Slashdot Mirror

Yes, you can parody a public official, that doesn't mean you can use other peoples copyrighted material to make parody of something else. This has been seen many, many time.

Fair use is an affirmative defense[link for the lazy] to copyright infringement and clearly political parody is fair use.(see: Mastercard v. Nader)

You might want to study some cases and try to actually comprehend the linkis[sic] you posted. Item 3 definitely applies to TIME, and possible to the MPAA(Joker image)

Your trolling, but I'll bite. You might want to brush up on your arm chair lawyering.

Actually, that's the entering. Breaking is the act before entering. That's why it's called "breaking and entering". See http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/burglary

"At common law, entering through a preexisting opening did not constitute breaking. If one gained access through an open door or window, burglary was not committed. The same rule applied when a door or window was partially open even though it was necessary to open it further in order to enter. The rationale under-lying this rule was that one who failed to secure his or her dwelling was not entitled to the protection of the law. A majority of states no longer follow this rule and consider breaking to be the slightest application of force to gain entry through a partially accessible opening."

So, my original point was that in modern US law, you don't have to do much "breaking" to commit a break and enter.

It's not "censorship" when you are free to go and start your own wiki if you disagree with the policies of Wikipedia.

Actually, I believe I have to disagree. Sure, you can argue along lines of "absoluteness" according to the pervasiveness of your chosen government's power.

But ultimately, if an individual (or group of individuals) suppresses a statement made by another individual, that qualifies as censorship by most definitions, regardless of whether the opus is "The Tin-Pot Journal of Macrame" or any of the output from Reuter's. Here's one example that comes conveniently to Google: "The suppression or proscription of speech or writing that is deemed obscene, indecent, or unduly controversial" (The Free Online Law Dictionary). One only has to disagree with the statement to make it controversial.

I'm a huge fan of Wikipedia, but this type of capricious use of influence leaves an unsavoury flavour in the mouth. I am pleased to be able to say, however, that I have rarely encountered it.

I don't know what this Capitol Crime is, it must be an American thing, but to rephrase the GP's point, there is no such thing as a Capital Crime in the UK.

An unconscionable contract is one that no person who is mentally competent would enter into and that no fair and honest person would accept. Courts find that unconscionable contracts usually result from the exploitation of consumers who are often poorly educated, impoverished, and unable to find the best price available in the competitive marketplace.

Contractual provisions that indicate gross one-sidedness in favor of the seller include provisions that limit damages against the seller, limit the rights of the purchaser to seek court relief against the seller, or disclaim a Warranty. ...

Unconscionability is determined by examining the circumstances of the parties when the contract was made; these circumstances include, for example, the bargaining power, age, and mental capacity of the parties. The doctrine is applied only where it would be an affront to the integrity of the judicial system to enforce such contracts.

Unconscionable conduct is also found in acts of Fraud and deceit, where the deliberate Misrepresentation of fact deprives someone of a valuable possession. ...

A court of law applies its conscience, or moral sense, to the facts before it and makes a subjective judgment. The U.S. Supreme Court's "shock the conscience test" in rochin v. california, 342 U.S. 165, 72 S. Ct. 205, 96 L. Ed. 183 (1952), demonstrates this approach. The Court ruled that pumping the stomach of a criminal suspect in search of drugs offends "those canons of decency and fairness which express the notions of justice of English-speaking peoples."

I quote Collins Essential English Dictionary 2nd Edition 2006:

Olympiad
Noun
1. a staging of the modern Olympic Games
2. an international contest in chess or other games

The word "olympiad" is extremely common in the names of major national and international contests in fields such as mathematics, science, computer science, etc.

XYY defense:

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/XYY+Chromosomal+Abnormality+Defense

I suspect that this will have all the same weight in a courtroom: little to none.

--
BMO

You could have googled a legal definition. I'll note that "from collusive agreements" fits MS exactly.

"An economic advantage held by one or more persons or companies deriving from the exclusive power to carry on a particular business or trade or to manufacture and sell a particular item, thereby suppressing competition and allowing such persons or companies to raise the price of a product or service substantially above the price that would be established by a free market."

Even in Al Capone's Chicago, other people produced and sold alcohol. Al still had a monopoly.

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

You can't possibly believe that Microsoft got where it is today by embracing "free trade". How many individual companies did they bankrupt or otherwise run out of business, often times with the mere threat of a lawsuit that the smaller company couldn't afford to fight?

Coming around a blind corner?!? There's a rather sickening video of the actual event on the same page as the article. (http://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local-beat/Officers-Who-Struck-Killed-Child-Gets-1-Day-Suspension-52187867.html) He was going around a left hand bend in the road at speeds in excess of 70MPH. At the *very* least, any one of us doing the same would be charged with involuntary manslaughter, but more likely second degree murder for engaging in wantonly reckless behavior.

birth pang
n.
1. One of the repetitive pains occurring in childbirth. Often used in the plural.
2. birth pangs Difficulty or turmoil associated with a development or transition

Intent is an essential element of assault. In tort law, it can be specific intentâ"if the assailant intends to cause the apprehension of harmful or offensive contact in the victimâ"or general intentâ"if he or she intends to do the act that causes such apprehension. In addition, the intent element is satisfied if it is substantially certain, to a reasonable person, that the act will cause the result. A defendant who holds a gun to a victim's head possesses the requisite intent, since it is substantially certain that this act will produce an apprehension in the victim. In all cases, intent to kill or harm is irrelevant.

citation: http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Assault

Seriously. If you can't read well written cursive then you shouldn't just "feel" illiterate, you should acknowledge that you are, in fact, not literate. At least in my opinion.

illiterate - 2.a. Marked by inferiority to an expected standard of familiarity with language and literature. (Source: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/illiterate)

This leads to the discussion of whether or not reading and writing in cursive is an "expected standard of familiarity." I believe that it is. It might be argued, however, that our society either no longer expects -- or expects but no longer requires -- the capability to read and write script. Perhaps it is most accurate to say that true English language literacy (both using cursive and spelling as examples) is no longer required for adequate social acceptance and job performance due to the capability of our machines to be literate for us.

It seems prefectly [sic] reasonable that two people sharing the same environment would moderate their conversation to suit that environment better than when only one person in the conversation is in that environment.

Better, yes. But the assumption of linearity is the stupid factor here (twice as better? Hah). It also seems perfectly reasonable to me that with a cellphone, it is easier to simply drop the damn thing onto the passenger seat if things get tense on the road. I'd love to see you ask a loved one to simply STFU as easily. Lot more excuses for "dropping a call" too eh? See my reply to icebike above where I quote from HIS linked study. Again, it all comes down to WHO the passenger is. The casual assumption (based on studies done on nominal adults) that ALL passengers will shut up when they see tense traffic conditions is what galls me.

He's doing no such thing. He's saying that those sensibilities (if that is the right word) added together have a superior effect than just one of them. Why wouldn't it?

Superior, sure. I claim that the superiority is marginal, hardly proportional.

And yes, that is the right word. Sensibility: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/sensibility

Well the distilled water bad for you theory relies on the fact that distilled water is hypotonic, and would absorb minerals from the body.

If that were the case then all water this side of Gatorade would be "bad" for you. I'm using you are using the usual definition of hypotonic, that is less salt load than blood. Stuff doesn't "leach" out of you. It's actively filtered or not. Give the body a break. It's smarter than you are. As is often mentioned on morning rounds "The dumbest kidney is smarter than the brightest intern".

It is in many online dictionaries:
For example: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/unreplaceable
now it very well might be technically not a word, but I see no reason to care about that.

courgette

Thanks, but don't forget the base meaning of 'promise'.

Nope. It's true, Nokia bought Trolltech. Quote: 'Eirik Chambe-Eng, Chief Troll and co-founder of Trolltech continues "We are thrilled to join forces with Nokia." '

I wonder if the people who work with Qt (cutie) will continue the tradition of calling themselves "trolls"? A troll is "an imaginary creature of human-like form, very ugly and evil-tempered".

I doubt very much that the people who work with Qt are ugly and evil-tempered. What I think they meant is that, originally, they had a feeling of not belonging.

I wonder if they will continue calling themselves trolls now that they are part of Nokia.

Quaint is used to mean charmingly odd or unfamiliar: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/quaint

First of all, why use an acronym if you're going to write out what it is anyway? Just say "Please enlighten me, I am a scientist." It's quicker. Secondly, that's not what IAAS stands for anyway...

Right, you intentionally used an archaic word that nobody uses in that sense and which only definition comes from the Webster of 1913 and that most dictionaries don't even list. Even the Meriam-Webster doesn't list it anymore. Not to mention that the definition you found doesn't make any sense for the word in the sentence you said.

Good trolling, but here's what really happened : http://lol.i.trollyou.com/LOL-I-TROLL-YOU.png

Or to put it into words, you said idiocracy when you meant idiocy because of the movie, I laughed at you, so you went looking for a rare and obscure definition that would make you look less like a moron, you had a good laugh thinking you'd get away with it. Yeah, nice try, honestly, but you're still the moron who confuses such a common word as idiocy with a neologism from a movie.

In the US, the presumption of innocence is a criminal doctrine, not a civil doctrine. In civil procedure, you have a stage called discovery where you have to reveal documents if they are responsive to interrogatories, subpoenas, etc. If you don't have it, no biggie. If you don't have it and there is evidence you got rid of it in order to gain a benefit at trial, then the rule of omnia presumuntur contra spoliatorem (assume all against the wrongdoer) applies.

I'll try not to overburden your cognitive facilities with complicated terms to name this type of lingual phenomenon. Suffice to say, it's not uncommon.

No, extragalactic is a specific term that means outside of OUR galaxy, not outside of any galaxy.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/extragalactic
http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_/extragalactic.html
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/extragalactic
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/extragalactic
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/extragalactic
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extragalactic_astronomy

I'm not confused or tricked in the least - quite the contrary, in fact.

Parse the 'security' definition a little further and/or with more care; in particular, pay attention to the use of the word "assure", as opposed to "ensure", which, based on how you are arguing this point, seems to be your expectation of what is implicit in the term and/or idea of 'security'.

Security (3) reads: "Something that gives or assures safety,"

The first half of Assure defined states:

1. To inform positively, as to remove doubt. 2. To cause to feel sure. 3. To give confidence to; reassure.

I do understand the point you are trying to make, and why. In fact, we are likely largely in agreement. I am simply pointing out that the statements you are making are overbroad and general, and that you could make them more effective in order to get the point across.

Have a good Friday evening yourself. :)

Wrong. There IS more security today. Lots of it - just go to an airport and look.

Security definition. Check 3(b).

That said - the efficaciousness of said can be brought into doubt, but the fact that there is more of it (or at least, an attempt at such) cannot.

No matter how much you believe to the contrary. Sorry, but you might want to put more thought into how you are phrasing/making your argument. This is a tough crowd. ;)

You really think that little hand held GPS is transmitting signals all the way back through deep space to the GPS satellite !

You really think that little GPS satellite is in deep space !

Yeah, we all say stupid stuff, me especially. I apologized for my ignorance, get over it. I figured if the guy wanted to monitor his kid through it on the web, it would have to send back some sort of signal. Your post was very informative and helpful.

You might want to look up a few terms.

For example, there are many sources (e.g. legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com is a nice easy-to-find one) from which you could learn that patent infringement includes both use and manufacture. It is absolutely a coder's concern.

You also should look up "troll", which surprisingly does not mean "for someone to correctly state facts of which you are unaware".

LOL: He's been sitting at home bemoaning the Information Highway and got hooked into the analogy good and proper! Guard Rails ... yer! That's what we need. And Information bridges and tunnels to allow us to pass over the Porn Swamps and under Gambling Mountains with traffic light controlled off and on ramps to restrict access!

Obviously we'll need a Hard Shoulder for when your PC breaks down, and some sort of Central Reservation (or "Median Strip") to keep the upload and download data streams from crashing head-on!

Sheez! It's tubes all over again!

LOL: He's been sitting at home bemoaning the Information Highway and got hooked into the analogy good and proper! Guard Rails ... yer! That's what we need. And Information bridges and tunnels to allow us to pass over the Porn Swamps and under Gambling Mountains with traffic light controlled off and on ramps to restrict access!

Obviously we'll need a Hard Shoulder for when your PC breaks down, and some sort of Central Reservation (or "Median Strip") to keep the upload and download data streams from crashing head-on!

Sheez! It's tubes all over again!

Actually, this attack assumes you have proximity to both the computer and the account holder. In general once one has proximity, they will get in unless there are measure like smart cards and/or biometrics in place, and even then - as the cartoon shows - these are not foolproof.

A network based attack, is however, an entirely different story.

Like others have said, that's not what elitist means. Specifically, look at definition 2.a. By the way, get out. You're not welcome at Slashdot anymore. We don't need the likes of you. You don't even know. what. elitist. means!! Do you even understand how to use a computer? Give us all a break. Leave the commenting to the big boys.

(This has been an in situ definition of "elitism" brought to you by the letter "E" and a lack of morning coffee. Viva la guapo!)

The person from whom it was stolen can still hold the thief liable for damages, but can't get their original goods back.

A little googling brings up a lot of sites to dispute that claim:
http://www.legal-explanations.com/definitions/possession-of-stolen-goods.htm
http://definitions.uslegal.com/p/possession-of-stolen-property/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Possession_of_stolen_goods
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/possession+of+stolen+goods

If you can prove something was stolen from you, you can get it back or get compensated for it's value most of the time... the operative word is "prove". This is why it's important to mark your stuff in a manner most thieves will miss... like writing your name on the top of an ATX power supply before you install it. On laptops the inside of the RAM cover plate AND under the battery are both good. This also helps keep your stuff out of police auctions.

Just because you claim not to have known something was stolen does not allow you to keep the item, and if it can be shown you either have it or converted (sold or traded) it then you are on the hook for it, regardless of what you knew at the time.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/climate

"Weather over time" would seem to be an accurate simplification of just about any definition of climate. Since you disagree, could you try to do so in more than one word? Because your unsupported assertion is contrary to everthing I've ever read on the subject.

Lithium is a heavy metal, like lead

Nope. Here's a definition of metals, alkali metals and heavy metals and here is the SG of Lithium.

to take, get, or win insidiously, surreptitiously, subtly, or by chance: He stole my girlfriend.

I can't remember the last time I saw somebody in court charged with theft of a girlfriend (outside of Suadi or Iran). Nor can I remember any arrests under the definition of "to move, bring, convey, or put secretly or quietly", for gaining a point in a game through strategy, chance or luck, or for "stealing" attention.

Maybe that's because the definitions used in law are not the same as those used in the dictionary. If they were, we could accuse Brad Wardell of being a murderer because he made a quick profit, which is a definition of killing from dictionary.com

The word under discussion is not "steal" though, but "thief". http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Thief

THIEF, crimes. One who has been guilty of larceny or theft.

Look up both larceny and theft there, and you'll see they involve the taking of property. Making a copy of something does not involve removal of the original from the owners possesion.
On the same subject, making a copy does not involve "copyright theft", unless you happen to have taken away the rights of the creator. The way big studios use hollywood accounting to swindle writers for instance.

This does leave a slight problem for people who like to rant about piracy though.

either buy it or accept that you're a copyright infringer and quit rationalizing it any other way

doesn't sound quite as good as calling people thieves.

Fuck You You Fucking Tools Tool-

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Bastile

      No go wipe the shit of your mouth

"Eclipse" is when the Sun is blocked/hidden/occulted

I think you mean occluded. "occulted" is when you wave a dead chicken at it at midnight.

That usage of "occult" is unusual but not incorrect. Both occult and occlude are derived from the same Latin root. See here: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/occult Entries 4 and 9-11 cover the usage regarding something being hidden

I realize you were trying to be funny, and in a way you were, but check the definition of occult. One of the definitions, and the oldest one for that matter, is "hidden from view." Heck, your reference even has the first definition of Occulted (on the same page as above) as "To conceal or cause to disappear from view."

Just saying that before you try and correct someone, you actually check that what your saying is, in fact, correct.

"Eclipse" is when the Sun is blocked/hidden/occulted

I think you mean occluded. "occulted" is when you wave a dead chicken at it at midnight.

the term "hybrid" makes me nervous. A mouse with a single human gene is technically a hybrid

And so is a person who gets a catgut suture. Will this law make surgery illegal?

I've spent 15 minutes attempting to track down the definition of "CA" in this context to no avail, would someone be able to point out the correct definition for me? (sad, yes, but I'm curious to find other examples and a google search for CA isn't exactly concise).

Community Admin|Advisor|Assistant|Agent|etc, Certificate Authority and so on were perhaps mildly plausible ones I located on the free dictionary but there weren't exactly any conclusive answers for gaming (unless they're hiring concentration auras, of course). Community Admin sounds too broad for someone vetting quests.

I really wish people would define their jargon acronyms the first time they use them in their responses.

Perhaps, but if you don't lock your door, it's not breaking and entering, just entering. Theft is another matter.

Actually, you are wrong. Under the law, "breaking and entering" covers any use of force, however slight, to make unauthorized entry. That includes opening an unlocked door and even pushing open an unlatched door or lifting an unlocked window.

Thanks for playing, you lose.

(hmm... Firefox says that "verifiably" isn't a word, but I looked it up, turns out it's a valid adverb form of "verifiable")

firefox's dictionary is horrible. i've lost track of the number of technical terms and simple grammatical derivations it's missing. the os x dictionary is far better, but i'm stuck on windows here at work....

I was hoping that they were just giving away short-term licenses to anyone, but apparently if you sign up for the program, you have to be verifiably unemployed. I wonder what method they use to check...

(hmm... Firefox says that "verifiably" isn't a word, but I looked it up, turns out it's a valid adverb form of "verifiable")

Okay, business,

"Occupation, work, or trade in which one is engaged." Sure, they are occupied in some sort of work or trade, but what does that say about balance?

"Specific occupation or pursuit." Sure they are pursuing a monopoly. What does that say about balance?

"Commercial, industrial, or professional dealings." Commercial, industrial, yeah, but I'm not going to give you professional, unless you mean in the sense of the boss who says to sacrifice the entire spec for that ephemeral market window. There is some sort of profession of some sort of something in that attitude, but I don't see it as a profession of any sort of service.

"Commercial enterprise or establishment." Yeah, they have established an effective monopoly, and their current enterprise plan is to extend the monopoly as far as they can, even if they destroy the market and hobble the industry.

"One's rightful or proper concern or interest," or "Something involving one personally." Maybe you believe Microsoft has some natural right to the monopoly?

"Serious work or endeavor." Serious like death? If they were serious, they would not be hell bent on destroying the market for the sake of their monopoly.

"Affair or matter." You find some sort of excuse here?

"[Filler material in some sort of entertainment.]" I don't find it the least entertaining, and I don't even find the value of filler material in what they produce. Filling in with trash just makes the rest of it stink.

"Abuse, scolding." It says, "verbal," but I've given the business with the business end of a belt, too. And Gates and his buddies somehow avoided being given the business in the anti-monopoly proceedings. And now they think they can continue to get away with what they are doing, but the economy itself will destroy them if they don't quit.

"Condition of being busy." Says that one is obsolete, I don't know why. They definitely are busy doing things they shouldn't.

I don't see anywhere in there about monopolizing the market or industry. Are you going to argue that they have some sort of excuse for maintaining their effective monopoly? Where is there any balance in the current market? Are you going to argue that there can be balance in a monopoly market?

I don't care what business they give you in business school, a business that is not interested in the health of the industry and market in which it operates is not a business. A market out of balance is not healthy. That's the whole problem with every current implementation of communism and most implementations of socialism and nationalism -- there is an implicit monopoly, no reason or room to compete, no reason or room to improve.

About nine or ten years ago, Microsoft was defending their monopoly under some sort of PR campaign claiming they had some natural right to "innovate" or something, implicitly at the expense of everyone else. It's a sick idea, and if the market follows it, the market may seem to boom for a while, then it busts. Do you not understand that Microsoft is at the center of the current failure of the economy? Their business ideas poisoned the rest of the "business" market. Everybody wanting today's bottom line to rule the world.

I don't suppose you're still reading, but in case you are, the argument you give about most users not knowing how to use the internet is the very reason Microsoft should not have enabled naked network connectivity in MSWindows 95. That "engineering" attitude is the very center of the current trouble with malware that gets spread, automatically or by social engineering, mostly through MSOutlook or MSOutlook Express and through MSInternet Explorer.

Sure, the average user will be dazzled by the mail attachment that automatically starts running. That's the whole problem. Even Linux does not yet have the necessary protections to allow that kind of "interactive" application safely.

Likewise for web pages that have a lot of bells and whistles and stuff that

If Microsoft were showing the slightest interest in restoring balance to the marketplace,

Microsoft - hate them or like them, is a business. That's what Business do - they are not interested in 'restoring the balance' or giving their earnings away to other competitors who have not done as well...

If Microsoft were showing the slightest real interest in undoing the damage their software has done to the internet,

What damage? Without MS products, most of the average users wouldn't know *how* to use the Internet. Not everyone is technically astute like the folks here on /.

If Microsoft were showing the slightest indication of getting away from the sieve security models they've been using to enable bad software to keep running in spite of the damage it has already done (and will continue do) to the internet,

Because all the software developed OSS and all the software on Linux and Macs is rock solid? I just spent 20 minutes applying patches to my Linux router (IPCop) this morning, which patched their software, core kernel stuff, core TCP/IP services. That's because the software was written by imperfect humans, there are going to be mistakes that someone can exploit.

If the money they have hadn't been taken by fraudulently selling feature lists instead of real features, ...

I don't follow? Something specific you're referencing?

The problem is Microsoft. Where they are a burden to the infrastructure, they should foot the bill for fixing the problems they've caused.

Or none of it and the city / county / state (whoever is responsible for transportation costs in that state, it varies state to state) could just figure out how they're going to deal with the traffic troubles without any help.

I saw an earlier response to someone's "just tax them more to pay for it" that read something to the effect of "that's killing the goose that lays the golden eggs." I don't know what other industry is in Redmond outside of Microsoft. I am not saying there isn't any, I am just saying I don't know. Perhaps MS could move away from there, build somewhere else that has better infrastructure and it be no worries for the city of Redmond but I suspect that they derive a good portion of their tax revenue from both the company and from the employees that live / work / eat / spend in that city.

I know I will probably be modded down for being perceived as pro MS but I am really just trying to be pro-capitalism. Like them or hate them, they have done a lot for the PC market and probably the computer market as a whole. I won't for a second say they're perfect and probably not my favorite group of folks. All I am saying is - don't hate them because they have a successful business model.

*sigh*, is it just me or do people throw around the 'T' word way too easily around here? Perhaps the Founding Fathers were right to define it in the Constitution so it wouldn't be abused.....

Why is it that this is constantly brought up on /., when treason is mentioned, when it's quite simply wrong?

Treason is defined in a dictionary. Look it up. Treason is also defined in the Constitution so that it cannot be abused by the government. The people are free to use definitions such as the one given here.

It is a valid word, though it does seem to break the standard meaning of -logy, doesn't it? Seems like there is at least one exception to every rule in English...

Most climate change theories put the temperature shift at fractions of a degree every decade.

The climate change models are only based on fairly recent data (and the most accurate data is only a few years old).

The scare mongers (like Algore and company) are insisting that climate change is caused by people and the longest-term records show that the earth has undergone many different long-term climate changes like ice ages and subsequent global warming to get things back to "normal".

I would give the recent data putting temperatures as cooling in the last couple of years as much weight as I would put on data from the last 50 or 100 years. The earth has been around for billions of years and we do not have enough data to predict future trends without other variables being added in as "special sauce" to the computation.

FYI: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/paragraph