Dictionary.com:
(emphasis mine)

libel Audio pronunciation of "libel" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (lbl)
n.

      1.
                  1. A false publication, as in writing, print, signs, or pictures, that damages a person's reputation.
                  2. The act of presenting such material to the public.
      2. The written claims presented by a plaintiff in an action at admiralty law or to an ecclesiastical court.


One key point that they need to be able to prove in order to win a libel suit, is that the statement(s) have to be FALSE. Its absolutely not libelous if the statements are true. Unmodified pictures seem to show these kinds of cases very well, although we hope the court has enough sense to do the right thing.

Are you familiar with the concept of a joke? Thank you for injecting your logic all the same.

Neutrophils, a form of white blood cells, play a key role in anthrax infections.

And here I was thinking a neutrophil was someone who was sexually aroused by the science of food.

"I hate it when people replace the word "morals" with "ethics", thinking that they're both synonymous. Learn the difference."

Hmm...ok I'm no english major but

ethics: 1. A set of principles of right conduct. 2. The study of the general nature of morals and of the specific moral choices to be made by a person; moral philosophy

morals: 1. Of or concerned with the judgment of the goodness or badness of human action and character. 2. Teaching or exhibiting goodness or correctness of character and behavior

So for us stupid people in the audience could you perhaps enlighten us as to what distinction you're making, because to me both morals and ethics seem to be equally acceptable in this context.

"I hate it when people replace the word "morals" with "ethics", thinking that they're both synonymous. Learn the difference."

Hmm...ok I'm no english major but

ethics: 1. A set of principles of right conduct. 2. The study of the general nature of morals and of the specific moral choices to be made by a person; moral philosophy

morals: 1. Of or concerned with the judgment of the goodness or badness of human action and character. 2. Teaching or exhibiting goodness or correctness of character and behavior

So for us stupid people in the audience could you perhaps enlighten us as to what distinction you're making, because to me both morals and ethics seem to be equally acceptable in this context.

Either that or your just too dim to understand what the parent was talking about. That would also explain how someone who claims to be in favor of strict, precise meanings of words would refer to himself as a "Nazi".

I looked at the dictionary and it mentions state ownership. So does wikepedia which also indicates, I will grant, that "socialism" seems to encompass quite a few ideas on the spectrum as far as who owns the capital and who controls it (but there appears to be a common theme of central planning).

Like I said, much of the confusion probably comes from the fact that people are using words that mean different things to different people. I fault the use of such words without explanation as much as I fault people who don't take the time to try and understand what is meant. After all, a point of language is that you can assume that the person speaking to you has an idea of how you will interpret their words; otherwise language is not very effective.

I guess my stance would be, then, that I can see how aspects of open-source software are socialist, but I don't think there are enough which makes it really fit any of the definitions of which I am aware.

No. He's not an idiot. The definition of eugenics is: The study of hereditary improvement of the human race by controlled selective breeding.