Slashdot Mirror

Wikipedia is your friend :)

Sometimes Google treats me with more respect though.

M line
n.
A fine dark band in the center of the H band in the myofibrils of striated muscle fibers. Also called M band.

A histological structure in myofibrils in skeletal muscle. The line runs transversely to the length of the myofibrils and corresponds to the segment occupied by myosin myofilaments.

Source

Nope its called exploring, stop making up completely arbitrary definitions of words based on what you 'feel' they mean.

explore:
1. To investigate systematically; examine: explore every possibility.

2. To search into or travel in for the purpose of discovery: exploring outer space.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/explore

Perhaps you meant 'personified'.

No, when he said "...and yet, information hates to be anthromorphized" he was correct.
Or, at least, he would have been if he'd typed anthropomorphized.

to end all of this, is for one, just one, defendant to either win their case or to get it dismissed, and win on appeal, so that other defendants in these actions can apply the affirmative defense of collateral estoppel. NewYorkCountryLawyer may be able to affirm or enlighten us as to the viability of this as a defense.

Oh, and once again, "Damn their oily hides!"

Miscegnation used to be against the law in many places. Our laws have improved since those days, but who's to say that they couldn't use more improvement?

THe punishment is warrented in both cases.

No doubt. Do note though that it was not an ex-husband, it was an ex-"husband" as the relationship was only in-game.

All of the articles linked are scary in the implications, but the virtual divorce in Japan one was the scariest to me.

I'm embarrassed that an English spelling and grammar nazi[1] like me has to ask this but, what's the opposite term for uxoricide http://www.thefreedictionary.com/uxoricide ?

[1] Do not pound the shift key, you only need to capitalize the "T" in "The" and "warranted" is spelled "warranted". Always proofread through the Preview text when you are posting.

Yeah, but Linux Is Not Unix!

What's retarded is just how easy it is to show that your understanding of law is deficient. I clocked myself: a legal definition of what legally constitutes a person took me almost exactly 14 seconds, including the time it took to launch a new tab in Firefox to do the searching in.

Not checking your information is idiotic in this age of freely available information; you'd do well to double-check yourself next time so you don't look like a pompous (but wrong) doofus.

And for those of you too lazy to click the above link, a corporation IS legally considered a "person" in a number of contexts, as defined by a LEGAL dictionary. Don't confuse "person" with Natural Person which is more in line with your comments.

What's retarded is just how easy it is to show that your understanding of law is deficient. I clocked myself: a legal definition of what legally constitutes a person took me almost exactly 14 seconds, including the time it took to launch a new tab in Firefox to do the searching in.

Not checking your information is idiotic in this age of freely available information; you'd do well to double-check yourself next time so you don't look like a pompous (but wrong) doofus.

And for those of you too lazy to click the above link, a corporation IS legally considered a "person" in a number of contexts, as defined by a LEGAL dictionary. Don't confuse "person" with Natural Person which is more in line with your comments.

Actually taking into account the location of John Riccitiello speech, The Nielsen Company and Dow Jones, Media and Money Conference, it is more like investors bend over. As he will clearly say anything and distort any fact in order to plump up the companies share price and his bonus regardless of the consequence when reality comes back to bite the new shareholders on the butt as the result of a whole bunch of disgruntled customers.

Talk about over the top 'a number of them launched a cabal online' a bloody cabal,
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/cabal - 1. A conspiratorial group of plotters or intriguers:"Espionage is quite precisely it, a cabal of powerful men, working secretly" Frank Conroy..
You gaming terrorists you, see the harm you have caused, you tipped this poor guy into some delusional paranoid world where he is being pursued by political plotters.

I use British spelling, you insensitive, ignorant, grammar nazi, clod.

From The Free Dictionary:

A distant view or prospect, especially one seen through an opening, as between rows of buildings or trees.

In other words: a freakin' work in progress made by people with obfucasted view. Personally, I prefer _stable_ version 2 dot somethin'.

The phrase is "case in point".

scut work.

I particularly liked:

"Others see this as yet another example of their crumbling hegemony or indolence as their empire burns."

Here's an interesting concept the editors may wish to take a look at some time

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/objectivity

All joking aside this kind of childish rant isn't very good for slashdot. Does slashdot aspire to be "News for nerds" or "old stories for trolls to bitch about"?

Actually, you assume too much. I have moved unsourced material to the talk page, therefore it isn't actually removed entirely. If the material can be sourced, then people are free to put it back with the source - nothing should stop them. However, consider this: the definition of "trivia" is:

• matters or things that are very unimportant, inconsequential, or nonessential; trifles; trivialities.
• unimportant matters : trivial facts or details
• petty and unimportant things or details
• unimportant details or information
• a collection of insignificant or obscure items, details, or information

As you can see, I don't think the material that I am referring to actually relates to anything you talk about - clearly you don't think the material is unimportant, inconsequential, insignificant, obscure or petty! Therefore, I get annoyed when people feel that the information is not important, but should be in Wikipedia.

I should note that if information about a topic was cited from an external, reliable source, then I wouldn't have a problem with the material.

Actually, you assume too much. I have moved unsourced material to the talk page, therefore it isn't actually removed entirely. If the material can be sourced, then people are free to put it back with the source - nothing should stop them. However, consider this: the definition of "trivia" is:

• matters or things that are very unimportant, inconsequential, or nonessential; trifles; trivialities.
• unimportant matters : trivial facts or details
• petty and unimportant things or details
• unimportant details or information

As you can see, I don't think the material that I am referring to actually relates to anything you talk about - clearly you don't think the material is unimportant, inconsequential, insignificant, obscure or petty! Therefore, I get annoyed when people feel that the information is not important, but should be in Wikipedia.

I should note that if information about a topic was cited from an external, reliable source, then I wouldn't have a problem with the material.

SUPPRESSIO VERI - Concealment of truth.

In general a suppression of the truth, when a party is bound to disclose it, vitiates a contract. In the contract of insurance a knowledge of the facts is required to enable the underwriter to calculate the chances and form a due estimate of the risk; and, in this contract perhaps more than any other, the parties are required to represent every thing with fairness.

Suppressio veri as well as suggestio falsi is a ground to rescind an agreement, or at least not to carry it into execution.

--SUPPRESSIO VERI

SUGGESTIO FALSI. A statement of a falsehood. This amounts to a fraud whenever the party making it was bound to disclose the truth.

--SUGGESTIO FALSI

Latin saying suppressio veri, suggestio falsi: The suppression of the truth is the suggestion of a falsehood.

If you were using Chrome, you'd just have typed 'guff' into your Omnibox and found a definition. Is it really that hard to use a search engine before boasting about your own ignorance?

Like the quote that directly refutes what you said was the tying and tied product?

It does appear that in one of my comments, I reversed the labels 'tied' and 'tying' for a section, but the proposition remains the same.

I see, when the quotee clearly contradicts you, it is no longer relevant.

Hardly. The question was never whether there was an obligation to sell RDOS separately, but rather, as the court stated, whether there was an obligation to sell RDOS where the compatible hardware would be of no comparative utility without it and where commercial lock-in existed. Without those elements, there is no valid decision.

The court knows there is no monopoly and uses a much looser definition of market power.

Market power and monopoly are not the same. There is no issue of a monopoly in the antitrust sense when dealing with a single product.

If it was explicit, feel free to provide a quote.

The entire opinion stands for it. You're plainly unfamiliar with the basics of legal analysis. Opinions on unfair competition spell out the narrowest possible grounds. The act itself is not anticompetitive, or the opinion would be quite short. The refusal to license is not anticompetitive, or there would be no need to discuss the specifics of

Again, see Digidyne, or even my qute from Data General. It talks about the costs of moving to a new OS because of all the applications accumulated over time.

Time and time again you miss your own point. You can't have an accumulated investment in a platform you're entering. There is no lock-in by Apple preventing you from becoming an OS X user. The concepts are mutually exclusive. The court rejected no such argument. To do so would be ludicrous.

Digidyne directly contradicts you. "As the evidence in this case establishes, the initial choice is not free of forcing. Defendant's operating system has *1343 been shown to be unique as a matter of law and distinctively attractive as a matter of fact." The uniqueness came from copyright,

It does not. That is the precise section that invalidates the holding with respect to Apple. It is not the copyright that makes the product unique. It is the absence of functionally equivalent and substantially similar products.

Review what on point means -- it is about the applicability of the law / case law. Here's the first legal dictionary google pulled up:
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/On+Point

A statute or case is "on point" if it has direct application to the facts of a case currently before a tribunal for determination.

You're not reading what you've written. The facts are not on point. The existence of substantially similar and functionally equivalent alternatives to both OS X and the hardware it runs on eviscerates the crux of the decision. The total absence of commercial lock-in, which you are swimming around in confused circles trying to apply, is the vehicle used to elevate Data General to an actionable state. Without either of those certainly, and quite likely without both, the facts are not parallel and the case is not on point.

A case may be on point if its facts apply as a portion of your issue, but not if it oversteps. It does not matter how similar all the other pieces are if the critical elements are not present. It could be Apple refusing to license System 5 to Psystar two decades ago, but if the facts upon which the case is decided are not the same, the case is not on point.

And again, the quote from Digidyne: "As the evidence in this case establishes, the initial choice is not free of forcing.".

And again, you do so without the context: the initial choice th

So why don't Motorola or Scientific Atlanta sell their set-top boxes directly to consumers? You don't seem particularly disturbed by your comment that "the companies that make the boxes are under contract with the service providers to only distribute their boxes to those companies." To me that sounds like a restraint of trade.

Isn't it at least an open question whether the requirement that I lease a box from my cable operator constitutes an illegal "tying arrangement?" I'd be more than happy to buy a Moto DVR direct from Motorola or from a retailer instead of leasing one from my cable operator. Why shouldn't I be able to do that?

Hi. :^)

definition: clearer

Hmmm.... Think "clearer", perhaps?

I must infer that you are dictionary-non-user. ;^P

Interesting points.

The BBC article linked in the Slashdot story says, "Rember, or methylthioninium chloride, is the first treatment specifically designed to target the Tau tangles."

Note that, apparently:

1) They don't know what causes Alzheimer's disease. They have only found a chemical that modifies the course of the disease.

2) The smack-you-in-the-face marketing has already begun? They are calling the drug, "Rember"?

The "drug" is only a well-known synthetic dye. "Rember" is Methylene blue. The Free Dictionary says it is, "A basic aniline dye that forms a deep blue solution when dissolved in water and is used as a bacteriological stain and as an antidote for cyanide poisoning."

3) This is apparently just an example of trying every known chemical to see if it modifies every known disease. If it works, fine, but it is not an example of science; it is apparently only an example of somewhat blindly trying everything. How is that a "treatment specifically designed"?

My understanding is that it is common to have temporary remissions of the symptoms of Alzheimer's disease. In any short clinical trial, there will be some people who have improved.

4) "... the trial was funded by a pharmaceutical company..." according to the BBC article.

Actually it's a language issue that created a misunderstanding of intent. In Congressional terms initiative means starting the process and has nothing to do with creation.

Sigh, why do we have to go over this again and again? The phrase "took the initiative" is an idiom for "I did this", with implications about my motivations and such. Please see here. One cannot "take" a congressional initiative. One can "support" such an initiative, or even start it, but the phrase "take the initiative" has a completely different meaning. That's why it's an idiom.

It's remotely possible that Gore simply misspoke. I was watching that interview and nearly did a spit-take when he made that statement. Nobody twisted his words, but it's possible that he was thinking about initiatives and accidently said that he took one.

Racy... I do not think that word means what you think it means.

It's like criticizing the makers of Soylent Green for using people as the ingredients and yet YOU STILL EAT SOYLENT GREEN.

Bah, we have do *something* about all these damned people everywhere. Besides... pork is delicious. :)

And in the context of the iPhone, it might be made from people, but it tastes great and that's all that matters.

[I]t doesn't take long until an OpenDNS drone recommends OpenDNS, yet somehow they always "forget" that tidbit. People who follow those recommendations are swindled as much as users of ISPs who manipulate DNS.

Except when you're not paying money for it, it's hardly a swindle (see: swindle).

An applicant you mean? I don't know if I'd like to work for an employer who can't spell.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Applicate

See how silly that is? It's an honest mistake, and here I am condemning you for it. I'm even suggesting that you can't spell AT ALL, even though you only made one mistake in the whole post. I'm making sweeping generalizations about your literacy based on a post on the Internet.

If you cut out applicants based on whether they have a squeaky clean Internet Posting Record, you are making a rather arbitrary (and poor) choice. You are also wasting your time on Myspace when you SHOULD be reading those resumes we spend hours on.

Actually, that's the exact definition of sloshed. Having a beer on a hot day doesn't count. Having 6 after work does.

Methinks you need to review the definition of "auction," troll.

A few innocuous, well-placed lines of code and suddenly you'd be in a position to shut down half the internet.

Yeah righhht. Innocuous [def: not causing or capable of causing harm]. A few lines of really malicious code will not bring down half the internet, never mind innocuous.

Maybe term it Conjecture? It's the fitting word to use.

I believe "conjecture" is usually used in scientific contexts as a formal way to basically say "guess". It is also has a well-established meaning in mathematics, which is somewhat analogous to "hypothesis" is the natural sciences.

That there isn't any type of classification in between LAW and THEORY

Makes things like this sit in the same bucket as one of my drunken musings. "I have a theory that.... in..... etc". There should be a state of a theory where they can say "Well, we can't yet prove all of it, but we have managed to prove x amount, or in x years of testing, it has yet to be unproven".

Maybe term it Conjecture? It's the fitting word to use.

Huh? I refuse to break common semantics because of American military jargon. A soldier is someone serving in AN army, not THE army, to the rest of the world. Whatever we term them per specific branch doesn't change the fact that they all are soldiers.

Its like the PC newspeak thing ("personhole covers", etc...), except for the military.

Don't speak American Jargon when you are speaking the official language of America and talking of an American Military.

Yeah, that makes sense. Should we call the USAF the Wermacht?

--Toll_Free

Here are a lot of non-offensive explanations:

1. Whiskey Tango Foxtrot
2. Wednesday Thursday Friday
3. Wow Text File
4. Write To File
5. Welcome To France (lolcats)
6. We The French
7. Work Time Fun

More unique stuff here

Huh? I refuse to break common semantics because of American military jargon. A soldier is someone serving in AN army, not THE army, to the rest of the world. Whatever we term them per specific branch doesn't change the fact that they all are soldiers.

Its like the PC newspeak thing ("personhole covers", etc...), except for the military.

Huh? I refuse to break common semantics because of American military jargon. A soldier is someone serving in AN army, not THE army, to the rest of the world. Whatever we term them per specific branch doesn't change the fact that they all are soldiers.

Its like the PC newspeak thing ("personhole covers", etc...), except for the military.

Huh? I refuse to break common semantics because of American military jargon. A soldier is someone serving in AN army, not THE army, to the rest of the world. Whatever we term them per specific branch doesn't change the fact that they all are soldiers.

Its like the PC newspeak thing ("personhole covers", etc...), except for the military.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/sarcasm

"Laud" its "pratfalls"? What, praise its physical comedy?

Maybe you meant, "decry [its] pitfalls."

"Laud" its "pratfalls"? What, praise its physical comedy?

Maybe you meant, "decry [its] pitfalls."

Note that, unlike popular current trends, judges are not there to decide what the law _should_ be and rule on that but only to enforce the applicability of current laws to the specifics of the case at hand. Might think about that before you decry the ruling. Bottom line: if you don't like this, stop whining and playing the martyr and go vote for someone that will do what you want. Otherwise, see Catharsis(4)(a).

Perhaps the porn was there as a benchmark (no pun intended). Anything freakier than what the judge had is obscene, anything less exotic is simply porn. Even if that wasn't it's intended purpose, it would make an interesting point to argue. After all as a judge, Kozinski is a moral compass, and he is sharing this material with his friends whom we can also assume are pillars of the community, so by them accepting this material,we can conclude that it is not "Offensive to accepted standards of decency or modesty." because the standard-bearers of our society have already show to find it acceptable.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/piracy

hate to reply to my own post - after digging through 570,000 ads for ticker software (what the hell?) I find that I was misinformed.

The NYSE has "breakers" in place that close the markets after certain percentage drops so that auto-trading won't continue the downward spiral.

external link to definition of "Rule 80b"

I've wondered that myself. So I googled "MMO definition" and this is the best I got: Acronyms

How any of those apply to a television show is beyond this old fart. I guess "Massively Multiplayer Online (gaming)" is the only one that applies?

Ah, English, how I miss thee.

Put 2 lawyers in the same room and you will get at least 2 differing opinions :-)

These web pages seem to say something different. But it could matter whether one is describing the effect or how it is used, or just the basis of the words in their Latin roots. And certainly "without notice" pretty much describes Ex Parte everywhere I've seen it used (via various news and online sources since IANAL).

Bowlderized? Is that rock-solid censorship?