Slashdot Mirror

"freedom fighters"? You mean "insurgents" don't you? http://www.thefreedictionary.com/insurgent

“The basic tool for the manipulation of reality is the manipulation of words. If you can control the meaning of words, you can control the people who must use the words.”
  Philip K. Dick

Because "spic" is not specific.

It's a racial slur for hispanic people. Apparently derived from spig, which was a racial slur for Mexicans. Meanwhile, Wikipedia says 'Use of the word is often perceived as extremely offensive if used by a person not of Latino descent in any context.' Substitute black for Latino in that and you've got a sentence that would apply equally well to the word that you did censor.

I have heard everyone from Italians to Spaniards to Brazilians to Mexicans, Aztecs to Campesinos, referred to as "spics".

And nigger is just as imprecise - it's been used to refer to black people of any country, including Australian aboriginals, Americans, and people from any of the countries in Africa.

Rather than being a racial or ethnic reference, it seems to refer to anyone who has a spicy diet and is not from Southeast Asia.

Nope. Both are racial slurs, but somehow you feel the need to censor one but not the other. I wonder if you'd have censored cracker or kike.

And why do you assume that I censored any specific word.

Well, you said he used a different n-word, but that apart from that it was an actual quote. Maybe there are other n-words that you'd feel unable to type. If you're worried about offending people by quoting some racist idiot, I suggest that you consult this helpful list of things that you'll want to censor in the future.

I'm not, but you don't have to be a lawyer to be able to understand easily defined concepts.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/monopoly

this is entirely and precisely why distros such as debian go to such lengths to place GPG digital signatures on the downloads; why they go to such lengths to enact extensive GPG key-signing web-of-trust exchanges etc. etc.

And Microsoft has gone to considerable lengths to promote and strongly encourage the usage of code signing for installers of Windows software. In fact many if not most of the larger Open Source projects that have a large Windows community sign their code too.

The problem is that people are use to ignoring the security warnings from Microsoft, compared to most administrators (or root/sudo users) read and heed security warnings in Linux and *BSD package management.

>> "A fish beat the crap out of a clam by hitting it against a rock? I'm not quite sure this qualifies as "tool" use. Now, grabbing the rock, and beating clam with it, or using it to pry open the clam... that would sound more "tool-like.""

From: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/dict.asp?Word=tool [thefreedictionary.com]

"4. Something used in the performance of an operation; an instrument: ..."
or
"4. (Engineering / Tools) anything used as a means of performing an operation or achieving an end ..."

Show me any law or Engineering definition, standard, etc... that states or in any way requires the "Tool" to be held, or otherwise used against the material.

Seems to me it is no different than the Oyster shuckers at the Union Oyster House in Boston that have a cobblestone in the sink. They put the knife in the hinge of the oyster, then hold both vertically, and bring both down rapping the handle of the knife onto the cobblestone thereby forcing the knife into the oyster. Both the cobblestone and the knife are both "Tools", IMHO.

http://www.yelp.com/biz_photos/Ruq91rmQNweZ78TzKylQMg?select=lOXM-kwLvrWp6zxw3KEKJg [yelp.com]

Consider:

I claim the following are the congress critters operating assumptions:

1) we want to put a lot of money into stuff that is *against* the general welfare
2) we do not want to put money into stuff that "improves* the general welfare

Now consider a possible proxy for general welfare:

increase the productive part of the economy by say 2% a year instead of negative percents

Oops, if done, no more worries about the trust fund running out of money anytime soon

On this site, we could probably come up today with 20 good ways to do 2% increases

Talk to the Chinese, today, and among the things they are actively doing there, hey, 20 things to do 2% increases

talk to DC types, the priorities are, well, we already covered that in general and we all kind of know anyway. Do we really need to be specific?

here is a url you might look at: http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/insolvency

just a definition of insolvency

my thought here is that lots of people are avoiding using accurate words, if the words invoke a real context. You might look at this bit of nominalism and see where it applies around you.

At least that's how it works in the U.S.

Unless the officer utilized implied consent as the basis for the search, perhaps under the guise that he found the driver to be evasive when he suspected possible influence of drugs or alcohol. More information about implied consent can be found here.

I think you'll find your definition of hacking is not what you think it is
The Free Dictionary states: To gain access to (a computer file or network) illegally or without authorization A message stored in a voicemail system is a file stored on a computer somewhere and they gained access without permission.

So what's your definition? Is it because they used such an easy to use password it's not hacking? Does that then mean brute force or the use of a dictionary or simply trying the most common passwords is not hacking? Or is it because it was a phone connecting to the network that makes it no longer hacking? Or maybe it's that they managed to gain access to her phone records without actually having possession of her phone that stops it from being hacking?

http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/case+in+point

fraud, a definition

You need to realize that the state of mind of the defendant is often the entire point of a case and is the difference between "guilty" and "innocent" (the fancy Latin term is mens rea ). So if you act like a dick in court or in the actions surrounding the allegation, you may, in FACT, be convicting yourself by demonstrating your state of mind. The shock jocks demonstrated by their actions just what their state of mind was: malicious, reckless, and unrepentant. From a very real, legally defensible, well-established principle, their may well have pushed the likelihood of their guilt from "not enough proof" to "sufficient proof".

In other words, yes, they got a fair trail, because their behavior demonstrated the facts of the case. If someone is unlikeable, acts like an asshole, etc., is it more or less likely that person acted with malicious intent in the matter at hand? And is it more or less likely that the judge, with his authority to decide upon admissibility of evidence, to approve or deny motions by the lawyers involved, and discretion to decide sentencing, is going to throw the book at an asshole or Mother Teresa?

Today's lesson: don't be a dick. As far as the trial and its outcome is concerned, you'd BETTER be a likeable defendant.

At risk of being pedantic, sed "s/morals/mortals/". Everyone knows there is no one with morals here on /. (Q.E.D.).

Anyone here who find that 'quadrillion' is more descriptive than peta? (or 1e15, for that matter?).

Firstly, while for some quadrillion might sound more descriptive, in fact it's simply confusing. In some parts of the world it means 10^24 while in others 10^15: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/quadrillion

Secondly and most importantly, "peta-" is an SI prefix so it's inherently univocal: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SI_prefix#List_of_SI_prefixes

That would be a valid point, except that someone else mentioned in another thread that this disease is not yet well understood, and that assuming that it is genetic is not the right thing to do.

http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Rokitansky+syndrome - it is congenital, but that does not imply it is genetic.

The problem can be reformulated. Let's say someone shot her in the belly and destroyed her uterus. She would then decide to go for the transplant.

Given that the 'genetic pool' argument doesn't hold water anymore, would you change your point of view?

He most definitely dissembled.

Your sig is a little ironic in this case. Recommending to do something that you've never seen done because you have a theory it would work?

http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/I+beg+to+differ Now get off your Grammar high horse

Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act link

see also:

barratry n . creating legal business by stirring up disputes and quarrels, generally for the benefit of the lawyer who sees fees in the matter.

from The Free Dictionnary (0-click info at duckduckgo for the search terms "definition innovate")

innovate (n-vt)
v. innovated, innovating, innovates
v.tr. To begin or introduce (something new) for or as if for the first time.
v.intr.
To begin or introduce something new.

ergo, you are wrong, all the others are right, and Apple very seldom innovate anything. They merely adapt existing ideas

You're welcome

You don't 'edge' bets, you Hedge bets. FYI.

Maybe the submitter is French and has an accent, you insensitive clod!

Dear story submitter/writer and /. editors:

You don't 'edge' bets, you Hedge bets. FYI.

Drug: a chemical substance that affects the processes of the mind or body. Turkey contains a drug, Wasabi fits the dictionary definition of a drug. I don't know of any effect on the mind or body produced by Thyme or Basil, they're just AFAIK flavoring agents.

Change the spelling of what? 'Muon' is in fact a perfectly valid English word as can be seen in e.g. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/muon :

muon [mjun]
n
(Physics / General Physics) a positive or negative elementary particle with a mass 207 times that of an electron and spin ½. It was originally called the mu meson but is now classified as a lepton.

quote-and-quote deviant sexuality

You don't have to do air quotes when you can actually type the quotes. An the phrase is actually "quote, unquote"

Its "quote, endquote" in the US

http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/quote,+end+quote

Quite possibly. Sony's responsibilities to their customers might not rise to the level of Fiduciary Responsbility but customers do have a reasonable expectation of due care, at least with their credit card information and likely with their account information.

Further, to receive full indemnification from the payment-card industry against claims of fraud, you must be PCI compliant. Were Sony PCI compliant having un-patched software on public-facing servers? Doesn't seem like it. This could potentially open Sony up to all kinds of claims.

Even if Sony somehow manage to escape civil and criminal justice ramifications, carelessness is no way to run a business. Sony's reputation is already tarnished in the tech world. They may finally get the public scrutiny and drop in reputation and market-share they've earned and so well deserve.

Perhaps its because no one has been there since 1960.

So, doing something no one has done since 1960 is now a record?

http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/If+you+pay+peanuts,+you+get+monkeys

Apparently monkies are diversifying these days, maybe even outsourcing to elephants!

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/crony

crony
  (krn)
n. pl. cronies
A longtime close friend or companion.

how do we know that they're not simply joining up to see what others have there[?]

Patents, by their very nature, aren't secret, and OIN makes no secret of which patents are in their pool (it would rather defeat the purpose if they did), so I can't imagine what it is that you think they're going to learn by joining.

Promises are worth exactly as much as the paper they aren't written on.

Well, first of all, these promises are written on paper, and second of all, if a promise is made publicly enough, it doesn't matter whether it's written on paper, and as for your final fear about companies dissolving and assets being sold, the doctrines of promissory estoppel and laches would prevent any direct harm from such an event. A new asset owner couldn't just suddenly repudiate the promises made by the previous owner; they would have to give proper notice and allow those affected by the previous promise time to deal with the changing circumstances, at the very least.

Case & Point: I purchased

"Case & point"? Are you planning on casing the joint, then pointing at it?

Try "case in point". Because using an idiom twice, with it incorrect both times, really ruins any point that you hoped to make.

The word is "tracts"

First off: an opinion isn't libel. I never represented a single thing I said as indisputable fact. Maybe armchair lawyer wasn't your strong suit.

Sorry! You are dead wrong.

Part of the definition of "defamation of character", which covers libel (printed) and slander (spoken), only requires that it be a STATEMENT made. In order for what you said about "opinion" (which is true) to be an avoidance to suit, you must CLEARLY point out that you are stating an opinion; which you most assuredly did not do. I agree that you would likely ultimately prevail, but not before the defamation suit was filed.

But that's not the point.

I actually agree with what you have said in your reply to my response to your comment. There is no way that APPLE should be held liable for these idiots' failure to exercise due diligence. I admit that, by the time I got to your comment, I had read about ten too many comments that bent over backwards to call the parents "victims". If they were "victims" of ANYONE, it was the APP DEVELOPERS (which are not even named in this suit?); not Apple.

Apple has put about as many safeguards in place as they can without totally making in-app purchases a royal PITA. At some point, it's up to the ADULTS to be, well, ADULT.

So, despite your snarky comments about me not backing down, I hereby admit that we are pretty much on the same side on everything, as long as your "Slimy Business Model" agreement was directed at the App Devs, not Apple.

You don't know what a gray area is. Gray area: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/gray+area. Sexually stimulating is very well defined on an individual level. And unfortunately, bans are made through individual assessments of whether something is sexually stimulating. Get enough people in the right position to agree with the ban, and presto: black and white ban on boobies.

Get back to me when you understand the words that you're using.

batoning down the hatches

It's "battening down the hatches", though you might legitimately feel the urge to baton Samsung right now.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Recuse

"When a judge is assigned to a case, she reviews the general facts of the case and determines whether she has any conflict of interest concerning the case. If a conflict of interest exists, the judge may recuse herself on her own initiative. In addition, any party in a case may make a motion to require the judge to recuse herself from hearing the case. The initial presiding judge usually determines whether or not the apparent conflict requires her recusal, and the judge's decision is given considerable deference. Some jurisdictions, however, require another judge to decide whether or not the presiding judge should be disqualified. If a judge fails to recuse himself when a direct conflict of interest exists, the judge may later be reprimanded, suspended, or disciplined by the body that oversees Judicial Administration. In addition, in some cases where a judge presides over a matter in which he has a direct conflict of interest, any criminal conviction or civil damage award in the case may be reversed or set aside.

Generally, a judge must recuse himself if he has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party to the lawsuit or has personal knowledge of the facts that are disputed in the proceeding. The Code of Judicial Conduct, a judicial ethics code drafted by the American Bar Association in 1972 and adopted by most states and the federal government, outlines situations in which a judge should disqualify himself from presiding over a matter. Canon 3C of the Judicial Code outlines these situations, including the judge's personal bias or prejudice toward a matter or its participants, personal knowledge of the facts that are disputed in a case, a professional or familial relationship with a party or an attorney, or a financial interest in the outcome of the matter. Most interpretations of the code mandate a judge's disqualification or recusal if any of these factors are present.

I stand corrected in the original intention of my comment if in fact this is true. However I stand by my use of the word "silly" as the direct effect of the FOUO handling caveat is that it becomes classified.

Don't get me wrong; there is a system and it's being used. I'm just saying the system is silly IMHO.

And every time someone calls it DNF, I think Did Not Finish. I'm surprised they actually had the balls to announce a release date unless they were 110% sure they could hold it.

Arrest: American.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/arrest
An arrest may occur (1) by the touching or putting hands on the arrestee; (2) by any act that indicates an intention to take the arrestee into custody and that subjects the arrestee to the actual control and will of the person making the arrest; or (3) by the consent of the person to be arrested. There is no arrest where there is no restraint, and the restraint must be under real or pretended legal authority. However, the detention of a person need not be accompanied by formal words of arrest or a station house booking to constitute an arrest.

Pretty large net with arrest as requirement.

In Australia you are legally arrested if you are stopped by police for any reason.

An arrest consists of the seizure or the touching of a person's body with a view to his or her restraint. Words may amount to an arrest if they are calculated to bring to the person’s notice and do bring to the person’s notice that he or she is under a compulsion to accompany the police officer and he or she submits to the arrest.

Uh, that's certainly VERY "little research". Essentially, it's an opinion piece that includes two quotes - one from a Stephens Media rep who expresses hope that the lawsuits in question will result in more linkbacks to LVRJ articles online (and, by implication, fewer cops of LVRJ content), and the other from the slimebag that runs Righthaven. Now, since Stephens Media does NOT own Righthaven, I fail entirely to see how this "suggests" in any way, shape, or form that Stephens Media is "probably a lot slimy."

Which brings up the question of why you believe that a freelance writer (i.e. - me) selling a story to a weekly magazine whose editorial management is (as is the case with EVERY ethical news operation) completely divorced and firewalled from the business management side of the operation is in any way unethical, immoral, or "slimy".

Huh....actually, I chose to use the link to techdirt's piece 'cuz using Wikipedia is often considered to be "too easy" while I figured including a link to the statement of the President and CEO of Stephens Media announcing that Stephens Media had "grubstaked and contracted with a company called Righthaven" and filed 22 lawsuits as merely their opening salvo was likely to bias the reader. Especially if the reader knew the definition of "grubstake". .And I said the money they paid you was likely slimy; I did not say you were slimy for accepting it - rather, you chose to interpret it that way. Or perhaps, rather unusually for a freelance writer in America, English is your second language?

Oh, fer pity's sake:

grubstake/grbstk/ Verb: Provide with a grubstake. Noun: An amount of material, provisions, or money supplied to an enterprise (originally a prospector for ore) in return for a share in the resulting profits.

"A share in the profits" /= ""ownership".

And: "I said the money they paid you was likely slimy; I did not say you were slimy for accepting it - rather, you chose to interpret it that way," is sheer semantic handwaving on your part. Claiming that money paid for work entirely unrelated to copyright trolling and predating the creation of Righthaven by nearly three years is "slimy" implies a moral judgement on YOUR part about MY accepting it.

So kindly go fuck yourself, Judgey McJudgington.

Uh, that's certainly VERY "little research". Essentially, it's an opinion piece that includes two quotes - one from a Stephens Media rep who expresses hope that the lawsuits in question will result in more linkbacks to LVRJ articles online (and, by implication, fewer cops of LVRJ content), and the other from the slimebag that runs Righthaven. Now, since Stephens Media does NOT own Righthaven, I fail entirely to see how this "suggests" in any way, shape, or form that Stephens Media is "probably a lot slimy."

Which brings up the question of why you believe that a freelance writer (i.e. - me) selling a story to a weekly magazine whose editorial management is (as is the case with EVERY ethical news operation) completely divorced and firewalled from the business management side of the operation is in any way unethical, immoral, or "slimy".

Huh....actually, I chose to use the link to techdirt's piece 'cuz using Wikipedia is often considered to be "too easy" while I figured including a link to the statement of the President and CEO of Stephens Media announcing that Stephens Media had "grubstaked and contracted with a company called Righthaven" and filed 22 lawsuits as merely their opening salvo was likely to bias the reader.

Especially if the reader knew the definition of "grubstake".

.And I said the money they paid you was likely slimy; I did not say you were slimy for accepting it - rather, you chose to interpret it that way. Or perhaps, rather unusually for a freelance writer in America, English is your second language?

But nothing, not-a.

Nada. It means "nothing" in Espanol. On the upside, presuming you were typing the word phonetically, you have the pronunciation correct.

HAPPY FUN GRAMMAR NAZI ADVENTURE: "Jurisdiction", not "Jurisprudence". Remember, a dictionary page per day keeps the lurking trolls at bay!

HAPPY FUN GRAMMAR NAZI ADVENTURE: "Jurisdiction", not "Jurisprudence". Remember, a dictionary page per day keeps the lurking trolls at bay!

He's not the problem, your lack of understanding is.

Selection of existing gene variants is the process by which selection (natural or unnatural) can force greater prominence of certain traits.

Mutation is the method by which new traits can enter the gene pool, traits that arise through mutation can then be selected for for prominence.

It seems to be the mutation part that you are unaware of that is causing your failure to understand what is being said to you.

With these mechanisms you have what you need for new species and large diversity to arise. Your final paragraph seems to imply you still don't actually understand what evolution is. As always, feel free to read the perfectly good article here to get the basics:

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

Read the introduction and come back and explain to me what part of selecting for specific traits does not fall under this. If you are still struggling with the concept, then try the very definition of evolution from whichever dictionary you prefer:

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/evolution

You will find that you are completely wrong in both your paragraphs.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/outputted

Uh, in case you're not joking: it's French. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/faits+accomplis

Really I was just using it like this, which may very well be wrong. At any rate I probably should have said Scottish English to avoid ambiguity.

You must be a programmer. But you should still know it's spelled 'queue'. But what you you actually meant was 'cue'.

You must be a programmer. But you should still know it's spelled 'queue'. But what you you actually meant was 'cue'.

Poor argentinians. Apparently they all suffer from megalomania, also known as delusions of grandeur.

Megatonnes of water, you say? That will be difficult, as water has very little explosive potential.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/megatonnes/