Slashdot Mirror

Um, no?

Also known as protectionism rather than capitalism. Then again, thats not particularly new.

Also known as protectionism rather than capitalism. Then again, thats not particularly new.

If you can't get a definition of a compound word in an online dictionary through its search tool, then over 90 percent of the time, the compound is the sum of its parts in meaning. In that case, look up the components separately: non- spontaneous

If you can't get a definition of a compound word in an online dictionary through its search tool, then over 90 percent of the time, the compound is the sum of its parts in meaning. In that case, look up the components separately: non- spontaneous

nonspontaneous?

Guess what leads to a greater propensity towards violence? Poverty, injustice and indifference. All I'm saying is that there are far more causes of violence, and keeping 'violent' games out of the hands of children is pretty low on the list.

Violent experiences are real. Violent images on a TV screen generated by the latest from Carmack is fake. I think most 10 year olds can tell the difference (even with the improvements in graphics).

The pro-gaming expert has nothing to do with my opinion. I was stating what the problem was as I saw it, not as he saw it.

You may not have said it explicitly, but you did so implicitly. By saying that the blame should be put on parents for buying those games, you are implicitly saying that buying those games for kids is wrong. That is to say, you agree that violent games cause violent tendencies. Unless you have something against Valve, I can't see why else you would think so.

Let's see. Smoking causes lung cancer. Exhaled pollutants from smokers includes part of those carcinogens. Anyone near a smoker could be taking that in those pollutants. What am I missing?

I don't see how parents buying their kids kegs on the weekends are doing anything wrong. If they believe that their kids can handle it and are old enough, why not? We're all not the same. People don't grow alcohol-resistant organs from 17yrs 364days to 18yrs 0days. It's a rule of thumb that's been extended too far. The good thing about parents who buy kegs for their kids is that they can control the intake. Better in their house than somewhere outside with no one who can assume responsibility.

I read the comments just fine thank you. Just because I disagree does not make me a karma-whoring slashbot. The word you're looking for is dissenter.

I can understand if you don't feel the tug of patriotism quite like I do, but don't denegrate [sic] my education at the same time.

Yeah, you're right... Smitten, in the sense of being "awe-struck" or "marked by foolish or unreasoning fondness." Thus, the grandparent poster to whom you are referring was saying the exact opposite of what he meant. How ... well, I don't know if that qualifies as irony, but it's damned funny. :-)

To the person who moderated this as insightful:
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=insightfu l

Explain to me how the parent showed insight or was perceptive in pointing out that he still has the game. Please. I'm dying to know.

But if he does explain it to you, his moderations on this thread will be undone, including the insightfull mod that you seem to find so offensive. In other words...

IT'S A TRAP !!!

To the person who moderated this as insightful:
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=insightfu l

Explain to me how the parent showed insight or was perceptive in pointing out that he still has the game. Please. I'm dying to know.

The simple fact that [cockroaches] are eukaryotic

wtf is eukaryotic?:

A single-celled or multicellular organism whose cells contain a distinct membrane-bound nucleus
[eu- + Greek karutos, having nuts ...]

Ok, now I know why they are called cockroaches. But I still don't know what that has to do with microbes on Mars.

"Murder" by definition is killing of any creature that one does not have the right to kill.

The dictionary definition of murder is "an unlawful killing". If you say that "wrongful" is equivalent to "unlawful", you are asserting an imprudent belief in the infallability of governmental lawmakers.

Or, even if you don't believe that all laws are automatically moral, you're still making a circular argument: "Immoral things are wrong. Murder means 'wrongful killing'. Therefore murder is immoral".

That's an infinite loop- you first defined morality in terms of murder, and then murder in terms of morality. Such reasoning can tell us nothing about how to distinguish a murder from an acceptable killing. The best you can do is fall back on an innate feeling of squeemishness at the thought of harming a fetus.

How do you spell warranty again?

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

Something, such as a practice or a product, that is widely recognized or employed, especially because of its excellence.

# a basis for comparison; a reference point against which other things can be evaluated; "they set the measure for all subsequent work"
# criterion: the ideal in terms of which something can be judged; "they live by the standards of their community"
# conforming to or constituting a standard of measurement or value; or of the usual or regularized or accepted kind; "windows of standard width"; "standard sizes"; "the standard fixtures"; "standard brands"; "standard operating procedure"
# a board measure = 1980 board feet
# the value behind the money in a monetary system
# established or widely recognized as a model of authority or excellence; "a standard reference work"

I'm pretty sure that it would be possible to convince a judge that a sequence was random to a degree of certainty that it would be admissible as evidence. Unless I missed it, we haven't fingerprinted and validated the uniqueness of individual fingerprints of the entire human race. Fingerprints are - at least on occasion - admitted as evidence.

No, of course there would be no realistic way to prove the data were completely random, but I don't think many people except you misunderstood the intent of my comment. And for those who still have a woody over 'verifying' randomness, note the use of the word novel in the original post. F-i-c-t-i-o-n, dude. It was a story.

Get over yourself.

I see you're assuming that hackers break into computers, and the difference I'm talking about is the intent.

Wrong.

Wrong.

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Diction ary&va=hacker&x=9&y=13
One entry found for hacker.
Main Entry: hacker
Pronunciation: 'ha-k&r
Function: noun
1 : one that hacks
2 : a person who is inexperienced or unskilled at a particular activity
3 : an expert at programming and solving problems with a computer
4 : a person who illegally gains access to and sometimes tampers with information in a computer system

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=hacker
hacker1 Audio pronunciation of "hacker" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (hkr)
n. Informal

1. One who is proficient at using or programming a computer; a computer buff.
2. One who uses programming skills to gain illegal access to a computer network or file.
3. One who enthusiastically pursues a game or sport: a weekend tennis hacker.

Unfortunately, you don't get to dictate the definition of words any more than I do. I can say "sky" means "woven," but if the rest of the population disagrees, it's a moot point.

The definitions of yesterday are irrelevant. You're free to be a stick in the mud, of course, but you're simply holding on to nostalgia.

In other news, "printers," and "computers," used to be job titles, "program," used to be a public announcement (then television broadcast was added in the 20s, then computer program was added in the 40s), a "monitor," was originally a student in a supervisory position. I could go on, but if you don't get the point by now, you never will.

Please, don't spread this confusion. Tabloid press and Microsoft FUD misuse this word enough.

Please don't buy into the anecdote your freshman CS teacher told the class one day.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=mythconce ption

(not nearly as cool as "ginormous"...)

1) A chimera -- and most mothers have been shown to carry small amounts of genetic material from their children -- is a single organism. It is genetically human. It is also genetically distinct. Therefore, it counts as one person.

2) Even if true, it would not matter that most people would consider something crazy. As it turns out, however, most people do *not* consider it crazy. For example, the official doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church is that a fertilized egg is in fact a person. Though not Catholic, I agree with them on that limited point. It is measurable, scientifically based, and unbiased with respect to the wishes of others.

Can you give a good reason not to accept that definition?

3) Vested interests aren't sinister and shadowy at all. They are simply interests that are non-negotiable and therefore distort the question at hand. They are interests which create bias in an ethical decision.

In this instance, a mother might decide that her baby is "not a person" not because she has a well-thought-through understanding of what it means to be a person, but because she has an absolute understanding of her "right to choose." An abortion provider might decide that fetuses are not people, not because of some objective measure of personhood, but because it is in his financial interest to so decide.

In other words, I'm appealing for a definition of person that is not subject to observer bias.

yes, and while they extend copyright, they certainly don't make it last in perpetuity

well i was told it was an insult (to him) to spell it that way

I see. So you're not so much ignorant, as just immature. Gotcha.

your religious talk shows your true colors.

My religious talk? I didn't say anything other than point out the hypocrisy of your president claiming to be a follower of Jesus Christ, and simultaneously being a war monger, proponent of capital punishment, and avid sport hunter. I am not of any particular religion. If I had to choose one, it would probably be Buddhism or some form of it. I don't have a religious agenda. I'm not offended by Christians. I am however offended by people taking advantage of Christians. Which true colours did I show?

Who says it isn't in the US's best interest?

Lots of people. Your economy is a mess. The terrorism that is being conducted by the U.S. government is much worse than the terrorism that occurred on 9/11. It occurs daily in the form of threat levels, and press releases. But also that many more civilians have been killed by the U.S. in Iraq than were killed in the twin towers. The U.S. is a country that watched 9/11 on TV. Iraq is a country where everyone knows someone killed by the Americans. 9/11 was over after a few hours. The Iraq conflict will drag on and on for decades. Now you've got Al Queda to deal with still, as well as a whole lot of pissed off Iraqis who watched their country get destroyed by a country patting itself on the back for liberating them. You invade the country, and refer to the people of Iraq as insurgents. It's lunacy. What are you going to do about it when they elect leaders that hate you anyway?

Didn't you pay attention when the "proof" was being presented

It's on record, and most of it is complete bullshit. That's why there was almost no support for the invasion, and no WMD have been found, or any evidence that they had anything like it since 1991.

Of course something has to happen if we want another country to behave differently then they are. let me know i'm interested on how to do it without looking like a bully.

Sovereign nations are not subject to the will of U.S. elected representatives. They have their own laws, and act according to them. The governments of those countries are accountable to its citizens, because they are the ones who give it legitimacy. The U.S. must deal with reality, not ideals or what it believes to be ideal. The answer to your question is that you don't get involved in the politics of other nations. It's none of your business until someone declares war on you, or asks for your help or whatever.

well last i checked isreal isn't the largest recipient of foreign aid

Well check again, because they are and have been for a long time. It's very hard to check from official White House documents though, because the U.S. government only lists foreign aid to "The Middle East" as about 60% of the total, and don't mention that well over half of that goes to Israel. And no, last years "contribution" to Iraq doesn't count. If you break it, you bought it. You owe those people, that's not aid it's reparations.

you will see that we are in support of a renewed palistine state. This is a little different then 20 years ago

Well that's mighty big of you to finally come around considering the Palestinians were there first, and Israel continues to add settlements in Palestinian territory.

I'll give you a hint. There was a cold war going on ... complying with US laws

It's a typo. The correct spelling is "ouroboros" (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=ouroboro s).

Set... in... moratoriums?

FYI - the letter "H" is spelled aitch... Just in case you ever need to spell out pee-aitch-dee again :-)

And of course, all of that has been proven before committees and/or courts of law, right?

Wait, no? The petition is a demand that those allegations (figured I'd help you with the big words) be investigated? Huh. Innocent until proven guilty is only for Democrats, I guess.

Go witch-hunting somewhere else.

I think it's a coincidence. We keep hearing about global warming tied to our activity. I could just see everyone on the planet agreeing to some preposterous rules to remove any of our interference and the warming would continue.

Much like watering your flowers in the rain. Turning off the human interference (the hose) doesn't stop what nature is already doing.

The human reaction|solution to control this is stupid - we do it in every situation: credits. Companies can then buy|sell|trade those credits. The big boys obtain the credits from the factories who aren't going to use all of theirs and the large(r|st) factories make few, if any changes and are still in compliance with the letter of the law (but obviously not the intent). On top of that, the little companies get a little extra income.
What would happen if they distributed penalty points for licensed drivers in the same way? You'd have plenty of people paying people to assume a couple of their points to avoid losing their license. Drunk drivers would never lose their licenses as long as they had people who would be bought off.

Isn't that how it always seems to be? It is in a plutocracy ...

1) The Golden Rule: He who has the gold, makes the rules.
2) Life is like a sh%t sandwich: the more bread you have, the less sh%t you have to eat.

Well, why on earth would we count servers that have been thrown out a window? :) I doubt they're much good after that.

(http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=defene st rate)

I think you need to realise that the grandparent was using hyperbole.

OT to be sure, but...

I think your definitions might be a little crossed:defense.

I believe the word you were looking for was imperialist.

As for the filibuster, the filibuster is necessary to prevent the tyranny of the majority.

Read the damn federalist papers sometime. Much like book to movie translation, a lot of intent on the founding of our nation was lost in the translation from federalist papers to the Constitution. Or perhaps it was the fact that HTML wasn't popular yet, so the nation was unable to hyperlink them where appropriate.

OT to be sure, but...

I think your definitions might be a little crossed:defense.

I believe the word you were looking for was imperialist.

As for the filibuster, the filibuster is necessary to prevent the tyranny of the majority.

Read the damn federalist papers sometime. Much like book to movie translation, a lot of intent on the founding of our nation was lost in the translation from federalist papers to the Constitution. Or perhaps it was the fact that HTML wasn't popular yet, so the nation was unable to hyperlink them where appropriate.

I think there's a subtle difference, to do with who actually has the power to give power. From dictionary.com:

A democracy is "the common people, considered as the primary source of political power", or your basic one-man-one-vote system.

For example, in .uk, if someone wins the most votes in their constituency at an election, they represent that constituency in the next government (of course, as Churchill said, the best argument against democracy is a five-minute coversation with the average voter).

A republic, OTOH, is "a political order in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who are entitled to vote for officers and representatives responsible to them".

Not being from .us I'm not entirely sure, but isn't it technically the electoral college who return representatives? If so, surely that qualifies as a "body of citizens"?

Now, I don't know if electoral college votes have ever been cast against the popular vote (or even if they can be), so I guess you've really got a demublic or a repocracy or something :-)

I think there's a subtle difference, to do with who actually has the power to give power. From dictionary.com:

A democracy is "the common people, considered as the primary source of political power", or your basic one-man-one-vote system.

For example, in .uk, if someone wins the most votes in their constituency at an election, they represent that constituency in the next government (of course, as Churchill said, the best argument against democracy is a five-minute coversation with the average voter).

A republic, OTOH, is "a political order in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who are entitled to vote for officers and representatives responsible to them".

Not being from .us I'm not entirely sure, but isn't it technically the electoral college who return representatives? If so, surely that qualifies as a "body of citizens"?

Now, I don't know if electoral college votes have ever been cast against the popular vote (or even if they can be), so I guess you've really got a demublic or a repocracy or something :-)

The percentage of young binge drinkers is a lot higher than percentage of old binge drinkers

If you're binge drinking then by definition you're going to be over the limit whatever its set at. http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=binge+dri nking

Of course more young people do this because young people go out and socialise more in pubs and clubs. It doesn't necessarily mean that they are more likely to drink drive and it doesn't mean that they need different drink driving rules to older people.

Actually there is - tolerance build-up over time
This is only in people who drink regularly, and it fades if you stop drinking. It doesn't mean that older people will necessarily have a higher tolerance - a good proportion of the population will have lower tolerance than most young people simply because they rarely drink.

If you drink, you don't drive - simple.

That's no simpler than the 0.05 system. Asking yourself 'if I had a beer an hour ago when will I be at zero again?' is the same as 'if I had a beer an hour ago how near to 0.05 am I'. Its all just numbers - amount of alcohol consumed minus time passed. It doesn't make it anymore certain trying to estimate when you'll be at zero than when you'll be at 0.05. At least with 0.05 the responsible person (which by all accounts is still the vast majority of people old and young) has a reasonable buffer to protect themselves.

I'm pretty sure you'll find the legal definition of "zero" is 0.02

Then I hope to god you're not a lawyer! I'll say it again - the NSW govt. reduced the limit for p-platers from 0.02 to 0.00. 0.00 is no more 0.02 than 0.07 is 0.05.
http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/parlment/han sart.nsf/V3Key/LA20030902015
" zero blood alcohol limit for L-plate and P-plate drivers. That is a reduction from the current limit of 0.02"

I haven't used Gentoo but I can understand their point of view.

It's the computer doing the compilation, not them, so that doesn't cost them much. Particularly if they have more than one computer.

And if they compile it themselves they have more control, it gives them a warm fuzzy feeling. It's also a good vehicle to learn and experiment. So why not?

---

zealotry n : excessive intolerance of opposing views.

Hehe.

If you're going to correct somebody correcting somebody, make sure that what you're correcting isn't in fact correct to start with, and that "correcting" the correction won't make the correction wrong.

Whew.

Yes, the mode is 1. The median, however, is also 1, in the case of the data set "10 2 1 1 1", which is what the great grandparent post specified.

Hehe.

If you're going to correct somebody correcting somebody, make sure that what you're correcting isn't in fact correct to start with, and that "correcting" the correction won't make the correction wrong.

Whew.

Yes, the mode is 1. The median, however, is also 1, in the case of the data set "10 2 1 1 1", which is what the great grandparent post specified.

I like to poke at grammar nazis, but pride myself on spelling well. "Asinine" is such a seldomly used word that it's easy to be misspelled by members of the grammar ruling class. It is true that the only "e" in the word is at the end, but you can't believe how many people try to "correct" it. It's there as bait. So far today is the only actual post that's tried to correct it, but soooo many over the shoulder non-posters have let their egos get the best of them. Trying not to give in myself, I am making a point of not correcting them (god it's taking some will though). I do it as a poke, but intend it all in fun.

By the way, my journal entries are where I archive my sigs, so please talk about them there and leave the articles clean.

I like to poke at grammar nazis, but pride myself on spelling well. "Asinine" is such a seldomly used word that it's easy to be misspelled by members of the grammar ruling class. It is true that the only "e" in the word is at the end, but you can't believe how many people try to "correct" it. It's there as bait. So far today is the only actual post that's tried to correct it, but soooo many over the shoulder non-posters have let their egos get the best of them. Trying not to give in myself, I am making a point of not correcting them (god it's taking some will though). I do it as a poke, but intend it all in fun.

By the way, my journal entries are where I archive my sigs, so please talk about them there and leave the articles clean.

They don't use violence against civilians. Sorry, they aren't terrorists.

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

I suggest you check again.

Call it "liberation" all you want, you are still violating intellectual property. Are IP laws perfect? No. But they do have a legitimate reason to exist.

Everybody in the world is not obligated to distribute their work for free to anyone who wants it. Sorry.

And as for people who sell pirated work - perhaps a clearer situation to some Slashdotters will be people who take source from a GPL project and fail to release the product as GPL, instead charging massive amounts of money from the general populace and making a fortune from their GPL-derived work.

Thousands of ramifications. (quite literally).

What it is lacking in however, is utility. Other than noticing that denial of service attacks use thousands of zombies all over the world, this doesn't really help you.

Thousands of ramifications. (quite literally).

What it is lacking in however, is utility. Other than noticing that denial of service attacks use thousands of zombies all over the world, this doesn't really help you.

"None" is short for "not one" and so it uses the singular verb form. The subject of the sentence is "none", not "applicants", so the usage is correct.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=none

So is "cromulent". http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=cromulent &db=*

Fugly, (Fuh-glee): adj The inherant nature of someone to be F*cking Ugly.

Except fugly is already in the dictionary, or at least the dictionary.com dictionary: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=fugly

Where on earth did you get that strange definition of "right"?

The law can very well give a certain person or group a "right" to do something. I think you're confusing the issue with the issue of inalienable and human rights with the more basic definition of the word right (pay special attention to definition 7 under 'noun'.)

Ginormous is a word: lookie

People are (generally) hypocritical about things like this. They wouldn't want it to happen to them but they want to see it when it's someone else.

Yeah, the Germans have a word for it, too: schadenfreude.

Literal translation: Damage joy.

Humor

Lighten up...

Humor

Lighten up...