Slashdot Mirror

Microsoft is going through the courts and the criminal justice system. In neither case is there vigilantism involved, just vigilance.

The usual state of affairs is for Mars to be in orbit around the Sun, and for the Earth to be in orbit around the Sun, and for the two of them to be close together every 26 months. An unusual occurence is for one of these planets to suddenly be moving outside of its normal path, which is what the original poster was commenting about.

In fact, this dictionary shows that the second definition of the word unusual includes "unexpected." There is nothing unexpected, strange, or unusual about two celestial bodies coming close to each other in their orbits, it happens many times every year.

"(God, I can't believe I have to spell it out for you)"

Of course you have to spell it out for me; I am a rational, thinking individual who was trying to understand what other people were saying and show them that it was not "unexpected" or "unusual" in any way for planets to orbit the Sun. Your limited understanding of how to use a dictionary (i.e., stopping as soon as you've found the meaning that you are referring to and not reading on or trying to see what other meanings the word has) just shows how shallow and unthinking your post was. If you had attempted to understand what the other person was saying, and looked beyond the first meaning in the dictionary, then perhaps you would have seen what the other person was talking about; instead, you chose to write inflammatory dialogue.

I've been using it exclusively for well over a year now. I keep a dual boot in case I ever need to do something in Windows, which is a rarity these days.

So which is it: do you use Linux exclusively or do you use Windows rarely? One or the other, please.

"Exclusively" != "generally" or "usually". Exclusively means "to the exclusion of all others", among other definitions.

Not flaming - just pointing out a common linguistic issue. People tend to show up on /. and proclaim "I use Linux exclusively!" and then add parenthetically "(except when I need Windows)".

There is really no short-term method governments can control "price gouging" outside of price caps (which is fixing an upper limit on price). Long-term the real issue is caused by the target industry's regulations which create artificial entry barriers.

People use the term "price gouging" anytime they percieve the price of a good is too high. This is a fallicy. The definition of price gouging is http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=price+gou ging pricing above the market when no alternative retailer is available. There are plenty of alternative wholesalers and retailers in the global and domestic oil and gas market. The only real reason for lack of alternative retailers would be when government regulation impedes market entry.

I would argue what people percieve as "price gouging" is actually beneficial to a majority of consumers. Lets take the gas situation in Louisana immediately after Katrina as an example. The demand for gas increased substantially due to evacuation and rebuilding efforts. In a free market, this would quickly drive the price of gas well above its production costs. Louisana has "price gouging" laws, so retailers were not able to price gas at market levels. The first few consumers bought all the "cheaper" gas they could carry away and everyone else got nothing. None of the retailers were interested to hang around in the bad conditions and try to acquire and sell more gas. They knew they wouldn't earn substantial profits doing so. They got out of town, to come back and sell gas when conditions were better and it was more easily available.

If those retailers had been able to price gas at market levels, the first few consumers would have purchased only the gas they needed and not all they could get away with. The next group of consumers would have been able to acquire some much needed gas also at more expensive prices, instead of getting none. When the gas in storage was gone, those retailers would have looked at their pile of cash and said, "My goodness I like this. I am going to stick around in the miserable conditions and do whatever it takes to get more gas in here to sell." Now the 3rd group of consumers that got no gas with "price gouging" laws would be able to purchase some newly delivered and even more expensive gas. I think most consumers that got no gas would have been willing to pay a lot more for a little bit of gas.

"These prices are high because of risk, not insufficient supply."
Risk is priced into the supply curve that shows how much producers are willing to supply at each price point. If risk increases, it pulls the supply curve in. Producers are willing to supply less at any price, moving the quantity demanded lower and price higher back into market equilibrium. It is inherent to the market economy and most feel it is much better than a government managed economy. Think of how much dispute and consternation is put into political process in this country; now imagine if the same thing happened with every economic production and sales decision.

"China, our enemy."
You might want to rethink this. We might not agree with China's political decisions right now, but the only reason the US is not taking a harder stance with China is they are our best friend and savior economically. They produce commodity goods for us much more efficiently than we can, allowing us to buy more than we otherwise could and keep our standard of living higher. They are the largest holder of our currency, keeping its value stable enough to remain the world standard currency. They also finance our obscene deficits both public and private, allowing us to keep our economy and the world economy out of recession.

I don't think there's much chance of getting in a TIFF, the article says they're using Diacom for the format. @.~

(bad puns aside, yes, i know the meaning of tiff you mean.)

as soon as he became Major Major Major Major he was austricised.

From Dictionary.com the abbreviation "Cmdr" is an appropriate military designation for "Commander." It is a military rank used in many navies but not generally in armies or air forces. It is below Captain and above Lieutenant-Commander. The rank evolved in the 18th and early 19th centuries and was originally known as Master and Commander. The Royal Navy shortened Master and Commander to Commander in 1814 while they were still fighting Napoleon and the US.

A commander in the Royal Navy and the United States Navy is equivalent in rank to a lieutenant-colonel in the army. A commander may command a frigate, destroyer, submarine, aviation squadron or shore installation, or may serve on a staff. A commander who commands a unit may be referred to as "Captain" as a courtesy title. A unit commander may also be informally referred to as "skipper."

I believe the RAF uses the title Commander as a rank, as they are styled on the Royal Navy. I think the usage has to do with what they do, as in "Wing Commander."

I believe the above answers your question.

For what it's worth, I can understand both points of view. In an MMORPG, a title that is part of one's handle can be confusing. I can see them not allowing titles, as well, like "DukeTerrible" or "KingLeer." These titles may be mistaken for actual rank earned in the game.

What bothers me is that there is no appeal. CmdrTaco is someone I can say I somewhat know. He is very active on the Internet and runs a little website that I occasionally post opinions on. Were I to run into him in an MMORPG, I might say, "Hello, and are you the same 'CmdrTaco' that has something to do with Shashdot?" Were he to reply in the affirmative, I would expect that me might receive more respect from me than he might from someone who doesn't spend the time to make /. such a good site. This means I might offer a "sorry," just as I slagged him with a death ray were I on an opposing team, or might mourn his loss more were I on the same team.

The justification of his keeping his title designation is that he is a public figure. But then if he got to keep his title, everyone would have to be allowed to do so as well, in direct violation of the rules everyone (didn't) read when they signed on.

But I think they ought to have let him down a little more easily. At least an e-mail saying what I would have after destroying his character were I on the "other" side.

In other words, "Sorry."

When we finally colonise Mars, I guess we know the right spot to practice husbandry.

Unlawful means that the TV station or distributor or somebody has to come sue you for infringing upon their copyright. No jail time. Illegal means that somethings is a crime - the copyright holder just has to notify the cops, they can pick you up and you might face jail time (although now is not the time to go into criminal sentencing procedure).

If I had written 'median,' you'd have a point. I didn't, so you don't.

If I had written 'median,' you'd have a point. I didn't, so you don't.

Ah, you're forced to be entertained. On someone else's terms, no less. What a diabolical scheme!

Here's some resources:

Desire
Necessity

Enjoy!

Ah, you're forced to be entertained. On someone else's terms, no less. What a diabolical scheme!

Here's some resources:

Desire
Necessity

Enjoy!

insistence of Stallman and the FSF on redefining existing words for their own purposes and then insisting that everyone else is misusing them

Gotta call bullshit here.

free

Seems like the first 6 definitions are in the Stallman sense, and only definition 7 is what you want to replace the first 6 with in order to pretend the problem is with those of us who speak correctly. If a word has an unobvious meaning, then using it in an unobvious way could be done in such a way that it is decietful. Using a word in its most likely and proper sense is hardly that.

And so can all the malware, spyware, crippleware, middleware, trojans, worms, viruses, and anyone with even a mild desire to make life difficult for people around them.

Registry + ActiveX + a functional shell (finally) + .NET == cataclysmic user-base catastrophe waiting to happen

I didn't intend the social side, just the physical dependance, but I don't see where the issue is.

Dictionary.com: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=parasite

A parasite is an organism that feeds on, and is sheltered on or in another organism while contributing nothing to the survival of its host.

The host doesn't necessarily have to die from hosting a parasite, and if they don't, the parasite can be considered successful

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Successful_parasite

There is no way in which an embryo or fetus is aiding the survival of the parent, and there are extra precautions a mother needs to make in order to support a growing unborn infant.

I still think my statement stands fine on its own, although I'd be interested in hearing what reading you suggest I look into to counter this. I don't pretend to be well versed in infantile parisitism.

gauche

So, basically you say Gmail needs to be pressed and rolled?

Man, if you hate Gmail just stop using it :P

"WHERE art thou, Crystal Storage?"

My favorite 419 e-mail was from the gentleman who had a "preposition" for me.

Alas, there was no reply when I sent him the definitions of "preposition" and "proposition" from dictionary.com.

My favorite 419 e-mail was from the gentleman who had a "preposition" for me.

Alas, there was no reply when I sent him the definitions of "preposition" and "proposition" from dictionary.com.

(once I learned to read, I was ahead of teh game from then on)

While in the sixth grade, my teacher failed a paper I wrote because she thought I made up the word "heirarchy."

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

You know, there's a word for a vehicle that doesn't have an engine, or a bed, and is smaller than a car.

It's called a wagon.

from dictionary.com 5. Archaic. A chariot, carriage, or cart. I think this qualifies, although maybe on a technicality. Surely if you put the worlds smallest motor on it, you'd have the worlds smallest motor car. I think that it's not as sensasionalist as you make out.

You may not be, but the original poster who said, "entertainment should be free" is saying that, and that is where this all comes from.

As far as productive goes, you can look the definition up for yourself.

I did. By that, I would say anyone in the entertainment business is productive.

But what I'm refering to as being unproductive is its value in the economy. To put it in very simple terms for you, it doesn't make anyones job easier.

That's what I was asking; what it means to you. If you mean in terms of economy, you must think that the music and movies, and games industries of billions of dollars each are totally unproductive to the economy. Weird. I would think all that money floating around and people with jobs, etc., would be healthy for the economy. Also, maybe you think that people are mindless automatons, but most of us after working all day like to have some form of entertainment to relax the brain, be it movies, TV, music, books, or even, for some, coding or math or time with family. It makes us able to keep going with life, psychologically. Sounds productive to me.

And as for the crap, why would you think I'm downloading it?

That was just a general rant to those who bring that up every time we talk about piracy. Specifically you were complaining about it. You said because you think it is worth less than the producers of it think. Let the market decide. I agree most of it is crap. But a lot of people disagree with you and I. $Insert_band_here didn't sell a million albums because everyone thought it was crap.

There is so much already out there that one person can't say they have seen it all. So, why do we need more?

There are also so many websites that could fall under the same category. The same with math books. The same with businesses that make software. Why do we need more? Because someone finds a need and fills it. Or thinks they can do better. Another poster to your comment said that there was a lot of good entertainmentin the 1200's and then asked why we didn't stop then. You replied that that wasn't what you were saying. Then what is that you are saying? Because we have decades of entertainment we should stop, but not because there are centuries of it? Are you saying that the stuff from the '50s isn't any different than the stuff now? Would you say Elvis and Linkin Park make the same stuff? What are you trying to say?

As far as the real job thing goes, if you don't get it by now, i don't know how to explain it to you any clearer, i'm sorry.

AFAICS, you haven't talked about what a real job is. You haven't made anything any clearer. Again, if we look at it from a pure economic standpoint, any job that creates money is a "real" job. Thus entertainment is just as "real" as the job that demands a suit and tie and 8-5 hours. Please explain what you think is a "real" job. I'm just curious to know.

the US is a republic.

That dosen't in any way exclude it from being a democracy

democracy
n. pl. democracies
1.Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives.
2.A political or social unit that has such a government.
3.The common people, considered as the primary source of political power.
4.Majority rule.
5.The principles of social equality and respect for the individual within a community.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=democracy

I'd say the USA fits into more than one of those catogories.

Were you thinking of Kansas, Michigan, Texas, or Wyoming?

Wrong standard.

That's like comparing being a karma whore to to posting in English. Yes there's some grey area with technology standards since we do choose among new ones but it's still not the same.

Dictionary.com FTW!

Introducing "impactful" -- the word.

It would make my day to see Piquepaille at an arraignment.

"Umm, it always was one from the very beginning, by design"

Technically while true by very old defintions, you miss that...ummm... (friendly jab back :)... words evolve in meaning and use. Without getting into post-Modernism and noting that this reality upsets Libetarians and some extremist Randroids-- "Democracy" (the word) for the rest of us has come to include indirect Democratic systems (like Republics) in normal usage. Don't take my word for it though.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=democracy &db=*

This is because there is a great deal of overlap in concepts and a 100% democracy (as political scientists generally seem to conceptualize it) has never really existed--even ancient Athens had slaves.

The U.S was founded on ideals borrowed from the French revolution that directly adopted principles from ancient Greece and Rome. After the frustration of dealing with a bunch of power hungry babbling elitests (not really elite--just power hungry) they overthrew their control in favour of everyday citizens having a say. The logistics of Democracy made it difficult to institute a true democracy on structures larger than a city state -- so they decided to go with a Republic.

However over the last two hundred years more and more people have a say in how the nation is ruled (blacks, women, the poor etc...). This by definition is what the spirit of democracy is all about. Individual participation-- not paternalistic institutions or individuals that make all the decisions. Our dominance of this planet is build on co-operation built on individual decision making. We are not ants reporting to some queen. We are composed of similar grey mattter and most of us seem to recognize the natural efficiency of using everyone's brain to build a better world.

Institutionalized elitism has been around since before the Pharoahs. Although now the norm--allowing all of your citizens to participate in governence is relatively rare historically. This is what Democracy seems to represent. The countries that have stronger democratic principles historically usually seem to dominate intellectually relative to their peers (not necesarily militarily-- as most intellects that actually improve this world don't waste too many thought cycles on this over emphasized barbaric subject). It follows that the US being the biggest in this respect (unlike India with a caste system) would be dominant intellectually the past few centuries.

Sanger and Wales dispute over Wikipedia shows why democracy is clearly a superior system than centralized systems. If Sanger had his way-- Wikipeidia would have been some obscure dead link. The true elite can and do create something from nothing--and don't require acclaim or support from society beyond equal footing as a starting point. Even then, if Bell had not existed, the phone WOULD have been invented. Everyone is replaceable-- even the elite.

What we often associate with the alleged (keyword) elite though-- is generations of inbred money and power that although they seem to contribute a great deal--in reality are basically economic parasites that waste resources inefficiently building a variety of effigies amusing themselves. While this is not necessarily a terrible thing for the average individual--the powerful have a disproportionate allocation of resources at their disposal--- and therefore are held to a higher bar of personal responsibility (for which they are more than fairly compensated)

You can argue the morality/politics of such things from here to eternity but this is a natural rule of human behavior demonstrated countless times throughout history. While it is in vogue in the moment that "greed is good"--have no doubts if it went too far there would be a cleanup of the gene pool. This is why in the

If this ever happens, the most expensive component of travel around the solar system would be for life support -- and inflight movies.

While we're at it, back in Forbidden Planet (1956), didn't they already talk about civilisations wiped out by "the monster from the id"? Also 50 years ahead of their time, truly +5 Foresightful, was that id as in RF-ID, by any chance?

"Eye On MOGS is a search-engine come comparison/availability tool..."

Not to try to take away from your one liner impling that it is already too late and those referenced are already here but...
There is more to welcome then an initial greeting unlike the limited use "as seen on slashdot". Just as you may no longer be welcome in your parents basement.

I mean I don't see any laws requiring any client of Sotheby's to obtain any "auctioneer license" before they can put up something for auction...

"Malicious code comes in two flavours - code that is outright malicious, and code that is completely benign in browsers that conform to the W3C specifications, but is interpreted wrongly by some browsers to generate a malicious effect."

A bit of nitpicking -- malicious specifically refers to evil intent. If you say that some browsers generate a malicious effect, you are saying that the effect has mental states and that its mental state is desirous of harm.

Diciontary.com says about malicious:
Having the nature of or resulting from malice; deliberately harmful; spiteful

Maybe pick another work other than malicious for your outright/wrong interpretation bad code system.

Definition of the word Popular

Widely liked or appreciated: a popular resort.

So, effectively, you're incorrect.

I agree with what you're saying, but having programmed since the late 70's I find it ironic that you're comparing the word "software" to "solution".

I don't remember people calling the stuff we made and used in the 70's to early 80's "software". We called them programs or routines. We didn't "use software", we "ran programs".

Check Dictionary.com's definition of software:

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

It makes me wonder who coined the word "software" in the first place? A google search turns up an article from 2000 stating that a Princeton professor Tukey did:

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/TECH/computing/07/28/ pioneer.death.ap/

Either word just makes it easier to describe what you're talking about to whoever you're talking. It could be two programmers or two executives, but whatever works...

Wow, I used to love playing "ladders" as a kid.

ajax (start)
ajar
alar
alan
plan
pean
peat
pent
rent
rest (end)

9 steps isn't elegant, but works.

Wow, I used to love playing "ladders" as a kid.

ajax (start)
ajar
alar
alan
plan
pean
peat
pent
rent
rest (end)

9 steps isn't elegant, but works.

Wow, I used to love playing "ladders" as a kid.

ajax (start)
ajar
alar
alan
plan
pean
peat
pent
rent
rest (end)

9 steps isn't elegant, but works.

Wow, I used to love playing "ladders" as a kid.

ajax (start)
ajar
alar
alan
plan
pean
peat
pent
rent
rest (end)

9 steps isn't elegant, but works.

Wow, I used to love playing "ladders" as a kid.

ajax (start)
ajar
alar
alan
plan
pean
peat
pent
rent
rest (end)

9 steps isn't elegant, but works.

Wow, I used to love playing "ladders" as a kid.

ajax (start)
ajar
alar
alan
plan
pean
peat
pent
rent
rest (end)

9 steps isn't elegant, but works.

Wow, I used to love playing "ladders" as a kid.

ajax (start)
ajar
alar
alan
plan
pean
peat
pent
rent
rest (end)

9 steps isn't elegant, but works.

Wow, I used to love playing "ladders" as a kid.

ajax (start)
ajar
alar
alan
plan
pean
peat
pent
rent
rest (end)

9 steps isn't elegant, but works.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=incon ceivable

in-no-va-tion
n.
 
  1. The act of introducing something new.
  2. Something newly introduced.