Slashdot Mirror

Huh? Everyone has a bridge, it's where your nose meets the rest of your face. Unless you have no nose at all, you have a bridge, it just looks different from others; that's what this software looks for as it's an identifying feature.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Bridge+of+the+nose
According to this, the bridge is the bony part of the nose. That is, the part that's part of the skull, rather than made of cartilage. Everyone has one.

Really? The excellent Wikitionary? It is filled with just as much garbage as Wikipedia. Both of them are terrible as first sources. Try The Free Dictionary instead.

Not paying a debt until it's due doesn't constitute credit

Yes, it is. Why do you think it is called a credit card? There's a very real chance you will not pay your debt. Whether it's a card issuing bank or a service provider, they are giving you short-term credit.

it's called "float" in financial circles.

That's different. If you write a check and it bounces, you could be criminally charged for fraud. That doesn't happen with credit. The float is the time it takes your check to clear.

So, in short, you're right that it's not length of repayment that's a factor, whether you're being extended credit (buying something for the promise of repayment against future income) or whether you're being given a float to allow you to gather the funds in the form agreed upon (which is why so many businesses started offering due dates for purchases in the first place).

I'm amazed that you managed to describe the same thing twice while claiming they are two separate things. If you're given a due date to repay, it is credit. If payment is demanded right away, it is not.

you mean eke

In the end, two crucial factors made it all but impossible to revive the shuttle program as a commercial enterprise or in any fashion.

Ok, this is offtopic, but this has been bugging me for some time. Is it just me or the statement "all but impossible" doesn't actually say whether it was possible or not? "All but impossible" as in "everything except impossible"? Or as in "almost impossible"?

How can a phrase have two meanings that are conflicting (according to this)? And if it does why do people keep using it....

In what way did the patch that removed the "Other OS" crippled the PS3?

It is in the sense of To disable, damage, or impair the functioning of
Lately this became a common slang for features/functionality available on a device but purposely disabled for the end user in order to achieve some marketing gig.

For example, 6 years ago I paid extra to get a groundbreaking bluetooth-enabled cell phone from Verizon. When I tried to tap the latter, It turned out that Verizon disabled (crippled) this feature, even though it was available on this phone model when purchased from manufacturer. This was most likely done to prevent me from uploading phone pictures to my PC, because the alternative service from Verizon cost 25 cents per picture at the time. There was a class action suit initiated and won against Verizon on this account, and I think I was entitled to some pocket change. Let's say it was a lot less than the extra $60 I sunk for it.

As for your PS3 argument: maybe you don't care about this feature, but some users did, yet some purchased the product for the sole reason of it. For them it is pretty crippled now. It's like when Amazon pulled an already purchased book from user's Kindles. The congress and courts are up in arms when someone dares to make an unauthorized copy of some deep pocket corp's IP, but when purchased and paid for IP is swiped from under people's feet the judge fails to see a problem.

The summary meant "trawled" of course. Trolling the users would imply Facebook posting fake messages from friends telling them to do it.

Except, outside of the internet, that word doesn't always mean what you describe.

In this case, 'troll' is a perfectly legitimate usage of the word.

That's not how I've ever heard the term used in common language, see:
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/fourfold
That's how (n)-fold is commonly used.

Since you've apparently never been explained the meaning of the word "nap", let me provide a link to the definition:

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/nap

I'd prefer a reliable dictionary over wikipedia, like any one of:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/misogyny
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/misogyny
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/misogyny

Or if we must, the first line of wikipedia:
Misogyny (play /msdni/) is the hatred or dislike of women or girls.

And not some random person's interpretation that happened to be picked by some wikipedia editor.

2. An earnest admonition or reproof; a reprimand.

There we go.

The evidence shows us that the action is necessary and not a matter of faith, but of common sense, simple reasoning, and observation. When the situation is so dire, economics don't factor in.

This is the faith I referred to. You have to have evidence first of the direness of the situation before the claim that you have evidence makes sense. You don't have this evidence. Further, you claim that we have to ignore how human society works (your dismissal of economics). Apparently, it's just fine in your book for fixes to make the problem worse. Economics knowledge helps keep that from happening.

This false certainty and dismissal of knowledge that doesn't fit your viewpoint are classic symptoms of the religious.

You seem to be coming back to freedom. The freedom to choose bottled water, or a lower mpg car, etc. Other people telling you what to do is out of line and by doing so they show themselves to be self-righteous, hypocrites, and preachers of morality. It offends you and you won't tolerate it.

You got that right.

Well where is the line? At what point do your actions, along with the actions of so many others, have to be curtailed because it is not in the best interests of everybody, and could ultimately jeopardize us all?

There has to be a line first. It's far too easy to manufacture an imaginary crisis, such as you have done, to take freedom away. That means providing solid evidence not just of global warming, not just of humanity's role in it, but also of the various choices we can make, their costs and benefits. You know, that economics thing that you can't seem to figure out.

I'm not going to curtail someone's freedoms because there might be a problem. Show solid evidence or STFU.

Earth is smaller and more fragile than you think, and as far as we are concerned, getting smaller all the time.

Here's more of that religious faith. The "fragile Earth" belief isn't based on evidence and it uses some touchie feelie idea of "smaller" that's bullshit. Sure, I can communicate with someone on the other side of the planet with only a delay of a few dozen milliseconds, but the physical dimensions of the planet haven't changed a bit.

periodic (pîr-dk) adj.
1. Having or marked by repeated cycles.
2. Happening or appearing at regular intervals.
3. Recurring or reappearing from time to time; intermittent.
4. Characterized by periodic sentences.

Source

It ain't a monitor until it does at least 1920x1200

So computers didn't have monitors until this century? Funny, I thought that green screen hooked up to my old IBM XT was a monitor. Hmm, let's google. Noun 1. computer monitor - a device that displays signals on a computer screen

Monitor
The term "monitor" is often used synonymously with "computer screen" or "display." The monitor displays the computer's user interface and open programs, allowing the user to interact with the computer, typically using the keyboard and mouse.

Older computer monitors were built using cathode ray tubes (CRTs), which made them rather heavy and caused them to take up a lot of desk space. Most modern monitors are built using LCD technology and are commonly referred to as flat screen displays. These thin monitors take up much less space than the older CRT displays. This means people with LCD monitors have more desk space to clutter up with stacks of papers, pens, and other objects.

"Monitor" can also be used as a verb. A network administrator may monitor network traffic, which means he watches the traffic to make sure the bandwidth usage is within a certain limit and checks to see what external sources may be attempting to access the network. Software programs may monitor the system's CPU performance as well as RAM and hard disk usage.

Finally, monitors also refer to speakers used for monitoring sound. Audio engineers typically use "studio monitors" to listen to recordings. These high-end speakers allow the engineers to accurately mix and master audio tracks. So a sound mixer could be monitoring a recording visually using a computer monitor, while monitoring the sound using audio monitors at the same. As you can tell, "monitor" serves as a rather multipurpose word.

Hmm, nothing there about resolution. Maybe my old IBM had a monitor and you (and whoever modded you "insightful") are ignorant?

For those of you who, like me, have no idea what MWI means.

Handset. You keep using that word, but I don't think you know what it means.

I highly doubt that getting a Facebook account qualifies as a legal contract:
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/contract

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/busted

The wonders of a common law system mean that it's not just what's written in the laws that's important, it's also how the courts have ruled in the past. In case of California, "fair and in good faith" is implicit in any employment contract, and so a terminated employee can argue that his termination was wrongful on those grounds, depending on the circumstances. This covers it in more detail; specifically:

Courts that have recognized good-faith-and-fair-dealing exceptions have found either covenants implied in fact or covenants implied in law. Covenants implied in fact have been found in "objective manifestations," including repeated promotions and pay increases, that might reasonably give an employee cause to believe that he or she has job security and will be treated fairly (Dare v. Montana Petroleum Marketing, 687 P.2d 1015 [Mont. 1984]; Kerr v. Gibson's Products Co., 733 P.2d 1292 [Mont. 1987]).

A few jurisdictions have recognized implied-in-law covenants of good faith and fair dealing. California courts have ruled that every employment contract carries with it an implied covenant that neither party will impede the other from receiving the benefits of the agreement. In deciding whether such a covenant is to be inferred, a court looks at such factors as whether the company properly followed its stated personnel policies, the length of the person's employment, any job security assurances that may have been made, a presence or lack of prior criticism of performance, and basic notions of fairness.

In Khanna v. Microdata Corp., 170 Cal. App. 3d 250, 215 Cal. Rptr. 860 (1985), for example, a California court of appeals ruled that a company violated an implied covenant when it fired a leading salesman who had brought suit against the company for unpaid commissions. The court found that a breach of an implied-in-law covenant is established whenever an employer engages in a bad-faith action outside a contract and attempts to frustrate an employee's enjoyment of her or his contract rights.

You spelled 'favor' wrong.

erm.. did he/she?
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/favour
just shows what side of the pond he/she is from and also shows that you are a yank..lol

WREAK havoc. Wreak. w. r. e. a. k. Please.

In any case, the fact that the poor are especially vulnerable to the ravages of climate change has been well documented:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/08/090820082101.htm

http://www.economist.com/node/14447171

Also see the IPCC report.

That does not mean that first world countries will be unaffected - this is a strawman on your part, and simultaneously an unspoken assumption on the part of the denialist groupthink.

Here's your new word for today.

After all, on what basis do you call them vigilantes?

From The Free Dictionary:

vigilante (vj-lnt)
n.
1. One who takes or advocates the taking of law enforcement into one's own hands.
2. A member of a vigilance committee.

So to answer your question -- on the basis of the definition of the word.

Oh, well this wasn't private property, it was common property owned by a publicly regulated organization of homeowners. That's why you don't have to put a handicap spot in your driveway in front of your house, but an organization of homeowners large enough to be publicly regulated and have a communal parking lot does. So, yeah, the property wasn't private. It also wasn't "taken" in a legal sense, I think. Unlike you, I am not a lawyer at all.

3 billion pounds of material traveling at 2000 miles/sec and blasting entire planets isn't epic for you ? You have a pretty high standard for epic.

Correct. We do have a high standard of 'epic'. 3 billion pounds of material travelling at 2000 miles/sec is large, but it's not massively unusual and therefore not epic. Unfortunately you, and the mass media don't, so epic is being used whenever anyone gets slightly excited about anything these days. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/epic

Seeds aren't an issue. Where I live I can buy them from local farmers, and at the end of the season I can collect some of the seeds for next years crops.

As for fertiliser - that's one reason why I want to keep chickens. Chicken sh*t makes great fertiliser. Also most home systems like this don't rely on fertiliser in the same way that large scale farms do. Leaving an area fallow for a year is an ancient technique.

As for tools - I think I covered that with the "can't make toilet paper"

I didn't say it had anything to do with the Communist manifesto, I said (and I quote):

And now, the people are occupying Wall Street with demands that give the Communist Manifesto itself run for its money

.

It gives Communist Manifesto RUN FOR ITS MONEY.

Here is Communist Manifesto in simple point form:

1. Abolition of private property and the application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralization of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralization of the means of communications and transportation in the hands of the State.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state, the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal liability of all to labor. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries, gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equitable distribution of population over the country.
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production.

Here are some of the OWS demands that I gave a point by point analysis in a link in my first comment:

Demand one: Restoration of the living wage. ....... raise the minimum wage to twenty dollars an hr.

Demand two: Institute a universal single payer healthcare system.

Demand three: Guaranteed living wage income regardless of employment.

Demand four: Free college education.

Demand five: Begin a fast track process to bring the fossil fuel economy to an end while at the same bringing the alternative energy economy up to energy demand.

Demand six: One trillion dollars in infrastructure (Water, Sewer, Rail, Roads and Bridges and Electrical Grid) spending now.

Demand seven: One trillion dollars in ecological restoration planting forests, reestablishing wetlands and the natural flow of river systems and decommissioning of all of America's nuclear power plants.

Demand eight: Racial and gender equal rights amendment.

Demand nine: Open borders migration. anyone can travel anywhere to work and live.

Demand ten: Bring American elections up to international standards of a paper ballot precinct counted and recounted in front of an independent and party observers system.

Demand eleven: Immediate across the board debt forgiveness for all. Debt forgiveness of sovereign debt, commercial loans, home mortgages, home equity loans, credit card debt, student loans and personal loans now! All debt must be stricken from the "Books." World Bank Loans to all Nations, Bank to Bank Debt and all Bonds and Margin Call Debt in the stock market including all Derivatives or Credit Default Swaps, all 65 trillion dollars of them must also be stricken from the "Books." And I don't mean debt that is in default, I mean all debt on the entire planet period.

Demand twelve: Outlaw all credit reporting agencies.

Demand thirteen: Allow all workers to sign a ballot at any time during a union organizing campaign or at any time that represents their yeah or nay to having a union represent them in collective bargaining or to form a union.

-----

I thus contend that Communist Manifesto is NOTHING compared to the list of demands from the OWS movement based on just the points about guaranteed minimum income, guaranteed health care and overall debt forgiveness ALONE, never mind the rest of that drivel.

My point stands, you have no right to call my statements ignorant as you have no idea what you are talking about.

The root problem being... two separate people using the same account. I should keep my e-mail wherever the damn I choose to, even if it looks stupid to anyone else :)

No the root of the problem is that you should never let mangers near e-mail!

There's a word for that: Barratry.

They should all be jailed for it.

No, basic has absolutely nothing to do with whether most people had it or not.
basic:
adj.
1. Of, relating to, or forming a base; fundamental: "Basic changes in public opinion often occur because of shifts in concerns and priorities" (Atlantic).
2. Of, being, or serving as a starting point or basis: a basic course in Russian; a set of basic woodworking tools.

Yes, "begging the question" is a type of fallacy and now it also means, "to elicit a question logically as a reaction or response".

Even the Wikipedia article you cite presently describes the modern usage as well. The Wikipedia article cites thefreedictionary.com entry, which includes a reference to the Cambridge Idioms Dictionary, 2nd ed, that lists the modern usage first, before the definition of the fallacy ("if a statement or situation begs the question, it causes you to ask a particular question").

The other internet-based citation from the Wikipedia article is even more damning: "...most people now suppose the phrase implies something quite different: that the argument demands that a question about it be asked—raises the question. Although using the expression in its original sense is now rare, using it in the newer sense will cause irritation among traditionalists." Ouch.

So, you're correct that language is fluid. It's just that the burden is now upon you to stamp out a commonly accepted idiom that makes perfect sense in its modern, "incorrect" form vs. the traditional, regrettable English translation of the petitio principii fallacy. This is obviously what you are attempting to accomplish, but I don't believe your goal is worthy. Furthermore, I believe it is disingenuous to refer to the modern usage as incorrect at this stage.

Perhaps you should look up the word entrapment. A drone in no way coerces a driver to speed. Perhaps you are confusing "catch" with "entrap".

Direct identification with, understanding of, and vicarious experience of another person's situation, feelings, and motives.

AND

emotional awareness and understanding of another person's thoughts, feelings, and behavior, even those that are distressing and disturbing. Empathy emphasizes understanding; sympathy emphasizes sharing of another person's feelings and experiences.

Both of the above are from the medical section here. Note that the one you cited and the first of these both use the word vicarious, which seems (to me, anyway) to imply an emotional, rather than cognitive response. But perhaps you see it differently.

Clinically speaking, sociopathy is related to ASPD (antisocial personality disorder), and is defined in both the DSM-IV and the ICD-10, the latter of which lists the first criterion as:

Callous unconcern for the feelings of others and lack of the capacity for empathy.

Sympathy is not included in either manuals' definition.

Lack of empathy is also specifically associated with Psychopathy and Narcissistic personality disorder.

See WIKI

I might have empathy for a serial killer, in that I may wince if he were to get stuck with a pin (a reflexive response), but I may not have sympathy for him, because I cognitively determine that he deserves it.

More importantly, who remembers the awesome Star Trek (tos) episode, The Empath ? I think that clears it up perfectly.

Your use of the word "enjoin" suggests that you were trying to be a pretentious ass. The word you were looking for was "join."

Hey, if he's enjoin' it, there's nothin' wrong with gettin' a l'il bit of pleasure out of it!

That said, are you absolutely *sure* that he didn't mean enjoin? Though I'm not clear whether or not (according to the linked definition) that forcing Sony to participate in a particular course of legal action against their will or desire (i.e. forcing them to participate in the supposedly banned class-action lawsuit) would count as "enjoing" them... or not?

Actually, I consider those who would attack or kill another person because they've lost control of their emotions to be "insane" or "unstable."

Then we are all "insane" or "unstable". We are all capable of visiting violence on others in a blind rage. It's an essential part of the human condition and part of the reason why temporary insanity is actually a permissible defense in most modern legal systems.

Are you saying that it is not possible for someone to desensitize themselves and/or realize that words are just words?

But words are not "just" words. They have the power to heal and to harm. Words have raised up empires and toppled them. Words have enabled tyrants to stride the world and thrown them back down. As they say "the pen is mightier than the sword", and they say it because swords "merely" end lives, whereas pens write words. The essence is that words are more powerful than death. So, words are "just" words in the same way that the Sun is "just" a giant nuclear furnace. They are "just" words only if you choose to be ignorant of their fundamental nature.

Grieving parents, in particular, are at one of the most vulnerable moment in their lives. It would require extraordinary self-control to deal rationally with someone who chose that particular time to attack them and the child they are grieving. It's all well and good to say they should control their reactions, but it's probably not going to happen. It is irrational to expect it to happen, and it begs the question why the attacker shouldn't control his actions or be forced into controlling his actions if he is unable to do so. Why should the world accommodate the reprehensible and reckless behavior of an evil man and instead put the burden of enduring his evil on good people who have done nothing to deserve his assaults?

Hrm, I can't imagine any case where you'd want to use HID lights with stree... unless perhaps you're trying to start a fire?

You're still on that? Haven't people explained to you already a million times the difference between weather and climate?

You're still on that? Haven't people explained to you already a million times the difference between weather and climate?

http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/grasping+at+straws

Point proven.

They're trying to say 'petrified' (in its figurative meaning) but they think it will sound more impressive if they incorrectly use a somewhat similar word.

Just like you tried to sound more intelligent by making up the word "figurative" which clearly doesn't exist. Snark Snark!

Of course one exists in the dictionary, and the other one does not. Oh wait...

They're trying to say 'petrified' (in its figurative meaning) but they think it will sound more impressive if they incorrectly use a somewhat similar word.

Just like you tried to sound more intelligent by making up the word "figurative" which clearly doesn't exist. Snark Snark!

Of course one exists in the dictionary, and the other one does not. Oh wait...

Especially, when unadulterated crops get cross-pollinated with the suicidal gene.

Yeah, that's kinda the point. When cross pollination occurs, if you don't want transgenes, you don't get them. And I like the notion that GMO crops are adulterated somehow.

No. It's a botched job, because in fact, you DO get this killer gene. A job properly done would prevent cross pollination (that is, it would be impossible for the faulty pollen to fertilize normal plant). On a related note, it is not absolutely certain that the whole genotype will be transfered or expressed. Once in the wild, you've simply lost control.

And, since you consider "adulterated" not specific enough, I assure you it is actually accurate and was used purposefully, look up the definition.

The terminator technology only protects financial security of the patent holders.

[babble] it is absolutely false that is is the only thing it does.

Really?

And yes. People DO save seeds. Er... I mean they DID, until they started getting sued.

The majority of farmers don't.

Actually that depends on the region.

Monsanto funded your "scholarship," didn't they?

[snip lame attempt at sarcasm] has paid off pretty much every botanist, geneticist, biochemist, molecular biologist, agriculturist, and just about everyone else in relevant fields.

Yes, they could very well afford that. But they could limit themselves to financing apologists and "studies," like e.g. "cow milk is good for your health." FYI, Polish Academy of Sciences has issued a public appeal against adoption of GMO.

Synonyms: overthrow, overturn, subvert, topple, upset

heed

You can't burn a Qur'an in effigy, as it is not a person.

An effigy doesn't necessarily have to be of a person. A Quaran can be an effigy of Islam.

I would like to defuse all "no true Scotsman" accusations by pointing out that the vast majority of those who call themselves Christian would not agree that someone who makes these statements is not Christian.

Either you made a mistake here or you failed to argue against the "no true Scotsman" accusation you rightly saw coming. If I remove the double-negatives in your statement, it's equivalent to "the vast majority of those who call themselves Christian would agree that someone who makes these statements is Christian" or to put it another way, "most Christians would disagree that [someone with Breivik's views] is not Christian." Do I understand correctly?

And I kill and burn anyone who sneezes, because they might be carrying the Ebola virus.

Maybe you mistook the whooshing sound for a sneeze.

It's beyond annoying- it will deter me from posting things I otherwise would, when the content is critical of the subject. Every time I tell my friends about the latest idiotic thing Sarah Palin or Donald Trump say and why only an ignoramus could believe that, it'll link to their pages. I don't want those halfwits to get credited as being relevant just because I share a laugh with my friends, and I certainly don't want to be related to her even if only by hyperlink.

What would be reasonable is If possibly-related-pages were recommended to me, where I could choose to link to a page of my choosing. I'd be glad to have that ability (as well as the option not to use it). This is of course regardless of who is implementing it- I wouldn't want Google forcing unwanted semantics on my content either. Luckily, Google at least recognizes that my content is actually mine, so there's some hope there.

Looking up the phrase "terrorist organization", it seems obvious to me that members of a terrorist organization were present at the time the kid's MP3 player was destroyed.

And the kid was not one of them.

Well, this is sort of true. Courts can award them injunctions that warrant them the right to collect data from the premises as part of the discovery process. In this respect, they are still a private entity, but they have the backing of the court and generally a US marshal with them. Oh and they will be in possession of a court order at the same time.

First, they should have no authority to audit for any but their member companies (which are not that many).

Second, I would challenge any search they did. Make them get a warrant signed by an actual judge. Then complain about the Probable Cause all the way! They are NOT a Police Force. That's why they need a Federal Marshal along.

Third, I would challenge that they are not the Real Party In Interest. They lost nothing. If the actual company wants to sue you, fine; but the BSA is NOT properly a "Party". They are a meddling Interloper They are NOT "aggrieved". Get THEM kicked off the suit as having no Standing. They cannot receive a "settlement", because they suffered no damages. Therefore, they have failed to state a claim for which the Court can grant Relief (to them).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outing
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/outing
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/outing

Linguists know that their job is to document usage, not prescribe it.

"This makes my commute so much more pleasant, I can watch videos and^J^J^ NO CARRIER"

Did the window break? That's a few hundred dollars now and glass has been around for umpteen years, I can't wait to see the cost of replacing a ~27" touchscreen.