Slashdot Mirror

I'm surprised that the inventor of The Internet would make such erroneous claims.

Of all places, Slashdot really ought not to fall victim to such an erroneous meme.

What Al Gore actually said: "I took the initiative in creating the Internet."

Yes, I was watching the interview where he said that, and he did say it. The problem is that he uses the idiomatic phrase "took the initiative". One cannot "take" a Congressional initiative. The phrase literally means "I did this".

http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/take+the+initiative

"take the initiative (to do something)- to activate oneself to do something even if one has not been asked to do it."

He was saying that he created the internet. I agree with Newt that Gore was a major early contributor to funding the internet. But he didn't create it.

If you would read the intro and accompanying texts with an open mind you would realize that the guy is a world-class bullshitter, and claiming to have created the internet fits into the rest of what he does.

There is earth and then there is sand.

earth:
b. The softer, friable part of land; soil, especially productive soil.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/earth

See here: http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/contract+of+adhesion

adhesion contract (contract of adhesion) n. a contract (often a signed form) so imbalanced in favor of one party over the other that there is a strong implication it was not freely bargained. Example: a rich landlord dealing with a poor tenant who has no choice and must accept all terms of a lease, no matter how restrictive or burdensome, since the tenant cannot afford to move. An adhesion contract can give the little guy the opportunity to claim in court that the contract with the big shot is invalid. This doctrine should be used and applied more often, but the same big guy-little guy inequity may apply in the ability to afford a trial or find and pay a resourceful lawyer.

In essence, the "lawyer" in this case for students would be a class-action lawyer, and now you understand why major corporations and the wealthy (who, in general control them through stock ownership) hate the idea of class action suits and have done their best to have forced arbitration, banning class actions and the like.

I'd rather we have class actions that slap down these corporations rather than have these sociopaths-by-design run amok. Call me a socialist if you will.

of a certain age

In civilized society, the burden of proof for any legal action falls on the accuser, not the accused.

Exactly.

So should the company that terminated an employee on the accusation of having done something wrong not be the first one to provide such proof ?

@sahuxley:

If she's seeking reinstatement, I think the burden of proof is on her to show she deserves it.

I would read up on the definition of "reinstatement". It means something different than "reapplying for a job" (after termination for whatever reason): http://www.thefreedictionary.com/reinstatementexplanation #2.

When you're the one illegally spying on your citizens I think you've lost all credibility on the trust issue. The NSA needs to look up the word hypocrisy in the dictionary.

Try this one instead. It's a more complete set of definitions, but it does lack that particular insulting quality that you seem to hold so dear.

From your link:
1 - 3. A small part; a bit: moved a fraction of a step.
2 - 3. a small piece; fragment
3 - 3. a part of a whole: Only a fraction of the members were present.
3 - 4. a small part or segment: only a fraction of the cost.

So, it seems you need the following link:
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=how+do+dictionaries+work%3F

You missed the first definition, and all of the wit:

1. A numerical quantity that is not a whole number

Or, you could consider that the default dictionary is simply wrong. Improper fractions representing whole numbers are still fractions, and that limited scope doesn't even cover all of the fields that use the word "fraction". Try this one instead. It's a more complete set of definitions, but it does lack that particular insulting quality that you seem to hold so dear.

It is not satisfactory when you change the question to the one you would like to answer.

What, you lose half your brain in a car wreck? He's illustrating a point .

I am sorry what is your first premise again? Begging the question is a logical fallacy in which a statement or claim is assumed to be true without evidence other than the statement or claim itself. So how does a trademark being used as a name beg the question?

It would be more correct that begging the question, can refer to a logical fallacy. The phrase may also mean "to cause a particular question to be asked", which in this case would be "why I would be looking for trademark infringement, where none could occur?"

In future, please consider entire context before, jumping to conclusions.

... calls for removal of copyright infringement as a crime, reducing violations by private individuals to a misdemeanor.

Uh, guys, a misdemeanor IS A CRIME Petty theft and simple assault and battery are also misdemeanors. Maybe something has been lost in translation. Otherwise I think this initiative is a sad sellout. Copyright infringement ought to be a civil matter, damnmit.

So what? Do you propose we retire the word because of your extravagant reductionism?

Any time a sentient, tool-using organism decides to create or build something, whether it be for survival or amusement or any other purpose, that is an act of an artificier and the result is artificial. The word just means "man-made." We are distinct from the rest of the world because we have skill in manipulating it; that is the meaning of the word. More importantly, however, and not entirely implied by the word itself, we are capable of massively affecting it. Take responsibility for yourself and your actions; there is no cosmic master plan that absolves you of complacency.

So what? Do you propose we retire the word because of your extravagant reductionism?

Any time a sentient, tool-using organism decides to create or build something, whether it be for survival or amusement or any other purpose, that is an act of an artificier and the result is artificial. The word just means "man-made." We are distinct from the rest of the world because we have skill in manipulating it; that is the meaning of the word. More importantly, however, and not entirely implied by the word itself, we are capable of massively affecting it. Take responsibility for yourself and your actions; there is no cosmic master plan that absolves you of complacency.

While the Y2K issue was very real there were also plenty of shills trumpeting the virtues of numerous electronic snake oil products. I think it's also worth noting that the Y2K issue helped inflate the tech bubble so we ended up with the tech bust post 2K instead of the Y2K crash.

That's a very limited comment you got here. Here is my substantial response:

"In some cases, before using force that is likely to cause death or serious bodily harm to the aggressor, a person who is under attack should attempt to retreat or escape, but only if an exit is reasonably possible."

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Self-Defense

" a person who is under attack should attempt to retreat or escape, but only if an exit is reasonably possible."

If being in your freaking car is not a reasonably possible escape from someone who is walking down the street and unaware of you, then I don't know what to tell you buddy.

Citation? No problem.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Time,+Place,+and+Manner+Restrictions

While technically correct (in the bureaucratic-red-tape-nightmare sense), nothing in the link you posted indicates that is is legal or right to give a citizen a harsher sentence for expressing their right to free speech, TPM restrictions notwithstanding. Any judge giving the defendant a longer sentence solely because said defendent pissed her off (with harmless words, mind you) is an affront to the idea of justice, no matter how you try to spin it.

Also, I noticed you've decided to not respond to the rest of my comment; is this an example of agreement-by-lack-of-valid-argument, or are you still looking for sources to support an anti-liberty stance?

Citation? No problem.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Time,+Place,+and+Manner+Restrictions

Under Article III, Section 3, of the Constitution, any person who levies war against the United States or adheres to its enemies by giving them Aid and Comfort has committed treason within the meaning of the Constitution. The term aid and comfort refers to any act that manifests a betrayal of allegiance to the United States, such as furnishing enemies with arms, troops, transportation, shelter, or classified information. If a subversive act has any tendency to weaken the power of the United States to attack or resist its enemies, aid and comfort has been given.

You really need a better university.

As for the rest of us, we DO know better and increasingly, more and more ppl will put Snowden on the traitor side.

How are you using the phrase "cozy efficiency". Just wondering. Her own apartment?

I suspect efficiency is an American term meaning a small apartment.

You really should look something up before you correct someone.

Nipped it in the BUD. And you used it incorrectly. It means, "to put an end to something before it develops into something larger."

-- Your friendly grammar nazi.

I took the definition from http://www.thefreedictionary.com/whistleblower. Where did you get yours?

If he has a list of spies and sold it for protection, then that would be bad, and would not qualify as whistleblowing. But even if that were true it would not disqualify what we know he has revealed to the public as whistleblowing. Just like somebody can be a war hero and still beat his wife. A bad deed does not remove good ones - they should be considered separately.

PS: I'm new here at slashdot, so I don't know how plentiful mod points are. I haven't gotten any so far, so they seem pretty rare to me. Is it really plausible that somebody has enough mod points to consistently mod you down as you claim in your signature?

Try again.

I'm no lawyer, and never played one on TV, but that doesn't sound like money laundering, but rather payola.

If I RTFA correctly, he received money from companies in exchange for steering business to them. Kind of like a beer company giving a bar a neon light or posters or other discount in exchange for trying to get their customers to buy that brand of beer...

Money laundering would be taking illegally gained funds and turning them into legal appearing funds by funneling them through (seemingly) legitimate business. There's probably that, too, as I'm sure at some time some drug dealer or pickpocket or other hooligan bought a crappy MP3 player from tigerdirect.com at some time...

Highest Common Factor (as opposed to lowest common denominator)
Hispanic College Fund
Health Care Facilities
High Cycle Fatigue
Hybrid Coordination Function
Hart Communication Foundation
High Capacity Feeder (copiers and printers)
Hundred Cubic Feet
Historic Charleston Foundation (South Carolina)
Halt and Catch Fire (Hacker's Dictionary)
Hospitals Contribution Fund of Australia
Health Care Foundation of Greater Kansas City (Kansas City, MO)
Hawai'i Community Foundation
Host Controlled Family (Rockwell chipset modems)
Half Circle Forward (motion; gaming)
High Cost Fund
House Conservatives Fund (Political Action Committee)
Host Command Facility
Heparin Cofactor
Horizon Christian Fellowship
Hardcore Fan
Hybridoma Cloning Factor
Hepatitis C Foundation
Harper Court Foundation
High Carbon Ferrochrome
Hotline Center Foundation
Hot Channel Factor
Hook Content Formula (enumerative combinatorics of Standard Young Tableaux)
Higher Cortical Function
Hardened Compact Fiber
Hardware Configuration Facility
Hard Copy File
Host Computer Facility
Human Care Foundation (New Delhi, India)
Health Care Fraud
Home Credit Finance
http://acronyms.thefreedictionary.com/HCF

You're kidding right? Of course when you were a bit unsure about a term you found on the Internet, you used the Internet to look it up because it only takes seconds, and you're only posting this here to yank our legs right?

"1. being the first or earliest known of its kind present in a region "
( http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/aboriginal )

"1. Having existed in a region from the beginning: aboriginal forests. See Synonyms at native."
( http://www.thefreedictionary.com/aboriginal )

This sort of surveillance ("We need to look at these specific accounts") doesn't bother me: that's how search warrants are supposed to work. (Well, assuming they are looking for terrorists and not just harassing Tea Party people.) This seems quite different from some other recent disclosures, like the Verizon warrants: "Give us records of all calls made." Search warrants, to be constitutional, have to be specific. General warrants were abused by the British and are a specific reason the Fourth Amendment was written.

Also note that at the same time the federal government is conducting sweeping, general surveillance of all Americans in the name of fighting terrorism, "Since October of 2011, the FBI has been forbidden to covertly gather information or set up sting operations at mosques unless they've been reviewed and approved by something the DoJ has tagged the Sensitive Operations Review Committee." I guess the Department of Justice didn't consider sweeping surveillance of all Americans to be as much of a "sensitive operation" as looking for Islamic terrorists in places they are likely to be.

criminal:

n
1. (Law) a person charged with and convicted of crime
2. a person who commits crimes for a living

Until he's charged and convicted, he's not a criminal.

"The disclosure by a person, usually an employee in a government agency or private enterprise, to the public or to those in authority, of mismanagement, corruption, illegality, or some other wrongdoing.

Since the 1960s, the public value of whistle-blowing has been increasingly recognized. For example, federal and state statutes and regulations have been enacted to protect whistleblowers from various forms of retaliation. Even without a statute, numerous decisions encourage and protect whistleblowing on grounds of public policy. In addition, the federal False Claims Act (31 U.S.C.A. 3729) will reward a whistleblower who brings a lawsuit against a company that makes a false claim or commits Fraud against the government.

Persons who act as whistleblowers are often the subject of retaliation by their employers. Typically the employer will discharge the whistleblower, who is often an at-will employee. An at-will employee is a person without a specific term of employment. The employee may quit at any time and the employer has the right to fire the employee without having to cite a reason. However, courts and legislatures have created exceptions for whistleblowers who are at-will employees.

Whistleblowing statutes protect from discharge or discrimination an employee who has initiated an investigation of an employer's activities or who has otherwise cooperated with a regulatory agency in carrying out an inquiry or the enforcement of regulations. Federal whistle-blower legislation includes a statute protecting all government employees, 5 U.S.C.A. 2302(b)(8), 2302(b)(9). In the federal civil service, the government is prohibited from taking, or threatening to take, any personnel action against an employee because the employee disclosed information that he or she reasonably believed showed a violation of law, gross mismanagement, gross waste of funds, abuse of authority, or a substantial and specific danger to public safety or health. In order to prevail on a claim, a federal employee must show that a protected disclosure was made, that the accused official knew of the disclosure, that retaliation resulted, and that there was a genuine connection between the retaliation and the employee's action.

Many states have enacted whistleblower statutes, but these statutes vary widely in coverage. Some statutes apply only to public employees, some apply to both public and private employees, and others apply to public employees and employees of public contractors...."

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

If you had been living in your family home for all your life and a bunch of hoodlums came into your neighborhood and started shooting up the place, would you A. leave, or B. stay to spite them? Many people would choose A., but many would choose B.

And those that stayed to fight could be correctly described as "militants", no?

Only if you change the definition of the word 'militant'. Just because someone chooses to remain in any given place does not make them militant.

militant
  (ml-tnt)
adj.
1. Fighting or warring.
2. Having a combative character; aggressive, especially in the service of a cause: a militant political activist.
n.
A fighting, warring, or aggressive person or party.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/militant

I am not a lawyer, but my understanding is that simply paying someone a reward is not entering into a contract.

Advertising a reward for services rendered is a unilateral contract. There is nothing outright preventing PayPal from paying out a reward (unless there's some sort of liability protection in their contract which would be unenforceable against a minor), but there's nothing requiring them to do so since the offeree is a minor.

Generally companies avoid entering contracts with minors for their own protection, but it seems like a terribly short-sighted move to do so here. Then again, IANAL, and I haven't reviewed PayPal's contest rules to see what they're getting out of the contract (other than the service which they have taken for free from this kid).

Perhaps because shuttered is the correct word

We don't have access to a law library to look up the precedence over whether or not they're allowed to call this a surcharge.

We do however, have access to a dictionary to look up the difference between "precedence" and "precedents".

We don't have access to a law library to look up the precedence over whether or not they're allowed to call this a surcharge.

We do however, have access to a dictionary to look up the difference between "precedence" and "precedents".

Let me guess, you're too lazy to look it up or you have a dull axe to grind?

There are two accepted spellings, one favoured in the USA, the other by those who got and retain their English spellings from the Brits. Are you gonna carp on "favoured" too?

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/civilization
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/civilization
http://www.studyenglishtoday.net/british-american-spelling.html
http://www.lukemastin.com/testing/spelling/cgi-bin/database.cgi?action=view_category&database=spelling&category=C
http://www.grammarphobia.com/blog/2011/09/civilise-civilize.html
http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/civilization
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/civilised

The above ought to be sufficient to get you started, if you have any interest in improving your understanding. You could have done this on your own hook if you really had an interest or gave a shit. Or perhaps you derive pleasure from pressing keys in pursuit of fucking with people, or some such? Any case, I'm sooo oughta here.

One Problem is teaching.

One problem is "compatibility" or "easy to learn". E.G. regarding keywords.

C has a keyword: static.
C++ has the same keyword: static.
As Java aimed to be similar to C++ and "easy to learn" it also has a keyword static.

While the meaning of the "keyword" in Java and C++ is the same, it differs from C. (Oh! and this already is not true as you can use 'static' in C++ similar to C if you just use it for free functions and data).

So what does 'static' mean?

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/static
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/static
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/static
http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/static

Unfortunately 'static' in a programming language has no meaning at all. Why is the "starting method" in Java called "static void main(String[] args) {}"? Yeah, because in C and C++ it is called main(). Pascal has not that problem.

What do you think a non native english (oh, well what about the english?) considers if he hears the word 'static'?

Good, now lets bash Python and Groovy. What is a "def"? Oh? A definition? Are you certain you can distinguish what the difference between a definition and a declaration is?

So "methods" are now "declared" (or is it defined?) by the introducing keyword "def"? Oh, for fuck sake, I got it wrong again.

Oki, in Python you declare, oh no!!!! you define methods with the keyword "def". In Groovy you define variables (oh! no!!!!! you declare!!!) with the keyword "def".

Yeah, I could rant forever ...

All new languages we see here and there are only languages for programmers that already can program.

But, what is about expressing your mind?

What about teaching programming? Imho Java is one of the most difficult languages to teach. Why? Because you need to know already so much about programming to grasp it!!!!! (Same for C# ofc).

However: modern times show: you don't need to understand Java/C# (just a replacement for most modern languages) because the programing tasks a modern developer has (especially compared to the tools he has at hand) is so mondane. C++ on the other hand only shows how super smart and knowing you need to be to use the language, or not to shoot into your foot.

So where are we?

New languages should use new keywords, that describe precisely what they mean. No void, no static, no final or for that matter finally, no fucking def, var or func. Did I forget one? I certainly did. And they should have reasonable defaults. I hate Java meanwhile, "public void doit() {}", "private boolean done = false". Then we get to "static final String DID_WE_DO_IT = "yes we did";" What is so hard in having methods be PUBLIC by DEFAULT and attributes PRIVATE by DEFAULT?
Writing code is still possible, even if it hurts my hands and my eyes. But reading? I simply don't want to read code anymore ... neither C++ nor Java nor C#. The redundancy hurts me literally.
In a typical Eclipse window I would estimate 30% of all characters/words are simply superfluous. And the fact that they all have a different colour emphasizes this.

How would a real world language look to you if it was written like this: "I want (that is me the guy writing) that we (that is us, you who are listening, and me who is talking) that we (well, dont be mistaken, I only want it, it is not an order) that we (yes, I invite you to participate) go to the beach (and want does not mean it is super important ... it is kinda void)? (And all words in () above in a different colour? Like pink (ARRRRGGG!!!!) light green ( /*facepalm*/), dark and light blue, emphazised(bold) full

Why should they care?

There's no benefit to them keeping your information safe, it costs them time, money, and effort to do so, and there's no real consequences when they screw up. They will just put out a statement saying "all of our customer information was stolen, we recommend everyone change their password, and the hole is now patched - it can't happen again!".

Also, they can blame the thieves. "It wasn't our fault, it was that scoundrel who noticed that you can change the account number in the URL to get into someone else's account."

As to "we value your privacy", what does that actually mean? It means that companies have discovered that people trust companies that make that statement, and are more likely to purchase from such a company.

That's all it means, and no more. It doesn't mean that they care or that they abide by the statement, it means that they think they can get more business by using that phrase liberally in their public-facing documents.

You're living under the naive assumption that companies mean what they say and will do what they promise. They do what the consumer protection laws force them to do - any statement that reflects these laws is probably true, while the rest is simple puffing.

Hypothesis which consistently survive falsification are said to be "corroborated," due to our increasing confidence.

so in other words you mean validate?

number 3 there looks to be just what you stated

validate (vl-dt)
tr.v. validated, validating, validates
1. To declare or make legally valid.
2. To mark with an indication of official sanction.
3. To establish the soundness of; corroborate. See Synonyms at confirm.

Defamation: Any intentional false communication, either written or spoken, that harms a person's reputation ...

Aging: http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Aging

Many rights are mutually exclusive. For example your right to swing your fist ends at my nose. Your right to open burn your garbage ends when particulate from that fire gets in my lungs. Your right to shoot a gun ends where my person and property begin. Your right to own an object (be it guns, drugs, or radioactive materials) ends when your careless storage of said object results in the death of innocent others.

The bill of rights was written at a time when being obligated to allow a soldier to move into your house and live rent free while eating your food was a possibility so great that it was explicitly barred in the those bill of rights in the 3rd Amendment. The entire constitution, along with all criminal, civil, and tax law, needs to be tossed out and new ones drafted for the modern age. There is so much bullshit on the books that you can not venture outside your home without breaking some law and frankly may have already broken some laws before leaving your home.

No. For us old-timers, RPI stands for Rockwell Protocol Interface.

http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/Rockwell+Protocol+Interface

POS Modems....

And yet, I'll bet you still put black pepper chock full of insecticidal piperine on your potatoes. Thankfully, it is a bit more nuanced that you make it out to be, otherwise you would have to avoid everything because most pesticides arenaturally occurring.

Well, what do you call it when someone insists that something is real with no evidence for its existence? Maybe this...

An Australian government medical publication includes this definition of psychosis

Among symptoms doctors look for are:
- Confused thinking
When acutely ill, people with psychotic symptoms
experience disordered thinking. The everyday thoughts
that let us live our daily lives become confused and don’t
join up properly.
- Delusions
A delusion is a false belief held by a person which is not
held by others of the same cultural background.
- Hallucinations
The person sees, hears, feels, smells or tastes something
that is not actually there. The hallucination is often of
disembodied voices which no one else can hear.

Every last prophet fits this description perfectly.

The fundamental thesis of Judaism/Christianity/Islam is that you have an invisible friend who loves you and can do magic.
Quite obviously anyone who claims to believe this is either a loon or a liar.

Well, what do you call it when someone insists that something is real with no evidence for its existence? Maybe this...

From the article: "... the genie is out of the bottle,” Kelly said.
What that particular idiom means is, "to allow something bad to happen which cannot then be stopped"
Yeah, that about sums up the erosion of rights.

Did you need me to define who, or harm? five point test
I am not really sure how the white male thing applies, unless you are just quasi-racist like so many today are. So I'm just gonna leave that one alone.

By the way, P-man is not myself. I enjoy driving and have done so for over 40 years. In my household I am the one who shops, does laundry and cleans. My similarity to P-man is that I enjoy the company of my own thoughts -- and luckily this is not yet a crime, geek.

As to the "isolated brilliant guy" not being "a real person"? Well, it sounds like you are the one living away from humanity. Brilliance can't help living the way it does. There are plenty of them around and I think they are much happier than you.

I appreciate the effort, but for all the well-chosen words in your post, it's nothing more than a restatement of your initial position.

I see no reference to experience or external authority, no allusions to history or similar situations, and no compelling logical flow from a premise to a conclusion. It fairly reeks of sophistry, using such vague terms as "large number of players", "overwhelming majority", and "number rapidly increases".

For contrast, a credible argument could have compared the amount of Cyprus gold with the world total amount, or cited previous (ie - historical) stock market drops with similar causes and drawn an analogy with the present situation. Facts and reference combine to make a powerful argument.

In short, you've added nothing to your premise, which is essentially attacking the person while hand-waving and storytelling.

I knew what your position was, the challenge was to defend it.

A troll would not have done more than you did. This was rather easy. When you attacked the person instead of the argument, it became shooting fish in a barrel.

You are a moron. You know that without DRM it would work the same way?
It's the same as saying, I'm fine with a dictatorship as long as it works. DRM is dictatorship, it takes your rights away. It takes your rights away that you get when you buy your hardware. And it lets other people dictate you what you can and can't do.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/moron

moron [mrn]
n
1. a foolish or stupid person
2. (Psychology) a person having an intelligence quotient of between 50 and 70, able to work under supervision