Slashdot Mirror

Individuals create great software not teams

i would argue that individuals create great code, not great software, and that great leaders build great teams

Teams are ok for factory goods I guess if you want to work on a assembly line

assembly line workers aren't really what i would call "teams"... many don't even talk to each other while they work... maybe i would call them "gangs", as in definition 4 of http://www.thefreedictionary.com/gang

The notion that this encourages upward mobility is a complete myth. It myers people in debt.

It mires people in debt.

Reign? You think they perceive themselves as royalty now. Would explain their attitudes in part. Such attitudes needs to be reined in. The French reined in their royalty with a revolution and a guillotine. Would hope the US don't need to go that far to regain the freedoms they have lost to erosion. The lines at the airport do make for good sheeple training. Judging from TSA related expenditures, certainly the citizens of the US are getting sheared over it.

Reign? You think they perceive themselves as royalty now. Would explain their attitudes in part. Such attitudes needs to be reined in. The French reined in their royalty with a revolution and a guillotine. Would hope the US don't need to go that far to regain the freedoms they have lost to erosion. The lines at the airport do make for good sheeple training. Judging from TSA related expenditures, certainly the citizens of the US are getting sheared over it.

I left Groklaw when I noticed a strong bias, which to me does equate a "search for truth" but "picking facts selectively". Groklaw's default stance appears to be that anything Google does is excusable (which isn't), and anything Microsoft does is bad (which is mostly correct, but not always). Groklaw hasn't quite worked out yet that Google appears to make most of its revenue in the US and abroad by wilfully breaking laws (the statements made by Google when it is caught only serves to make it clear that Google knows damn well that it was breaking the law). I'm interested to see how they fare with the privacy policy problems, because the prior Streetview affair has made Google now into a repeat offender (hence the massive lobbying in Europe right now).

In this case you should look beyond the companies involved and look at the kids - by accident, Microsoft has done something that's actually good. Personally I think kids should not be in a database for commercial gain until they are adults, full stop. No excuses.

Sure, I know that Microsoft's motivation is anything but pure but it has fairly accurately laid its dirty fingers on Google's man problem: privacy is an inalienable Human Right - Google making a profit is not.

queue (ky)
n.
    1. A line of waiting people or vehicles.
    2. A long braid of hair worn hanging down the back of the neck; a pigtail.
    3. Computer Science
            a. A sequence of stored data or programs awaiting processing.
            b. A data structure from which the first item that can be retrieved is the one stored earliest.
intr.v. queued, queuing, queues
      To get in line: queue up at the box office.

[French, from Old French cue, tail, from Latin cauda, cda.]
Word History: When the British stand in queues (as they have been doing at least since 1837, when this meaning of the word is first recorded in English), they may not realize they form a tail. The French word queue from which the English word is borrowed is a descendant of Latin cda, meaning "tail." French queue appeared in 1748 in English, referring to a plait of hair hanging down the back of the neck. By 1802 wearing a queue was a regulation in the British army, but by the mid-19th century queues had disappeared along with cocked hats. Latin cda is also the source of Italian coda, which was adopted into English as a musical term (like so many other English musical terms that come from Italian). A coda is thus literally the "tail end" of a movement or composition.

See definition #1

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/unlimited

I'll have a hero.

Honed in" may be in common usage but that doesn't make it correct.

And your assertion doesn't make it incorrect either.

It has been in use for quite some time.

Language evolves, you're going to have to learn to deal with that. Hone in has been in use for literally decades.

is it?

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/disorientating
http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/disorientating
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/disorientate

...except for the use of annoying cliches and the incomplete sentences.

You're looking at the glass as half empty instead of half full here. it's a start ....

I know, folks are penny wise and pound foolish with some of the Chrome book .... of course there's a silver lining here - it will make Chrome OS more usable outside of a dumb terminal for the cloud.

An IBM Selectric typewriter is more usable than a dumb terminal outside the cloud. What's your point? What you wrote up there didn't make much sense. It's a start to what? The product failing in the marketplace due to poor hardware specification? A nonexistent application base unless you have internet connectivity? (one app suite ain't gonna cut it) Less storage than a tablet unless you have internet connectivity? Because you inverted the meaning of "penny wise and pound foolish"? The glass isn't even close to half anything. It's got a few drops of water in it from where it was cleaned before being put on the store shelf and the bulls are already in the china shop.

Every other european I know also showers everyday.

I could easily believe that every other European showers every day. Of course, that still leaves more than 350,000,000 smelly people.

Sorry. Sometimes it's fun to be a grammar nazi.

Oh really?

I do, and that it is utterly ridiculous to claim that in 14 days it "turned a corner" - and I repeat - whatever that means.

How about you stop being an idiot and actually figure out the meaning of phrases first? Here's what turn the corner means:

tsk tsk, now, now

If your position had any integrity you would not have engaged me.

Defending myself from accusation is now proof that I don't have integrity?

What accusation? I reflected on my experiences of the quality of your past predictions. I see I've been "instructive" in encouraging the improvements below and I commend your effort, would you like me to score them?

I think I'll link this gem in the future in case I should have to deal with your bullshit.

By all means do. It shows what's required to get through your condescending sense of self importance, arrogance and pride. I don't have a problem with arrogance, per se, but when it comes without any information it's just an annoying "because you say so". In other words it's your tactics and you've had a taste of ones own medicine. So stop being an asshole, old chap.

to pass a critical point in a process

The dictionary above gives an example of its use.

The patient turned the corner last night. She should begin to show improvement now.

It doesn't meant the process is finished, merely that it has passed a significant threshold or milestone.

Yes, I know what it means, you were unclear with what you meant by it.

Here, the process is bringing four nuclear reactors eventually to a stable point, "cold shut down". If one looks at the first two weeks, there was a lot of crazy stuff going on, including three meltdowns, at least one fire in a fuel rod pool, two evacuations of all personnel from the site and a number of substantial releases of radioactivity into the air. Since, the worst problem to the outside world has been the slow leaking of contaminated water from the site and steady progress towards that final stage, "cold shut down" was made to the point that all of the reactors achieved cold shut down by early last year. The critical point was passing the stage of emergency and great danger.

Finally an answer of sorts, even if it's two years late. Two weeks is a bit optimistic to gain control of the reactor and spent pools, considering that a normal controlled shutdown takes roughly four weeks to thermally cool, but not unreasonable to get some control over the "crazy stuff" of the disaster like fires, cooling and water flow. I'll accept your _retrospective_ explanation of this point is that two weeks to control the initial disaster is what you meant.

How the legitimate, inevitable pursuit of justice through the courts of the criminal negligence of TEPCO pans out, we will just have to wait and see how that pans out.

I think it'll be instructive to look back on this program at the ten year mark and see what actually happened or didn't happen as the case may be. I think by that time, the failure rate will be so pronounced, it'll be highly embarrassing for defenders.

Specifically, I predict that Dr khallow will be unable to be specific about the prediction he has made in this thread.

Since there is the possibility that this could be highly instructive for you, I'll elaborate on what I mean by "failure". I think failure will be such things as bankruptcy, absence of any meaningful infrastructure built or technology acquired a

I do, and that it is utterly ridiculous to claim that in 14 days it "turned a corner" - and I repeat - whatever that means.

How about you stop being an idiot and actually figure out the meaning of phrases first? Here's what turn the corner means:

tsk tsk, now, now

If your position had any integrity you would not have engaged me.

Defending myself from accusation is now proof that I don't have integrity?

What accusation? I reflected on my experiences of the quality of your past predictions. I see I've been "instructive" in encouraging the improvements below and I commend your effort, would you like me to score them?

I think I'll link this gem in the future in case I should have to deal with your bullshit.

By all means do. It shows what's required to get through your condescending sense of self importance, arrogance and pride. I don't have a problem with arrogance, per se, but when it comes without any information it's just an annoying "because you say so". In other words it's your tactics and you've had a taste of ones own medicine. So stop being an asshole, old chap.

to pass a critical point in a process

The dictionary above gives an example of its use.

The patient turned the corner last night. She should begin to show improvement now.

It doesn't meant the process is finished, merely that it has passed a significant threshold or milestone.

Yes, I know what it means, you were unclear with what you meant by it.

Here, the process is bringing four nuclear reactors eventually to a stable point, "cold shut down". If one looks at the first two weeks, there was a lot of crazy stuff going on, including three meltdowns, at least one fire in a fuel rod pool, two evacuations of all personnel from the site and a number of substantial releases of radioactivity into the air. Since, the worst problem to the outside world has been the slow leaking of contaminated water from the site and steady progress towards that final stage, "cold shut down" was made to the point that all of the reactors achieved cold shut down by early last year. The critical point was passing the stage of emergency and great danger.

Finally an answer of sorts, even if it's two years late. Two weeks is a bit optimistic to gain control of the reactor and spent pools, considering that a normal controlled shutdown takes roughly four weeks to thermally cool, but not unreasonable to get some control over the "crazy stuff" of the disaster like fires, cooling and water flow. I'll accept your _retrospective_ explanation of this point is that two weeks to control the initial disaster is what you meant.

How the legitimate, inevitable pursuit of justice through the courts of the criminal negligence of TEPCO pans out, we will just have to wait and see how that pans out.

I think it'll be instructive to look back on this program at the ten year mark and see what actually happened or didn't happen as the case may be. I think by that time, the failure rate will be so pronounced, it'll be highly embarrassing for defenders.

Specifically, I predict that Dr khallow will be unable to be specific about the prediction he has made in this thread.

Since there is the possibility that this could be highly instructive for you, I'll elaborate on what I mean by "failure". I think failure will be such things as bankruptcy, absence of any meaningful infrastructure built or technology acquired a

I do, and that it is utterly ridiculous to claim that in 14 days it "turned a corner" - and I repeat - whatever that means.

How about you stop being an idiot and actually figure out the meaning of phrases first? Here's what turn the corner means:

tsk tsk, now, now

If your position had any integrity you would not have engaged me.

Defending myself from accusation is now proof that I don't have integrity?

What accusation? I reflected on my experiences of the quality of your past predictions. I see I've been "instructive" in encouraging the improvements below and I commend your effort, would you like me to score them?

I think I'll link this gem in the future in case I should have to deal with your bullshit.

By all means do. It shows what's required to get through your condescending sense of self importance, arrogance and pride. I don't have a problem with arrogance, per se, but when it comes without any information it's just an annoying "because you say so". In other words it's your tactics and you've had a taste of ones own medicine. So stop being an asshole, old chap.

to pass a critical point in a process

The dictionary above gives an example of its use.

The patient turned the corner last night. She should begin to show improvement now.

It doesn't meant the process is finished, merely that it has passed a significant threshold or milestone.

Yes, I know what it means, you were unclear with what you meant by it.

Here, the process is bringing four nuclear reactors eventually to a stable point, "cold shut down". If one looks at the first two weeks, there was a lot of crazy stuff going on, including three meltdowns, at least one fire in a fuel rod pool, two evacuations of all personnel from the site and a number of substantial releases of radioactivity into the air. Since, the worst problem to the outside world has been the slow leaking of contaminated water from the site and steady progress towards that final stage, "cold shut down" was made to the point that all of the reactors achieved cold shut down by early last year. The critical point was passing the stage of emergency and great danger.

Finally an answer of sorts, even if it's two years late. Two weeks is a bit optimistic to gain control of the reactor and spent pools, considering that a normal controlled shutdown takes roughly four weeks to thermally cool, but not unreasonable to get some control over the "crazy stuff" of the disaster like fires, cooling and water flow. I'll accept your _retrospective_ explanation of this point is that two weeks to control the initial disaster is what you meant.

How the legitimate, inevitable pursuit of justice through the courts of the criminal negligence of TEPCO pans out, we will just have to wait and see how that pans out.

I think it'll be instructive to look back on this program at the ten year mark and see what actually happened or didn't happen as the case may be. I think by that time, the failure rate will be so pronounced, it'll be highly embarrassing for defenders.

Specifically, I predict that Dr khallow will be unable to be specific about the prediction he has made in this thread.

Since there is the possibility that this could be highly instructive for you, I'll elaborate on what I mean by "failure". I think failure will be such things as bankruptcy, absence of any meaningful infrastructure built or technology acquired a

I do, and that it is utterly ridiculous to claim that in 14 days it "turned a corner" - and I repeat - whatever that means.

How about you stop being an idiot and actually figure out the meaning of phrases first? Here's what turn the corner means:

tsk tsk, now, now

If your position had any integrity you would not have engaged me.

Defending myself from accusation is now proof that I don't have integrity?

What accusation? I reflected on my experiences of the quality of your past predictions. I see I've been "instructive" in encouraging the improvements below and I commend your effort, would you like me to score them?

I think I'll link this gem in the future in case I should have to deal with your bullshit.

By all means do. It shows what's required to get through your condescending sense of self importance, arrogance and pride. I don't have a problem with arrogance, per se, but when it comes without any information it's just an annoying "because you say so". In other words it's your tactics and you've had a taste of ones own medicine. So stop being an asshole, old chap.

to pass a critical point in a process

The dictionary above gives an example of its use.

The patient turned the corner last night. She should begin to show improvement now.

It doesn't meant the process is finished, merely that it has passed a significant threshold or milestone.

Yes, I know what it means, you were unclear with what you meant by it.

Here, the process is bringing four nuclear reactors eventually to a stable point, "cold shut down". If one looks at the first two weeks, there was a lot of crazy stuff going on, including three meltdowns, at least one fire in a fuel rod pool, two evacuations of all personnel from the site and a number of substantial releases of radioactivity into the air. Since, the worst problem to the outside world has been the slow leaking of contaminated water from the site and steady progress towards that final stage, "cold shut down" was made to the point that all of the reactors achieved cold shut down by early last year. The critical point was passing the stage of emergency and great danger.

Finally an answer of sorts, even if it's two years late. Two weeks is a bit optimistic to gain control of the reactor and spent pools, considering that a normal controlled shutdown takes roughly four weeks to thermally cool, but not unreasonable to get some control over the "crazy stuff" of the disaster like fires, cooling and water flow. I'll accept your _retrospective_ explanation of this point is that two weeks to control the initial disaster is what you meant.

How the legitimate, inevitable pursuit of justice through the courts of the criminal negligence of TEPCO pans out, we will just have to wait and see how that pans out.

I think it'll be instructive to look back on this program at the ten year mark and see what actually happened or didn't happen as the case may be. I think by that time, the failure rate will be so pronounced, it'll be highly embarrassing for defenders.

Specifically, I predict that Dr khallow will be unable to be specific about the prediction he has made in this thread.

Since there is the possibility that this could be highly instructive for you, I'll elaborate on what I mean by "failure". I think failure will be such things as bankruptcy, absence of any meaningful infrastructure built or technology acquired a

Prior Art

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/subscription
subscription (sb-skrpshn)
n.
1. a. A purchase made by signed order, as for a periodical for a specified period of time or for a series of performances.

I do, and that it is utterly ridiculous to claim that in 14 days it "turned a corner" - and I repeat - whatever that means.

How about you stop being an idiot and actually figure out the meaning of phrases first? Here's what turn the corner means:

to pass a critical point in a process

The dictionary above gives an example of its use.

The patient turned the corner last night. She should begin to show improvement now.

It doesn't meant the process is finished, merely that it has passed a significant threshold or milestone.

Here, the process is bringing four nuclear reactors eventually to a stable point, "cold shut down". If one looks at the first two weeks, there was a lot of crazy stuff going on, including three meltdowns, at least one fire in a fuel rod pool, two evacuations of all personnel from the site and a number of substantial releases of radioactivity into the air.

Since, the worst problem to the outside world has been the slow leaking of contaminated water from the site and steady progress towards that final stage, "cold shut down" was made to the point that all of the reactors achieved cold shut down by early last year. The critical point was passing the stage of emergency and great danger.

If your position had any integrity you would not have engaged me.

Defending myself from accusation is now proof that I don't have integrity? I think I'll link this gem in the future in case I should have to deal with your bullshit.

I think it'll be instructive to look back on this program at the ten year mark and see what actually happened or didn't happen as the case may be. I think by that time, the failure rate will be so pronounced, it'll be highly embarrassing for defenders.

Specifically, I predict that Dr khallow will be unable to be specific about the prediction he has made in this thread.

Since there is the possibility that this could be highly instructive for you, I'll elaborate on what I mean by "failure". I think failure will be such things as bankruptcy, absence of any meaningful infrastructure built or technology acquired as a result of the loans, or creation of a continuing money sink which can pay its guaranteed loans, but only by consuming considerable public funding.

And glancing through the list of outstanding loans as of mid-2012, they're pretty big for the projects they're covering.

For example, there's a $1.6 billion loan guarantee for a NRG Energy/Brightsource solar plant that generates 392 MW. That's about $4 per watt of generating capability. From what I understand, $1 per watt for solar is considered barely competitive with natural gas or other current peaking load power generation. Now maybe that particular loan will buy other things than just the plant, but as it stands, it seems around a factor of four too costly for what is obtained.

And Abengoa SA, which has received about $1.5 billion in loan guarantees looks to me like a WorldCom style failure waiting to happen. It's high debt, low cash flow, and probably using whatever assets it purchases as collateral for future loans. But it'll probably keep building up debt until the US and EU cuts back on renewable energy subsidies.

Not according to Wikipedia, or this site or this one or this one. You get the idea - I can't really find anything defining CNC as anything other than Computer Numerical Control(led).

Sucks being both a pendant and wrong. Must sting.

Yes, must.

He meant to call you a pedant, actually.

Not according to Wikipedia, or this site or this one or this one. You get the idea - I can't really find anything defining CNC as anything other than Computer Numerical Control(led).

Sucks being both a pendant and wrong. Must sting.

Yes, must.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/_/dict.aspx?word=reveling

Too true, too true I say.

Wrecking Star Trek and Star Wars in one fail swoop.

Ordinarily, for the past several hundred years, the phrase is "one fell* swoop", but in this case you may have the right of it.

Indeed, we may well see epic turned into epic fail.

_______________________________________________

*(see definition 2 http://www.thefreedictionary.com/fell )

"Everyone will now submit to a TSA-enforced sinus inspection before boarding their planes."

Did anyone else read that as sinus infection?

No, but by at least one definition, a sinus is any body cavity: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/sinus

Perhaps this is a thinly veiled effort to get you to donate your 3-D printer to the government compliments of forfeiture law. [grin; duck]

brush (noun):
1. A dense growth of bushes or shrubs
2. Land covered by such a growth
3. Cut or broken branches

Learn English before criticising others' use of it.

Dictionary troll powers, activate!

One's perspective on the world involves more than a metaphysical understanding of how it functions. It also involves how those functional elements are structured and relate to one another. By developing a ubiquitous communications medium, we were able to communicate with each other rapidly and rearrange social structures, (and that affected how we perceived the world, often oversimplified to "making it smaller") but nothing about our understanding of any mechanisms changed. It was just a convenience.

The word you want is "chain of custody". But that isn't the case here, since it's not physical evidence.

In any case it's irrelevant, since the prosecutor already had the videos that Anonymous released. What Anonymous did was to make them public. Whether it's a good thing to put videos of a purported rape out onto the internet is another discussion.

"destend"? wow. the word is "destined", the past tense of destine

coerce (k-ûrs) tr.v. coerced, coercing, coerces
1. To force to act or think in a certain way by use of pressure, threats, or intimidation; compel.

Also, you appear to think 'threats' is refering solely to physical threats. It is entirely possible for people's social status to be 'threatened', you nimrod. (Sadly not your social status, as you're an AC.)

Everyone isn't an idiot read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coercion#Social

And, on top of all that, you and the other AC don't appear to know what 'persuasion' is. Hint: Coercing someone into something IS (usually) 'persuading' them. Persuasion is anything a person does aimed at causing another person to behave differently than they would without the persuasion, which can be anything from politely asking them, to bribing them, to beating them senseless and telling them the beatings will continue if they keep behaving the old way.

Now, not _all_ coercion is persuasion. Coercion can also be actual physical force making them do that thing, and that's no longer 'persuasion'. So for example, kidnapping someone and physically imprisoning in a locked room them is not 'persuading' them to not be somewhere else. But other than kidnapping, most physical force to make people do things is in form of 'I will continue to injury you until you sign this check.' (Persuasion), not 'I will puppet your arms to make you sign this check'. (Not persuasion, and also doesn't work)

And there's even a lot of persuasion in kidnapping...almost no one is imprisoned somewhere they couldn't eventually escape if left alone and given enough time. (I mean, people can break through normal walls in less than hour.) However, they have have been persuaded not to try to escape by threats of the kidnappers.

protecting the inventor yet again! Attaboy USPTO!
Whoda thunk you could put circuitry in a stylus? NOT ME!!
http://www.c64-wiki.com/index.php/Light_pen
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/electronic+stylus
http://www.youtube.com/all_comments?v=4gpN4EILwz8
etc
etc
etc

An individual who finds lost property does not acquire absolute ownership of the property. In order to obtain title to, or rights in, the lost property, the finder must intentionally take possession and control over it.

The individual who acquires possession of a lost or mislaid article has superior rights to the item over anyone except the true owner. This person is only the apparent owner. The finder's title to the property may be forfeited upon discovery of the true owner, whose title in it is unaffected by the fact that the article has been lost. A finder's title is contingent upon the potential discovery of the true owner. He or she may not, therefore, transfer title to another individual.

If the true owner of lost property dies before his or her identity is discovered, the title and right to the lost article passes to the executor or administrator of the owner's estate for distribution to his or her heirs pursuant to the terms of his or her will or the laws of Descent and Distribution.

As between the finder of treasure trove and its true owner, the true owner prevails. It has been held, however, that the finder of treasure trove has greater rights to it than the heirs of the individual who concealed it.

The true owner of lost property is responsible for paying all reasonable expenses incurred by a finder in the discovery and preservation of lost property. The finder may also be entitled to a small compensation for his or her time and effort; however, the finding party does not acquire a lien against the property. The finder cannot receive reimbursement for his or her expenses and time with use of the property, nor is the individual entitled to a reward for finding it unless one has been offered.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Finding+Lost+Goods

Yes, I found that extremely confusing.

I think he's using the term "watered-down" to mean something like "with increased volume", but of course the usual meaning (what you find in the dictionary) is exactly the opposite: "diminished in force or effect".

There are more definitions of 'boss' than 'he who signs the paycheck'.

boss 1 (bôs, bs)
n.
1.
a. An employer or a supervisor.
b. One who makes decisions or exercises authority.
2. A professional politician who controls a party or a political machine.

Impacted? Like a tooth? I think you meant "affected". /Sorry, my pet peeve.

No, "impacted" as in "to have an effect or impact on." Read the usage note on the definition of the word, you lousy pedant. It means exactly what he meant and exactly as you interpreted it. Language -- it's what we use every day to communicate ideas. If you don't like it, consider his usage "poetic".*

*See the period outside the quote at the end of the sentence? I'm sure that drives you crazy as well.

Actually, 'Same here." isn't sentence; it is a sentence fragment.

Well, this guy is dead now, so there might be less sweat government than you think!

Despite repeated claims that x86 is beating ARM here, they look neck in neck.

It's neck and neck.

"Its authoritarian, but in this case I feel like its sound advice."

I don't think you understand the words you are using. Authoritarian? Whose "authority" are you drawing on, to make such statements?

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/authoritarian

I find it difficult to believe that you've not encountered any of the following:

1) At least one major dictionary supporting my definition
2) Literature over thousands of years in which the definition, obviously in various languages, has been disputed. Somehow I don't think you're resolving that debate in a pseudonymous Slashdot post

Well, a quick google search gives lots of result ( http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/agnostic , http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/agnostic , http://www.thefreedictionary.com/agnostic and so on) with descriptions like the following:

a person who holds neither of two opposing positions on a topic

a person who is unwilling to commit to an opinion about something

One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.

Perhaps I have just misunderstood something, but to me those definitions do support my view of what agnosticism is. If I am incorrect then I do not know the proper definition for a person who takes no stance on the existence of gods or such beings.

Invigilated.

Slashdot's word of the day. Never heard of the critter.

Thanks!

I do not think that word (infinite) means what you think it means. Either of you.

From here::

Usage Note: ... In nontechnical usage, of course, infinite is often used to refer to an unimaginably large degree or amount,...

Also, here:

infinite: adj. [common] Consisting of a large number of objects; extreme. Used very loosely as in: "This program produces infinite garbage." "He is an infinite loser." The word most likely to follow infinite, though, is hair. (It has been pointed out that fractals are an excellent example of infinite hair.) These uses are abuses of the word's mathematical meaning.

I'm sorry if I confused you into thinking I meant that the nearly infinite universe was, truly, really mathematically infinite in scope.

I disagree :)

In fact, it's right in the definition: to dissent in opinion (from another person) or dispute (about an idea, fact, etc.)
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/disagree

Now.. that doesn't make their positions any less wrong.

So, Google's supposed to disappear anything whose poster gets called any of an approved list of bad names?

No, that would be an automatism and I specifically said proper legal procedure, which includes evaluating the specific case and its conditions, including an opportunity for the defendant to present his position.

Do you have a specific reason for thinking that the system that - while it has shortcomings - has served us better than any alternative for at least 2000 years magically fails when the word "Internet" is involved?

Exactly who gave you or them the right to judge and have that judgement enforced by law?

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Rule+of+law

Or I could play Jesus and reply with a counter-question: Who gave you the right to say that Google is exempt from the rules?

Definition of the word being, "A person who uses terrorism in the pursuit of political aims."

And the definition of terrorism. "Violence committed or threatened by a group to intimidate or coerce a population, as for military or political purposes."

The FBI should consider updating their list of "designated terrorist groups".

If you do not know the law. Please don't post like you do. As you just come off like an idiot.

He could have waived time.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Waiving+Time

That's why the US has the fifth amendment (and why a right against self-incrimination is a good idea in general).

Please elaborate on how this is a good thing, because I'm really confused about it. To me it sounds like, the police finally found a way to identify a murderer, but then this 5th amendment thingy comes in and it gets thrown out on a technicality. What's good about that?

I've read the Wikipedia entry about the self-incrimination aspect of it, to prevent confessions obtained under torture for example. But that's a far cry from what we have in this case.

The relevant Fifth Amendment protection reads:

...nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself,

US courts have ruled that a criminal suspect/defendant may not refuse DNA testing based on their Fifth Amendment rights. However, the Fourth Amendment requires a warrant issued by a judge before a "search" can be performed.

US courts have ruled that (except for convicted felons and other narrow exceptions) police must obtain a warrant before coercing someone to give up a DNA sample.

However, based on the 1985 California v. Greenwood case, if you spit on the sidewalk, throw away a cigarette butt or lick a stamp, then legally you have "abandoned" the DNA and police can collect it without a warrant. California v. Greenwood focused on household garbage placed in bins outside your curtilage, but that reasoning was expanded to include "abandoned" DNA as well.

N.B., IANAL

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/trounce

Espionage: from L legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com:

Espionage, commonly known as spying, is the practice of secretly gathering information about a foreign government or a competing industry, with the purpose of placing one's own government or corporation at some strategic or financial advantage.

From uslegal.com:

Espionage is the crime of spying on the federal government and/or transferring state secrets on behalf of a foreign country.

From the Fourth Geneva Convention:

A person can only be considered a spy when, acting clandestinely or on false pretences, he obtains or endeavours to obtain information in the zone of operations of a belligerent with the intention of communicating it to the hostile party.
Thus, soldiers not wearing a disguise who have penetrated into the zone of operations of the hostile army, for the purpose of obtaining information, are not considered spies. Similarly, the following are not considered spies: soldiers and civilians carrying out their mission openly, entrusted with the delivery of despatches intended either for their own army or for the enemy's army..."

Would you like to share some "internationally recognized" definition of espionage by which you might conceivably make a case against Assange?

Right now they have monopoly on tablets (monopoly is legally defined as more than 50% market share in a particular market).
But I really hope it will change soon.

Legally a monopoly? Not even close.

"In a monopoly, one or more persons or companies totally dominates an economic market. Monopolies may exist in a particular industry if a company controls a major natural resource, produces (even at a reasonable price) all of the output of a product or service because of technological superiority (called a natural monopoly), holds a patent on a product or process of production, or is otherwise granted government permission to be the sole producer of a product or service in a given area."

A simple 50%+1 majority is not a monopoly.

Incidentally, iPad market share has reportedly slipped to 50% as of a few days ago, which makes monopoly claims even more ludicrous.

Now, whether they qualify for *antitrust* actions is an entirely different story. They may have been borderline antitrust behaviour, but this clearly has not prevented natural competition from reducing Apple's market share in any category they once dominated in, even after Apple's court victories.

monopoly is legally defined as more than 50% market share in a particular market

No it's not.

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