Slashdot Mirror

Small claims court. Learn it, live it, love it. This shit fails the merchantability and fitness implied warranty.

Use the crumbs the legal system does afford the poor fumb duck consumer before shrugging and excusing evil and incompetence on the part of capitalist ripoff artists.

The free dictionary:
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/back+door

...

Oxford:
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/back-door

So obviously it does not matter if it was a "published interface" or even if it was on purpose. It still qualifies as a backdoor. Frankly it does not sound like an accident either so I wouldn't even classify it as a bug. I certainly dont think it is unintended, a mistake, or an error. That means it does not fit your definition.

Note: Bold was added by me, and I did search other online dictionaries, most did not have definition that was technical in nature. Most referred to Back-door deals. Ones I checked were Miriam-Websters, Cambridge, and Oxford. If anyone does find a better definition I welcome being corrected.

You don't understand, I'm not saying that it's not a back door, nor that it's not a big glaring security whole, I'd even agree with someone that said it's irresponsible.

But there's no reason why it can't be all of those things *and* still be called a bug -- they are not mutually exclusive.

It could have even been coded that way intentionally to integrate with other software or for diagnostics or whatever and it would *still* be a bug if the functionality can be exploited for other means.

The free dictionary:
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/back+door

Noun 2. back door - an undocumented way to get access to a computer system or the data it containsback door - an undocumented way to get access to a computer system or the data it contains
backdoor
access code, access - a code (a series of characters or digits) that must be entered in some way (typed or dialed or spoken) to get the use of something (a telephone line or a computer or a local area network etc.)

Oxford:
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/back-door

noun
        the door or entrance at the back of a building.
        a feature or defect of a computer system that allows surreptitious unauthorized access to data.

So obviously it does not matter if it was a "published interface" or even if it was on purpose. It still qualifies as a backdoor. Frankly it does not sound like an accident either so I wouldn't even classify it as a bug. I certainly dont think it is unintended, a mistake, or an error. That means it does not fit your definition.

Note: Bold was added by me, and I did search other online dictionaries, most did not have definition that was technical in nature. Most referred to Back-door deals. Ones I checked were Miriam-Websters, Cambridge, and Oxford. If anyone does find a better definition I welcome being corrected.

there's this thing called the internet, it has more than porn and slashdot on it :-)

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/gormless

gormÂless (gÃrmls)
adj. Chiefly British
Lacking intelligence and vitality; dull.
[From dialectal gawm, sense, from Middle English gome, notice, from Old Norse gaumr.]

newborns are non-religious, not atheist

no doubt atheists would disagree, but atheism also falls into the definition of religion

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/religion
religion
4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

Claiming something came to you from god when you pulled it from your ass (god doesn't make translation errors) is scamming.

We don't have to stay wrong on the internet about the meaning of words. There are online dictionaries and such which define words. Scam means to defraud or swindle.

Those are intentional activities. Merely being wrong because of error, even if it is error that shouldn't be happening by your claimed belief system, is not scamming.

Similarly, as I noted, even if they are deliberately changing those stories, it doesn't imply scamming. Exaggerating or changing a story isn't automatically fraud or swindling either.

Let me help you out:

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/defame

Secondly, RSA didn't categorically deny anything. Go parse their statement carefully. They've denied a specific scenario with several criteria, that's it.

The quote is right there on the RSA's site..
and the first sentence says:

Recent press coverage has asserted that RSA entered into a “secret contract” with the NSA to incorporate a known flawed random number generator into its BSAFE encryption libraries. We categorically deny this allegation.

They rattle on about with a bunch of marginally relevant stuff, then follow up with:

RSA, as a security company, never divulges details of customer engagements, but we also categorically state that we have never entered into any contract or engaged in any project with the intention of weakening RSA’s products, or introducing potential ‘backdoors’ into our products for anyone’s use.

Two "categoricallys" within the half a page of text, and you missed both of them.
So right away, you are wrong. Clearly you didn't bother to read their statement at all.

The word categorically can never apply to a specific scenario.

Can they be innocent in all this. Its not inconceivable, they could have been duped by the NSA. But in that case they are incompetent, so the stigma still attaches.

I don't get it, FRA works for NSA so what's the difference?

demagogism, demagoguism, demagogy
- the art and practice of gaining power and popularity by arousing the emotions, passions, and prejudices of the people. Also demagoguery.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/demagogy

that you even have to ask shows how good they're at it.

"By definition it's only "terrorism" if its done for political or social objectives http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Political+terrorism. Threats of force to coerce desired behavior on an individual basis or to coerce desired behavior for personal objectives are simply threats of force."

The problem is that real terrorists almost never actually want to achieve political or social objectives. They just say they do. So that definition fails. (Similar to the way police "stated objective" is to protect and serve, but individual police motivations might be otherwise.)

See What Terrorists Really Want by M. Abrahms. If you don't have access to the MIT site you can find it online if you look around a bit.

"Jesus christ you're an idiot. Yes, they use intimidation. No, it's not "terrorism". Grow the fuck up."

This is an interesting assertion. Please explain how police intimidation -- i.e., the threat of force to coerce a desired behavior out of people -- is different from "terrorism", which is the threat of force to coerce a desired behavior out of people.

By definition it's only "terrorism" if its done for political or social objectives http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Political+terrorism. Threats of force to coerce desired behavior on an individual basis or to coerce desired behavior for personal objectives are simply threats of force.

If evidence is gathered illegally, the defense attorney will work to exclude it, and also all other evidence that follows from it ("fruit of the poisoned tree".) Using this device could compromise the prosecution's case. It's a foolish move, IMO.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/functional+illiterate

Yes it does.

Collins English Dictionary
beg the question
      a. to evade the issue
      b. to assume the thing under examination as proved
      c. to suggest that a question needs to be asked the firm's success begs the question: why aren't more companies doing the same?

Webster's College Dictionary
Idioms:
1. beg the question,
      a. to assume the truth of the very point raised in a question.
      b. to evade the issue.
      c. to raise the question; inspire one to ask.

The English language is a living language where meaning is defined by its general users, not solely by logicians. You've already lost. Deal with it.

Compute is a verb and I am aware of no other usage of the word.

Get a better dictionary. All of the ones listed here have entries for "compute" as a noun.

Yes, and it is for you too. If someone makes a claim that unobservable unicorns exist, I have to take it on faith that they do not, in fact, exist. Few people would disagree that doing so is entirely reasonable, but I'd acknowledge it for what it is: a belief based on nothing but a faith that the lack of evidence is sufficient proof of their non-existence. As you said, when extraordinary claims occur, the burden is on the ones making them to prove their point, but the inability to prove their point does not necessarily mean that they were wrong; it merely means that the reasonable person should believe that they were.

If you feel that such a belief is reasonable here as well, then that's fine. As I said to another commenter, go forth, be happy, but recognize it for what it is. I have friends who are atheists, friends who are agnostics, and friends who are theists. I'm fine with any of them, but I've always found it a bit ironic when an atheist slams a theist for claiming a faith-based belief, without being willing to acknowledge that their fundamental stance is based on one as well, since it would mean yielding a piece of their intellectual high ground.

I have a friend that believes that if he lets go of a lead ball and wishes really hard, he can make it hover. I do not believe that. These are not equivalent positions, he is believing something without evidence, I am not.

COINTELPRO and Mockingbird were about propaganda, not really prosecution.

No, neither operation were about propaganda. Your ignorance is very glaring on that one.

This document explains why you are absolutely wrong about entrapment as well, but it seems like you are content with your ignorance and just claim facts are wrong so that you can maintain a delusion.

The rationale underlying the defense is to deter law enforcement officers from engaging in reprehensible conduct by inducing persons not disposed to commit crimes to engage in criminal activity. In their efforts to obtain evidence and combat crime, however, officers are permitted to use some deception. For example, an officer may pretend to be a drug addict in order to apprehend a person suspected of selling drugs. On the other hand, an officer cannot use chicanery or Fraud to lure a person to commit a crime the person is not previously willing to commit. Generally, the defense is not available if the officer merely created an opportunity for the commission of the crime by a person already planning or willing to commit it.

Emphasis is mine. When the agency recruits a person and provides the material and target, they have gone well beyond their legal scope. Providing illegal materials to the target, is also absolutely illegal even if the target claims "I wanna blow that up." This is why cops can't simply become dope dealers to bust bigger players (check with narcotics officers for how much they have to do). There are numerous circuit court cases where rulings have been against officers, a large quantity during the alcohol prohibition for entrapment.

I know, I should not expect facts to get in the way of your belief.

HE isn't saying commit biological suicide. He is saying "do what Snowden did" - it is an American figure of speech.
http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/spill+guts

Oh really?

Collins English Dictionary
beg the question
  a. to evade the issue
  b. to assume the thing under examination as proved
  c. to suggest that a question needs to be asked the firm's success begs the question: why aren't more companies doing the same?

Webster's College Dictionary
Idioms:
1. beg the question,
  a. to assume the truth of the very point raised in a question.
  b. to evade the issue.
  c. to raise the question; inspire one to ask.

Some random luddite who believes that English should be proscriptive like French:
*sigh*

Oh really?

Collins English Dictionary
beg the question
  a. to evade the issue
  b. to assume the thing under examination as proved
  c. to suggest that a question needs to be asked the firm's success begs the question: why aren't more companies doing the same?

Webster's College Dictionary
Idioms:
1. beg the question,
  a. to assume the truth of the very point raised in a question.
  b. to evade the issue.
  c. to raise the question; inspire one to ask.

Some random luddite who believes that English should be proscriptive like French:
*sigh*

It's my understanding, and the GP who read the whole thing states, that the plaintiff pays the defendant's fees only if the sued IN BAD FAITH.

Close, but not quite. "Bad faith" has a specific meaning in law. It requires malicious intent. The burden of proof is on the party claiming bad faith, and it's hard to prove intent.

That language was fought over and amended. Originally, it was loser pays almost all the time. Here's what passed the House:

(a) Award- The court shall award, to a prevailing party, reasonable fees and other expenses incurred by that party in connection with a civil action in which any party asserts a claim for relief arising under any Act of Congress relating to patents, unless the court finds that the position and conduct of the nonprevailing party or parties were reasonably justified in law and fact or that special circumstances (such as severe economic hardship to a named inventor) make an award unjust.

That's a presumption that the loser pays, but the loser can try to convince the judge that their position was "reasonably justified in law and fact". The burden of proof is on the loser. and there's no requirement of bad intent. It's quite possible to start an infringement case and find out during litigation that the position taken was not "reasonably justified in fact".

The effect is to place inventors at risk of losing several milion dollars should they try to assert patent rights against a big company. It's all about making inventors afraid.

He admitted to his intent. You are arguing that someone found with lock picks and admitted he was intending to use them to commit burglary should not be charged with possession of burglary tools.

Conspiracy: He planned and worked with his fellow citizens to commit an illegal act.
Criminal: You freely admit that he broke the law and give no valid reason why it is unjust. Then, you state a patently false statement akin to "driving a car is not the action of a criminal."
Premeditated: You freely admit that he made plans and committed acts to ready his participation in the crime.
Harm a corporation: owned, operated, and employing Americans. That you don't like the corporation and/or the politics of it's leaders doesn't mean that it "exists only to harm Americans"

You mean like the how some conservatives are engaging in DDoS attacks on HealthCare.gov because they see as harmful to America?

He admitted to his intent. You are arguing that someone found with lock picks and admitted he was intending to use them to commit burglary should not be charged with possession of burglary tools.

Conspiracy: He planned and worked with his fellow citizens to commit an illegal act.
Criminal: You freely admit that he broke the law and give no valid reason why it is unjust. Then, you state a patently false statement akin to "driving a car is not the action of a criminal."
Premeditated: You freely admit that he made plans and committed acts to ready his participation in the crime.
Harm a corporation: owned, operated, and employing Americans. That you don't like the corporation and/or the politics of it's leaders doesn't mean that it "exists only to harm Americans"

You mean like the how some conservatives are engaging in DDoS attacks on HealthCare.gov because they see as harmful to America?

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/legitimate

dunno what's so hard about the word.

That disk might need some sort of cache-t but actually the GP does this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_and_organizational_psychology

Posting AC to protect karma from (deserved) Grammar Nazi accusation.

If necessary, outsource any remaining work to 1 or more subcontractors, each of which has 250 employees or less.

That potential loophole is ridiculously easy to seal with some careful phrasing of the rules. You simply have to look at beneficial ownership and make companies have to report injuries from subcontractors. No, the proper way to deal with this is through getting the rules written in a sane manner in the first place. If information like this is made public then it needs to be done so in a manner that explains the context.

The notion of reporting workplace injuries is a good idea (in principle anyway) but there are a LOT of nuances to the issue. Many workplace injuries have nothing to do with the actual performance of work at the job. Sometimes people just trip and hurt themselves in ways they could just as easily have done in their living room and which the company could not possible prevent. Should that be something the company is held responsible for? There are a LOT of people who falsely claim to have received workplace injuries in order to get workers compensation payments. Should the company be penalized by public reporting of these false claims? What about when it is unclear whether the "injury" was real or not?

It's a complicated issue and a simply reporting requirement is both a significant administrative burden and a potential source of misleading information about the safety of a given workplace.

As a member of a Safety Committee for over ten years I have a bit of insight. Pushing job safety is important. I worked in the electrical power industry. A mistake there can easily cost a life. However, when employers start putting sanctions and letters in personnel files it has a chilling effect. Accidents are no longer are reported. Near misses will never be reported. If management truly care about safety then they will want true data and push for safer working conditions, not punishment. Safety is an attitude and if management has the wrong attitude towards accidents then the safety program just falls apart.

If necessary, outsource any remaining work to 1 or more subcontractors, each of which has 250 employees or less.

That potential loophole is ridiculously easy to seal with some careful phrasing of the rules. You simply have to look at beneficial ownership and make companies have to report injuries from subcontractors. No, the proper way to deal with this is through getting the rules written in a sane manner in the first place. If information like this is made public then it needs to be done so in a manner that explains the context.

The notion of reporting workplace injuries is a good idea (in principle anyway) but there are a LOT of nuances to the issue. Many workplace injuries have nothing to do with the actual performance of work at the job. Sometimes people just trip and hurt themselves in ways they could just as easily have done in their living room and which the company could not possible prevent. Should that be something the company is held responsible for? There are a LOT of people who falsely claim to have received workplace injuries in order to get workers compensation payments. Should the company be penalized by public reporting of these false claims? What about when it is unclear whether the "injury" was real or not?

It's a complicated issue and a simply reporting requirement is both a significant administrative burden and a potential source of misleading information about the safety of a given workplace.

Sap n.

1. To undermine the foundations of (a fortification).
2. To deplete or weaken gradually.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/sapping

The internet was designed and has been used in a fashion where you link what you are talking about.
THAT"S the norm, you lazy git.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/git

You ignorance overwhelms. Defense is defense. General welfare isn't an enumerated power, just a description of what the Constitution was meant to do. Madison would be rolling over in his grave to hear your "logic". Try reading sometime. http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Necessary+and+Proper+Clause

The typical response would be that Islam is not a race, it is a dominant religion in various countries throughout the world. In those countries with a dominant Muslim population you will see that they pass laws which ban many types of speech (literature) based on religious reasoning; it's entirely reasonable to extrapolate that an increase in the Muslim population in France would result in similar censorship there over time (particularly with their current political correctness climate).

racism (rszm) n. 1. The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others. 2. Discrimination or prejudice based on race.

hjf's post involves neither. It's not "Islamophobia" either, it's "observing a tendency towards censorship of speech if said speech disagrees with religious doctrine".

He's probably thinking of the unclean hands doctrine.

unclean hands n. a legal doctrine which is a defense to a complaint, which states that a party who is asking for a judgment cannot have the help of the court if he/she has done anything unethical in relation to the subject of the lawsuit. Thus, if a defendant can show the plaintiff had "unclean hands," the plaintiff's complaint will be dismissed or the plaintiff will be denied judgment.

The police can provoke you to commit a crime and arrest you for it in a classic non-entrapment sting operation. A copyright holder can't provoke you into committing copyright infringement and then sue you in court for damages, it doesn't make it legal but it's an affirmative defense meaning they can't collect any damages from it. Basically you will never get rewarded in court for causing damages to yourself, it creates far too much potential for abuse.

It's nice that your definition differs from the dictionary definition.

A pilotless aircraft operated by remote control.

If you mean "do what I want when I want how I want" that is not Liberty it is Anarchy. What does Liberty have to do with the government not being allowed to do things that the people are allowed to do.

I looked a a few of your other posts. Part of the time you are demanding citations from others and part of the time you are defending not having citations yourself. Maybe you need to look up the term hypocrisy.

Everywhere else I have discussions, there is an understanding that you can't equivocate, i.e. you cannot choose your favoured definition for some term and then counterargue on the basis of your chosen definition rather than the other person's valid usage.

Being a geek forum, if there exists a technical definition that differs from the common use, you'll see it more likely used, even when less popular.

That said: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/evidence shows the first definition as "1. A thing or things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment:"

Given the first definition in the first result on a search agrees with those you disagree with, I don't think it's nearly as clear cut as you imply. Why are you using the OED? As this is an American site, with a majority Americans on it, an American English dictionary would make more sense, and they all tend to have the more common "a thing that helps form a conclusion" definition, based on my quick scan of them online.

The firefighters pouring of water on a chemical fire likely exasperated the situation.

The word you want is "exacerbated", not "exasperated".

I don't try to correct every mistake--that would be exasperating--but I couldn't let that one pass.

Fine, then make it so you can only enter a hospital if you have RomneyCare insurance.

I have Major Medical you ignorant twat. Unfortunately PelosiCare is about to make my responsible plan where I completely cover my own ass illegal.

Meanwhile the insurance that you have apparently been carrying covers those "surprise" annual visits to the doctor. What a surprise that you get your yearly physical.. lets package that unexpected event into an insurance premiuym and give some fuckwad middle-man a cut...

You people are complete morons. Seriously. Insurance is not for fucking 100% predictable events like your years physical... but there you are... crying that other people arent in your stupid-assed "risk" pool... excuse me if I dont consider it a risk to get an annual checkup.... retard.

One would be hard pressed to argue that a bloodied child in a war zone is not being abused. I'd say thats abuse by definition.

Not hard-pressed:
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/abuse
tr.v. abused, abusing, abuses
1. To use wrongly or improperly; misuse: abuse alcohol; abuse a privilege.
2. To hurt or injure by maltreatment; ill-use.
3. To force sexual activity on; rape or molest.
4. To assail with contemptuous, coarse, or insulting words; revile.
5. Obsolete To deceive or trick.

IMHO, Your definition exceeds the actual definition.

Now define piracy in a way that's machine detectable, and what you'll really have is the ultimate DRM.

Agreed on the DRM, disagree on the war zone children.
* Children in war zones should not be combatants, they should be civilians. Any child in a war zone who is acting as a combatant is being maltreated, or ill-used; definition 2.
* Civilians are non-combatants, and so should not be getting injured. A civilian being injured due to wartime activities is being "hurt or injure[d] by maltreatment"; definition 2.

I don't think that BitZtream exceeded the definition; it seems to me he got it spot-on.

One would be hard pressed to argue that a bloodied child in a war zone is not being abused. I'd say thats abuse by definition.

Not hard-pressed:
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/abuse
tr.v. abused, abusing, abuses
1. To use wrongly or improperly; misuse: abuse alcohol; abuse a privilege.
2. To hurt or injure by maltreatment; ill-use.
3. To force sexual activity on; rape or molest.
4. To assail with contemptuous, coarse, or insulting words; revile.
5. Obsolete To deceive or trick.

IMHO, Your definition exceeds the actual definition.

Now define piracy in a way that's machine detectable, and what you'll really have is the ultimate DRM.

facebook and others have wantently ignore

Wantonly. The word is wantonly.

venal glare

Huh?

it is correct though

similar to how moneys and monies are both correct plurals of money, even though in America people use money to refer to both singular and plural but they should recheck the dictionary.

codes is interchangeable as well http://www.thefreedictionary.com/code

So smart that you are stupid. If you were to stop and think you would know that realised is correct, just not in your little corner of the world. An Afghani can be a unit of currency or a person from Afghanistan. As for westerner, you might know of this great country but I do not so I do not capitalise it even though I do accept that it is OK for you to do so.

"Homosexuals may be "freaks" in that they're a minority"

That would be true if the word had anything to do with minorities, but it doesn't. The reason you shouldn't use the word to describe them is because it makes you sound under-educated, or to use another word that people don't understand, ignorant.

Please don't whine about how much wine it takes to run Wine!

Well, if you want to completely ignore common usage then technically the Ops use of 'beg the question' is indeed incorrect.
The phrase 'begs the question' is also used to mean 'begs for the question' and is widely used in modern English today. I had no problem in understanding the meaning of the OP and as such his post succeeded.

Here's a link showing the dual meaning (just showing that your assertion that it 'has a specific meaning' is also unsupported and that it doies mean what the OP intended):
http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/beg+the+question

Can't get more wronger than that ;-)

Actually, Synergy doesn't mean that at all. That being said, they did in fact use the word correctly.

The replies so far are kind of making my point: The word means whatever the person using it wants it to mean, whether it's a standard dictionary definition (not really helpful - anyone can grab a dictionary for a snap response) or their own misguided interpretation.

That said, I don't believe the word "synergy" and Salesforce's actions (the many, MANY acquisitions they've gone through being an example) match up.

Synergy means "getting more from what you have"

Actually, Synergy doesn't mean that at all. That being said, they did in fact use the word correctly.

Last time I checked you need to have a degree in Physics to be called a physicist...

Well, you heard wrong. Just look up the definition. Anyone who studies or is well versed in physics is a physicist.

One wonders how the ancients ever managed to do any physics without any Physics degrees lying around.