Slashdot Mirror

No i think liberal means the same thing pretty much everywhere..

1. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.

2. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.

try here.

And we "socialist" fit #1 fairly well if I do say so myself.

Unfortunately, labor laws have not kept pace with this spirit of entrepreneurialism, innovation and creativity.

EA are calling the overworked developers entrepreneurs and creative innovators, while blaming their government (labor laws) for their own harsh treatment. They are saying "Ha! We can work our programmers however much we want, make them jump through coding and debugging hoops, and the U.S. doesn't do a damn thing to stop us! T3H P0RG4MM3RS R PWN3D!! OMG WTF LOL!!1!one" or something like that. (Only EA does it in "marketroid" speak, of course, not l33t or English or any non-press-release-worthy language.)

But he's wrong about one thing. 'None' is a noun, not an adjective, and it can be used both singularly and plurally, as he says, depending on the quantity it's expressing.

Respectfully, I also disagree.

It's no longer seen as the invincible little free operating system.

According to the dictionary, one definition of invincible is "Incapable of being overcome or defeated; unconquerable." And up until now it's only been something that fans of Linux have claimed. Now it's something that has been shown to be true. Linux now has a legal track record. It's not hearsay anymore.

Its heritage was brought into question

Yes it was. And that solves another thing that Linux fans have always claimed - and has now been found to be true in a court of law. And also by example - SCO drained itself trying to prove the opposite, drained its investors and came up with absolutely, positively nothing. Again, now it's no longer a claim, it has a track record.

And it's a track record and only a track record that can make something seem stable. Now, thanks to SCO, Linux has one.

That $50mil that Microsoft funneled into Baystar was the best advertising that Linux could have ever hoped for. Even better than the IBM Linux commercials.

Yes, let's do so: "Poignantly contrary to what was expected or intended"

One would expect that one of the most successful OSs in recent history would get an A, not an F. One would expect that Andrew Tanenbaum, who's written a textbook that practically everyone interested in writing an OS has read, would recognize that Linux would be a success. But, contrary to that expectation he did not.

Thank you sir, please try again. Sheesh, "What a maroon."

Well, that's not "theft" either. That's plagiarism, isn't it?

You get this.

You have to go to the acronym finder.

So you are going for the mountain and you want a laptop to document and help you through the trip. All of your information will be on this laptop and possibly also used for some type of technical work during the voyage. You've got limited room for supplies and the trip will be rough. After carefully reviewing your options, you decide on a laptop with multiple spare batteries and Puppy Linux which is labeled by the author/maintainer as Multi-session live-CD version 1.0.0a is an alpha release and is "experimental".

Looking at that alone, I can deduce that your other planning and risk assessment skills suck as well and you will probably not be coming back down the mountain alive or at least on your own feet.

I could not find archtected at dictionary.com. Is that a misspelled word or do I have a conceptual error that makes my entire post look silly.

Not to mention they misspelled 'functions'!
This project can be found here, and there homepage here.
Oh yeah, if you happen to be reading this, agustindondo, no offense intended :)

Not to mention you misspelled 'their'!
The dictionary can be found here, and their entry for "their" is here.
Oh yeah, if you happen to be reading this, offense intended :)

(People in glass houses, and all that.)

Not to mention they misspelled 'functions'!
This project can be found here, and there homepage here.
Oh yeah, if you happen to be reading this, agustindondo, no offense intended :)

Not to mention you misspelled 'their'!
The dictionary can be found here, and their entry for "their" is here.
Oh yeah, if you happen to be reading this, offense intended :)

(People in glass houses, and all that.)

Just as the concept of "reporting" was revolutionized by the invention of the Gutenburg Press, we are witnessing another change, who knows if these changes will be better or worse... At least it'll be better than a Town Crier!

Journalism is writing about something, be it a journal of your personal hygene habits [or lack thereof] or of Government opression. News is in the eye of the beholder.

Let's not confuse journalism with news.

No dude (or dudette), journaling is what you are talking about. Journalism is something entirely different.

Journalism:

1. The collecting, writing, editing, and presenting of news or news articles in newspapers and magazines and in radio and television broadcasts.
2. Material written for publication in a newspaper or magazine or for broadcast.
3. The style of writing characteristic of material in newspapers and magazines, consisting of direct presentation of facts or occurrences with little attempt at analysis or interpretation.
4. Newspapers and magazines.
5. An academic course training students in journalism.
6. Written material of current interest or wide popular appeal.

Even journalism isn't journalism anymore!

Journalism used to mean researched stories, informing the reader. It seems that 99% of blog content is heresay. And professional journalists are joining the party, reducing their stories to simple "he said, she said" puff pieces.

Journalists receive special protection in exchange for informing and educating society. If they don't uphold their side of the deal, I don't see why they should retain special privileges.

actually this is more like passing a law for people that buy 100 guns a day vs the guy that just buys one gun.

The guy buying 100 guns a day is probably a dealer. The guy buying just one gun might be a murderer.

Honestly anyone familiar with ebay (and i'm hoping most the legislators know a little about ebay) will immediately see that this law would do absolutely nothing to the ebay scammer that tries to sell 5 brand new Dell laptops that he doesn't have, it'll only hurt the legitmate power sellers who have been selling 30 items a day for the past 5 years.

eBay's comment is interesting though:
"We do not believe the law applies to people who sell items on eBay or to eBay itself."
while the Sen. Larry Mumper told the paper "the legislature never intended it to apply to individuals selling items over eBay."

...... WTF????..........

UM, /., READ THE FUCKING ARTICLE! The Senator that WROTE THE LAW said "the legislature never intended it to apply to individuals selling items over eBay."

this is just a great example of sensationalism by a newspaper, by taking something COMPLETELY out of context and making a HUGE deal about it.

What's next, the bat boy is molested by the worlds fattest man??

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

HTH.

If "Don't be evil" means anything, it also means "Don't be a fucking hypocrite"!

Perhaps I'm using the wrong dictionary, but I fail to see how "evil" equates to "fucking hypocrite."

Parents are frequently hypocritical. That doesn't make them evil. It just makes them hypocritical. Hypocrisy is generally a bad thing, but realize that it's often committed with the best of intentions, so it seems unfair to assume the worst.

See here

They say they are entitled to trebledamages. Next thing they'll be asking for bass damages.

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

While the "excellence" is debatable, the fact that .doc is a standard isn't.

Clearly, they meant angiostrophy. See, you can use the wires to tie off whatever's bleeding...

Aw, forget it.

the divisions are carried out internally by means of a process of anisotrophy.

Anisotrophy? What kind of "trophy" is that? However, there is something known as anisotropy.

Take a look at the informal definition of http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=customerc ustomer.

>> i say we should appreciate them rather than criticize them

I say if they can't handle the pressure get out of the game. :)

All the more reason to continue using wall worts.

I don't think you understand the word Tenure in this usage. Outside of incompetence, gross misconduct, or financial necessity, a college or university can't fire a tenured professor for criticizing the college or university.

Incompetence means that they do not understand their subject.

Gross misconduct could be a number of things, from a sex scandal to reckless endangerment of students to physically assaulting the dean.

Financial necessity means that the college or university can no longer afford to pay it's staff, so they begin cutting positions.

I don't know whether there are laws that govern this (there might be in state universities), but it's part of the traditions of academic freedom. If a college or university didn't uphold these traditions, they wouldn't be in operation very long.

Why does it matter what a reasonable person would conclude?

Because our laws are based on the conclusions of reasonable people? You know, 'beyond a reasonable doubt' and all. Remember, a reasonable belief is one based on reason, not some empty faith. Do you want laws based on whatever people think is right, instead of what is known to be right?

Surely the second amendment means I can carry a hand grenade whenever I choose without having to strangers shoot me just because they happen to catch the same plane?

A reasonable person would point out that using a hand grendade for self defense on a plane is counter productive. Since air marshals may carry guns onto planes a gun would be a reasonable self defense choice.

If a reasonable person would conclude that the driver who almost crashed into me is drunk and will almost certainly crash into someone else before they get home, can I shoot them to protect the public?

Perhaps shoot out the tire. Deadly force needs to be used carefully; the drunks intent is not to kill you or even to try and cause you harm (although by acting carelessly he may). Given that, I think a non-lethal way to stop him would be more appropriate, don't you?

I'm providing an example of a situation in which it is illegal to do something (take explosives onto a passenger plane) because of something you may do (blow up the plane) but haven't actually done yet and may well not do.

No, I think you were trying to raise fear of terrorism to justify your point. After all, you did stipulate that said explosives carrier had them strapped to his body, didn't you?

How does the other passengers being armed prevent a suicide bomber from detonating the plastic exposives he is wrapped in?

Ahh yes, you did. You're right of course, who needs the consitution, we are at war with terrorists!!

As always it's a cost versus benefits analysis.

And it seems that the cost is always understated.

In the plane case there isn't much benefit in letting someone take explosives on board, stuff can be transported by other means.

I agree. You put a terrorist on a plane were people on said plane could defend themselves. The only answer that i could give was shoot him. You probably realized the corner you were in, and then went off a ridiculous tanget (well i have all these bombs on my body but that's just how i transport them).

In the drink driving case there are more benefits, it allows people to get home from the pub easily, and so on. The costs are reasonably clear too, the chances of having an accident are increased which decreases the safety of everyone else.

Really? A drunk driver is more dangerous then a terrorist on a plane? Please, explain.

The costs aren't reasonablly clear to me, because your conclusion is false. The only people in danger are the ones how are driving on the roads the drunk will be using, or those people walking along said roads. Thus, the number of people actually in danger drops significatanly. As I sit here right now, I am in zero danger of being killed by a drunk driver.

The costs are much higher also than many think; the police can setup a road block on any road at any time and say they are looking for drunk drivers. They now get to search every car that goes through their checkpoint.

How the costs and benefits stack up against each other is the hard bit of course. And people disagree, some people want safety at all costs, others want freedom at all costs. Then of course people disagree on what freedom is in the first place...

My point is that this country is supposed to be heavy on the freedom side, so you understand why I don't want to move toward the safety safe. If people disagree on what freedom is, I suggest they read what our founding fathers wrote. Or at least look in the dictionary.

Join the Society to Teach People to use a Dictionary...

definitely

adv : without question and beyond doubt; "it was decidedly too expensive"; "she told him off in spades"; "by all odds they should win" [syn: decidedly, unquestionably, emphatically, in spades, by all odds]

Sorry, that is just one of those imaginary words that drives me up the wall.

Anyways [sic]. Sic means "spelling incorrect," or, "Grammar incorrect."

Just wanted to point out that "anyways" is n/s.

Thus; so. Used to indicate that a quoted passage, especially one containing an error or unconventional spelling, has been retained in its original form or written intentionally.

Dictionary.com

Essentially, it indicates an error in the original that the quoter has chosen to preserve for whatever reason.

ergonomical?

Those pages were NOT retranslated. But then that fact really wouldn't make the slightest bit of difference to you, AC would it? You've already made up your mind. Why let facts get in the way?

So you're saying the missing pages that were lost were not retranslated. That must mean they were written first in English and never translated in the first place? That's a valid enough theory but faith requires that you accept the explanation that they were lent out and copied from memory with the Lord's help.

If you want to beat the LDS up over "pesky issue[s]" at least get the facts first (you know, through critical review of the historical records, etc.) Is that too much to ask?

Yes, it is! Only Mormons can see the sacred texts, only Mormons can go into the church, only Mormons have access to information which causes them to question their own fundamental beliefs. And being AC assures that no Mormon gets excommunicated for sharing privileged information.

You could say my facts are in doubt as the Bishop in question is part of a grand conspiracy to bring down the church. Tell you what... why don't you provide some documentation or a fraction of evidence that proves that we had a 13th tribe cross the ocean and settled in the Americas? Show me the 3 magic stones and original text that was translated into the Bible Part II. And Battlestar Galactica isn't proof, it's a work of fiction based on aspects of "The Bible Part II".

(On a side note, it is amazing how many stories coming out of Utah end up in Mormon-Bashings by the Anonymous Coward set.)

Oh yes, Mormons are being persecuted by non believer that will never know the eternal joy of the celestial kingdom just like those heathens did when they had to pass laws not to shoot Mormons.

Oh please! This isn't Mormon bashing. We are not attacking a single individual for their belief system. We are being critical of Mormonism... which is a cult. I tolerate Mormons. I even like many Mormons. But Jesus Christ those damn kids on the mission don't cry out how persecuted they are when you sit and talk to them about aspects of their faith you are critical of. What's your malfuction?

One can respect someone's right to belief whatever they wish and think the belief system is inharently flawed. Stop with the persuction complex.... your early founders were shot because they were fucking polygamists attempting to attempt to convert *fellow* Christians to their own Cult. They were considered to be wackos and a threat just like anyone who forces their way into your life and attempts to shove their own version of Jesus in your face. Anyone who doesn't understand this is obviously insane and is likely a threat to them selves and others. That's why Mormons got shot not because of their odd beliefs but because they were wackos. "But all we were tried to do is make sure they accept Jesus Christ as their personal savior so they can get into the celestial kingdom and have their own personal universe." This ain't religious prosecution when you shoot a nut job on your property that is obviously off their rocker!

But with the bizzare way in which the EU works, the wishes of both the people and of the member governments can be overridden by unelected beaurocrats, some of whom were appointed years ago by politicians who are no longer in power.

See this.

Your misspelling of the word simplicity threw me off. =P

Do I really have to explain my comment?

You might have to. The average intelligence quotient of a slashdot reader has been slipping and for the anonymous cowards who can't understand the long and complex words in this post I have taken the liberty of providing links to Dictionary.com for definitions for all words three or more syllables long.

Do I really have to explain my comment?

You might have to. The average intelligence quotient of a slashdot reader has been slipping and for the anonymous cowards who can't understand the long and complex words in this post I have taken the liberty of providing links to Dictionary.com for definitions for all words three or more syllables long.

Do I really have to explain my comment?

You might have to. The average intelligence quotient of a slashdot reader has been slipping and for the anonymous cowards who can't understand the long and complex words in this post I have taken the liberty of providing links to Dictionary.com for definitions for all words three or more syllables long.

Do I really have to explain my comment?

You might have to. The average intelligence quotient of a slashdot reader has been slipping and for the anonymous cowards who can't understand the long and complex words in this post I have taken the liberty of providing links to Dictionary.com for definitions for all words three or more syllables long.

Do I really have to explain my comment?

You might have to. The average intelligence quotient of a slashdot reader has been slipping and for the anonymous cowards who can't understand the long and complex words in this post I have taken the liberty of providing links to Dictionary.com for definitions for all words three or more syllables long.

Do I really have to explain my comment?

You might have to. The average intelligence quotient of a slashdot reader has been slipping and for the anonymous cowards who can't understand the long and complex words in this post I have taken the liberty of providing links to Dictionary.com for definitions for all words three or more syllables long.

Do I really have to explain my comment?

You might have to. The average intelligence quotient of a slashdot reader has been slipping and for the anonymous cowards who can't understand the long and complex words in this post I have taken the liberty of providing links to Dictionary.com for definitions for all words three or more syllables long.

Do I really have to explain my comment?

You might have to. The average intelligence quotient of a slashdot reader has been slipping and for the anonymous cowards who can't understand the long and complex words in this post I have taken the liberty of providing links to Dictionary.com for definitions for all words three or more syllables long.

Really? Are you sure?

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=conservat ive

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

Really? Are you sure?

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=conservat ive

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

Apparently he IS your uncle.

In Chinese, there is no generic aunt or uncle label. There are specific names for my mother's older sister, mother's younger sister, and mother's brother. There are also corresponding names for their spouses.

Unforutunately, I can never rememeber which name is which.

Considering the number of Linux zealots that I've had the misfortune of meeting, I think not; your comment would tend to prove my point.

And by the way, I'm a Linux user, and have been for some time. I advocate Linux usage - just not rabidly.

If the law wants to apply to professional journalists it should say so - and it's ridiculous to give people more protection simply because they are professionals anyway.

A popular American dictionary allows the variant spelling; a superior British dictionary exposes your ignorance by explaining what a flack is. In case you don't have a subsscription to the latter (you could do with one):

A blow, slap, or stroke.

Historical use:

1823 MOOR Suffolk Words, Flack, a blow. a1825 FORBY Voc. E. Anglia, Flack, a blow, particularly with something loose and pliant.

Furthermore I agree with the other reply - 'receiving flak' (and the more British 'coming in for [a lot of] flak') is not leetspeak, it's a phrase used often in the British media.

hobbiests, not hobbyists. Learn to spell!

bugger all == fuck all. ie. negligible.