Slashdot Mirror

That's what happens when you get too popular. Xerox faced the same fate:
http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?sourceid =Mozilla-search&va=xerox

I've always been amused when someone has been asked to xerox something on a Minolta photocopier or google something on MSN, but that's humanity for you.

USian isn't a word. American is.

USian isn't a word. American is.

References?

Brittanica and Webster (http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?sourcei d=Mozilla-search&va=satan and http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?sourceid =Mozilla-search&va=satan) cite the Hebrew word for adversary. Answers.com (http://www.answers.com/satan) cites this sense and the sense and the sense of an "obstacle". The latter sense the word appears in the story of Balaam's ass, where the angel of the Lord sent to stand in Balaam's way is a satan, which is a bit of a theological conundrum if we assume "satan" to exclusively refer the proper name of POE.

It makes sense that the word should also gain the sense of "accuser".

and then execute those responsible for the program for treason.

Ok, once and for all, I retract the word "popular" (even though one of Websters http://www.webster.com/dictionary/popular defitinions for popular is - frequently encountered ). IE is used by more people (possibly under duress, laziness, and/or ignorance) than any other browser. I do not endorse or condone this policy, I am merely stating a fact. I myself do not use IE. But a crapload of other folks do. That's it. Everyone happy now?

A "religous prosthelizer" sounds like someone who convinces you to saw your leg off for religious reasons.

So in your world, dead people perform autopsies on themselves?

"No, I work in retail, programming is just a hobby I happen to thoroughly enjoy. "
Fair enough.

"Come again?? How on Earth do you equate enjoying music with a drug addiction?! Mind you, having some good background music makes the time go faster for me while coding, but I certainly won't go into anything resembling a crippling withdrawel. Good God, that's worse than a failed car analogy. Try to make some sense here, will ya? "
Well, you said:
"But music? Gotta have it. No, not the redundent bubble-gum pop, but I am a hard rock junkie. Corrosion of Confirmity, Union Underground, Godsmack, Mushroomhead, Saliva, Stabbing Westward, White Zombie, Tool... gotta have 'em."

Seems to be pretty straight forward how I: "equate enjoying music with a drug addiction"

"Riiiight, it's MY fault the *AA are a bunch of greedy bastards. Good to know."
It's not your fault that they are greedy. You just let them put their greed into action.

"you presumptuous ass."
Name calling doesn't make you right.

"Um, NO. They can't. Not even close. Just because I have a strong interest in a particular genre of music does NOT mean that I will bend over and take it from the RIAA to listen to said music. There are many more avenues for listening to music besides buying CDs. Conventional radio and (my personal favorite) internet radio, are my most oft-used sources of music enjoyment. Also, there are used CD stores in my area which, for the time being, are still 100% legal. I buy occasionally, when I can find what I want at a decent price. I won't pay US$25+ for a CD, and I'd hope the same applies to the majority of reasonably intelligent people as well."

You pay for radio. Just not directly, and you can be sure that the RIAA is working hard at plugging up any 'free' ways for you to use their 'Intellectual Property' without paying them. It doesn't matter anyway. You have publicly stated that you "gotta have" their product, and that you hope they know it. This is at best encourging them to act more diligently on their greed.

"Oh look, here come the mods ready to flame me just for defending myself... "
No, they would more likely mod you down for swearing, throwing unrelated personal insults, completely backtracking on your original post, and most importantly trying to insult them into not modding you down for the other reasons.

Perhaps its just me, but I don't understand why some people are for homosexual civil unions, but not homosexual marriage, even when they are functionally the same.

It's about the word, and what it means.

A civil union is fine by me, because I'm not all "t3h gheys are t3h evil". I'm not opposed to the legal functions of marriage to apply to gay couples, I can see how your partner would want to come see you at the hospitals, and the hospital has rules against roomates visiting, but I don't think the solution is to redefine something that has a basic meaning throughout the world. I think the solution is to provide an alternative that will serve the same purpose.

Me, I don't understand why some people are for homosexual marriage, but not satisfied with homosexual civil unions, even when they are functionally the same.
Well, I see it, I lied. I see it and I don't agree with it: They want to be told they're normal: "See, we get maried and have white picket fences!".
I support the right not to be normal. The civil union would do juuuuuust fine for all intents and purposes, except one: It wouldn't be something to throw in the face of people who hate fags. I don't think that's valid.

P.S. I got about ten replies to this (whoa!), and you're the first rational one to date. You deserve a cookie :)

Main Entry: terror
Pronunciation: 'ter-&r, 'te-r&r
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French terrour, from Latin terror, from terrEre to frighten; akin to Greek trein to be afraid, flee, tremein to tremble -- more at TREMBLE
4 : violent or destructive acts (as bombing) committed by groups in order to intimidate a population or government into granting their demands
synonym see FEAR

Shock and Awe
The basis for Rapid Dominance rests in the ability to affect the will, perception, and understanding of the adversary through imposing sufficient Shock and Awe to achieve the necessary political, strategic, and operational goals of the conflict or crisis that led to the use of force.

African 'states'? I don't need to read any further to know that you are very ignorant about everything beyond your little cocoon. Africa is a continent with many -countries-. Nigeria is a country in Africa. Lagos is a state in Nigeria. Don't spout nonsense when you obviously don't know what you're talking about.

African 'states'? I don't need to read any further to know that you are very ignorant about everything beyond your little cocoon. Africa is a continent with many -countries-. Nigeria is a country in Africa. Lagos is a state in Nigeria. Don't spout nonsense when you obviously don't know what you're talking about.

Silly pseudo-scientists, always trying to marginalise empirical evidence in favour of their own skewed (imagined or not) experiences

Let me help you out here, because you seem to be confused.

Emperical3 : capable of being verified or disproved by observation or experiment

Observations and experiments almost universally support the existence of the vitalistic overview. The exception comes when the experimenter strongly believes in the materialistic overview.

Also the CIA found out remote viewing doesn't work for shit.

What evidence do you have to back that up? Or have you just taken YOUR belief and carefully selected which "evidence" you're willing to consider?

Mr. Swann says that the CIA spooks always hated their program, so they had to get results, right from the start. If the results weren't there, they would have been shut down immediately.

At a rare 2004 question-and-answer session, Mr. Swann told a story from SRI. He was sitting on a throne in the restroom when two spooks walked in. One spook said to the other [paraphrased], "wow, they got some really good stuff going on here." The other responds, "yeah, next thing you now they'll be reading our minds." Swann: "I knew the program was doomed..."

-----

Consider Mr. Swann's 1995 statement on Remote Viewing. Selected quotes (emphasis added):

"This is to say that the intelligence community did not conduct psychic research and go out on a limb just for the hell of it. In fact, that community never did psychic research. What it did was to assess the threat of the Soviet efforts. ... All media reports of the 1970s correctly identified the purpose of this threat analysis, albeit with a good deal of joking and amusement.

"At the time, this threat analysis was perfectly justified, completely necessary, and unquestionably required in behalf of the well-being of the nation."

"[We] clearly confirmed the reality of the threat. Even most of the 1970s media concluded that the work was necessary, even if it was funny and ridiculous according to Western anti-psychic traditions."

"... Those of you who witnessed the Nightline TV show of 28 November 1995, will recall an individual said to be from the CIA, but identified only by the name "Norm."

"Mr. Robert Gates had just finished saying that remote viewing was unpromising. But when it came "Norm's" time to talk, he began saying something like, "Well, if it's the Eight-Martini Results you want to talk about, I won't talk about them."

"What, then, is an "eight-martini" result? Well, this is an intelligence community in-house term for remote viewing data so good that it cracks everyone's realities. So they have to go out and drink eight martinis to recover. Remote viewing does have its amusing aspects, you know."

see Interpolation

"In the mathematical subfield of numerical analysis, interpolation is a method of constructing new data points from a discrete set of known data points." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpolation

"to alter or corrupt (as a text) by inserting new or foreign matter", http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?sourceid =Mozilla-search&va=Interpolation

the DVD visual content is based on Raster Graphics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raster_Graphics
Enlarging/Upscaling a video is similar to resizing a series of matrices. The available algorithms and techiques (e.g. filters etc) are many. Often there is a performance/quality issue. So it could be valid to say that: the interpolation that company x is using has better results than that of company y. still there may be a group of people who prefer the results of y. (e.g. raster based PDF in Acrobat Reader are antialiased (some sort of interpolation) but many prefer the "clear-cut" appearance of not-antialiased fonts).

On the other hand if we believe them word-for-word, then they must be behind the techniques that enable the CCTV footage in holywood movies to infinite zoom with superclarity results;-)

"dude, zonk took time to state that something should be taken literally -- when the statement is clearly was meant to be taken figuratively.

Or perhaps you belive that the information was having trouble walking??

Moron"

I am pretty sure Zonk was using this meaning for "staggering" -

transitive senses
1 : to cause to doubt or hesitate : PERPLEX
http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?sourceid =Mozilla-search&va=staggering

Isn't it hard to see the ground up there on your high horse???

From Merriam-Webster:

2: set in a bent position

So based on that definition, it would be correct to say 'knocking someone akimbo' if you mean to imply that someone was knocked in to a bent position.

I have no idea if that's what really happens in the game, but if we're going to split hairs, I thought I'd toss in my $0.02 of karma burn.

Here's how you can ride this train:

1. Invest in tape storage companies.

2. Vote Republican.

3. The entire internet is recorded in real time.

4. Your stock goes up.

5. Profit!!!!!

(Note for the humor impared. This is 'sarcasm' http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=sarca sm)

Second, was the story corrected at some point or something? I see "Camouflage" on the story and I see "Camouflage" at the awards page and I see "Camouflage" at Webster's. Is your concern with "Camouflage," or was there another (incorrect) spelling on the original piece? This is driving me nuts. Please let me know. Thanks.

I really hate it when some know-it-all spews forth about a rule that he thinks he knows. I most especially hate it when it's me.

Thanks for pointing that out. I looked it up on Merriam-Webster, where they further explain the "tangled history" of the two words.

[/grammarant]

There are more than 8 signs that Dvorak is a gasbag. I site his numerous rambling predictions in the past that have turned out to be wrong more often than not. He just likes trying to raise a stink to maintain his dwindling readership.

Democracy == Mob rule. Fails every time. Republics seem to work ok, until they grow stagnant or corrupt, hence the idea of a built-in revolution every few years. Historically speaking, democracies lead to communism, which, despite what China wants you to think, still doesn't work for anybody but the lucky few in power. I can see where the above-referenced system could be abused, but you know, maybe it would actually accomplish the unbelievable feat of causing HR to do some actual work for once. I mean, really, who goes to their HR dept. and says "I think my boss sucks," and expects to get away with it? An opportunity to anonymously (or at least semi-anonymously, with a layer of dedicated [hopefully impartial] interpreters) critique your work environment could lead to good things, if implemented properly; Maybe by requiring the results of such a system to be interpreted by an independant company, perhaps with no reference to the originating company/dept./employee at the lower levels until final tabulation or something.

I fail to see what fascism has to do with anything... Except that the basic corporation itself is run as a fascist (http://webster.com/dictionary/fascist/) environment, with the difference from the nation level being that one doesn't live at work (generally speaking) and is free to sever their association from their company at their own free will. This also varies from the ideals of communism in that everyone in theory puts in equal work for equal pay, as a company rewards same work with sometimes different pay and different work with different pay, leading to it's differentiation as "capitalism". The almighty "$" replaces the "race" function and the "corporation" replaces "nation".

An FYI, in case you are one of my numerous fellow Americans who likes to go around talking about this great democracy we live in, please get it right - The U.S.A. is NOT a democracy, it's a representative republic!

"Specially" is a word.

http://www.webster.com/dictionary/specially

But yes, "especially" would have been a better choice in this case.

Average = (arithmetic) mean only by custom, not by definition.

Eventually, what is the custom will become the definition, and in this case I'd say it's most of the way there already. People tend to use the word average to refer to mean/median/mode, but in most of the cases where this is done, it's generally assumed that the three are the same.

But yes, I do agree with you ... words mean what people want them to mean. But if you give somebody a bunch of numbers and ask them to find the average, will most people 1) add them up and divide by the number of numbers, or 2) sort the numbers and find the number in the middle, or 3) find the number that is the most common in the group? People may not understand the difference between mean, median and mode ... but they generally do know how to calculate averages, and they will generally use the formula for calculating the mean.

Stealing money from the till, stealing insider information, gaming the quarterly sales to boost the stock price, etc., have always been an issue. If you employee human beings, these things will happen whether or not computers are used. Their actions don't even need to be illegal, simple carelessness can harm a company as much, or even more, than outright theft.

Careful screening during hiring, sufficient training and re-training during employment, as well as attentiveness are the keys to mitigating these problems.

Restricting e-mail, firewalls, etc., are simply putting fingers in the dike.

Stealing money from the till, stealing insider information, gaming the quarterly sales to boost the stock price, etc., have always been an issue. If you employee human beings, these things will happen whether or not computers are used. Their actions don't even need to be illegal, simple carelessness can harm a company as much, or even more, than outright theft.

Careful screening during hiring, sufficient training and re-training during employment, as well as attentiveness are the keys to mitigating these problems.

Restricting e-mail, firewalls, etc., are simply putting fingers in the dike.

What? Cruel? So in addition to being a PETA (Formerly: People Eating Tasty Animals) member, you have a poor grasp of the English language:

This is the definition of cruel courtesy of Webster's Dictionary: Main Entry: cruel
Pronunciation: 'krü(-&) l
Function: adjective
Inflected Form(s): crueler or crueller; cruelest or cruellest
Etymology: Middle English, from Old French, from Latin crudelis, from crudus
1 : disposed to inflict pain or suffering : devoid of humane feelings
2 a : causing or conducive to injury, grief, or pain
b : unrelieved by leniency


Since you obviously didn't RTFA, they plan on using sharks as stealthy scouts. Its not like they are torturing sharks to make them killing machines then attaching drills to their heads.

Sheesh

~nate

"It's called Parallel Path Technology and it's being coined as a revolution in the magnetic motor industry."

You can coin a new word, you can't coin something that's already been invented (even if what's supposedly been invented is under dispute).

      http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?sourceid =Mozilla-search&va=coin

The submitter probably meant 'touted,' 'sold,' or perhaps more appropriately, 'hyped.'

capacious
One entry found for capacious.
Main Entry: capacious
Pronunciation: k&-'pA-sh&s
Function: adjective
Etymology: Latin capac-, capax capacious, capable, from Latin capere
: containing or capable of containing a great deal
synonym see SPACIOUS
- capaciously adverb
- capaciousness noun
http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?sourceid =Mozilla-search&va=capacious

It seems that he's using the second definition of 'literally.' Y'know, the one that means the exact opposite of the first one.

Maybe you mean prospective .

Or, possibly respective .

It is doubtful you actually mean perspective .

Maybe you mean prospective .

Or, possibly respective .

It is doubtful you actually mean perspective .

Maybe you mean prospective .

Or, possibly respective .

It is doubtful you actually mean perspective .

A kaafir, very simply put, is a disbeliever. Not a "nigger" as you have so kindly put forward. A disbeliever is defined as someone who does not believe that there is none worthy of worship but Allah, and that Muhammad is His Messenger. Let's at least be precise.

The Christians and Jews are permitted to live under Muslim rule similarly to how you've described, by default. They can practice their religion, and even conduct their own courts. The jizyah is exactly what you've called it - a tax. It's amazing, though, how you've made it seem like something unique to the Muslims only, though. The Muslims are obligated to pay 2 1/2 percent of their wealth in charity, and pretty much the same is due from the non-Muslims, except it is a tax. But, of course, the 20 - 30% we pay annually to the IRS is something completely different, right? ;) In exchange for the jizyah, the Islamic Government is obligated to protect the wealth, property, and rights of these citizens, and the jizyah must be returned if these conditions are not met.

Those that are not Christian or Jew, however, would be allowed to live under Muslim rule, under these conditions, under the circumstances you have described. If there was no threat or danger in having to do so.

Definitely, under an Islamic government, non-Islamic laws cannot supercede Islamic ones. How this is even an issue doesn't make sense. I surely cannot force Islamic laws in this non-Islamic government, right?

In fact, during a time of war in the generation after the Prophet Muhammad (may Allah's peace be upon him), the Muslim ruler at the time informed a non-Muslim village that they could no longer offer military protection to them, so he removed from them the obligation of the jizyah. You'd be surprised, in fact, how frequently the Muslim Caliphate, back when Islam was actually practiced, was at peace, and fought transgressors and oppressors. But the exploits of other empires and nations are not comparable, because they were never "theocracies", and the Islamic ones are always seen in contempt a little more than the empires of Napoleon, Charlemagne, Alexander the Great, and so on. I never understood this, even though these former empires were never divorced from being fundamentally religious as well.

As for fighting the kuffaar (plural of kaafir) wherever you may find them, this is during war. If a people were peaceable to the Muslim kingdoms, allowed Muslims to worship freely in their nations, and were not transgressing against the Muslim nation or people, there was seldom any conflict, because the message of Islam was allowed to spread freely.

I'd like to point out, also, that infidel is NOT an Arabic word. Disbeliever is a far more accurate term for kaafir. The connotation for infidel is different than that of kaafir.

This is all extremely pragmatic, and the conditions of the non-Muslims under the proper Muslim government was far superior to even the conditions of the Americans now. The people lived much safer lives, there was far less impropriety, and business boomed. Islam, as an empire, flourished for over 1000 years and spread out from the Arabian Penninsula all the way to Spain to the West and China to the East. Did unpleasant things happen at some point during this time? Yes, I'm sure they did, and it was a direct result of leaving the actual practice of the religion and turning towards Imperialism and material gains. But compare the history of the Islamic Empire to that of any nation preceding it or that came after it, and you'll find that nothing can compare. But these are points that are usually glossed over and people just focus on Muslims as "the Other" and remain content with that.

If you really want to nitpick, let's do this. From here:

decode
Main Entry: decode
Pronunciation: (")dE-'kOd
Function: transitive verb
1 a : to convert (as a coded message) into intelligible form b : to recognize and interpret (an electronic signal)
2 a : DECIPHER 3a b : to discover the underlying meaning of

Ok, so if it was an electrical signal, I'd let it slide. Otherwise, it is decoding a messege into something intelligible which GTAAACTTGAAAA isn't ... or it is synonymous with decipher.

To clarify: The Orbiter did not explode; it was destroyed by aerodynamic forces applied to the fuselage at pressures higher than tolerable in places not designed for such forces. The Solid Rocket Boosters did not explode; one booster suffered a burn-through which led to the structural failure of the External Tank which caused the Orbiter to become disconnected from the tank and led to its breakup. The External Tank was ruptured and the internal fuel tanks spilled their contents; the hypergolics were mixed in an uncontrolled fashion, ignited, then proceeded to ignite liquid oxygen which caused a flash-over. By the time this fireball was seen, the Orbiter had already broken into several sections and was only trivially affected by the blast.

Apathetical? Does it annoyify you? </twit>

But there have been occasions where i would make water for someone, a few stacks, and they would demand i make them more.

According to Webster's Dictionary:

- make water 1 of a boat : LEAK 2 : URINATE

Kinda reminds me of a TV commentator talking about one of Lance Armstrong's teammates whose job it was "to break wind."

For clarification purposes from Merriam-Webster:

• consumer - Usage: often attributive: one that consumes : as a : one that utilizes economic goods
• customer - 1 : one that purchases a commodity or service

6 of one, a half dozen of the other. Semantics isn't my specialty and I try to keep my arguments in a simpler context. Either word will do, though "consumer" is usually linked with "producer", hence my choice. In the broader social context, you have a valid point.

http://webster.com/dictionary/sceptical

http://webster.com/dictionary/skeptical

I can't believe you call yourselves "editors", or more likely "edatters".

That "ironical" isn't a word?
Wrong, it is.

Uh, no. Simple math here - if you sell less, you bring in less money. If you bring in less money, you get LOWER profits.

Selling what? Air? Sand? You're talking about selling damn expensive devices.

What on earth are you talking about? The loss comes at the time of MANUFACTURING, if they SELL it, they get back a portion of that loss.

And you think the current store supply is sufficient to fill demand for XBox360 till June? Do you really think Microsoft is too poor to use JIT?
Storage inbetween production and sales is a small insignificant margin. In modern manufacturing it contains at most 3 days worth of sales of given product.

There is no universe that exists where taking in LESS money means you make MORE money.

Let's take this school task:
In January shares of SCO were $1/share and IBM shares were $15/share.
Silly joranbelar bought 50 shares of SCO paying a total $50, and 10 shares of IBM paying a total of $150. He spent $200.
Meantime smart Sharpfang bought 5 shares of SCO paying $5 and 13 shares of IBM paying $195. He also spent $200.
In August both joranbelar and Sharpfang decided to sell their shares. In the meantime SCO lost the litigation, resulting in shares dropping to $0.10 and IBM signed a new contract with Apple resulting in its shares gaining value of $20.
As result Sharpfang got $260.50 and joranbelar earned $205.
Sharpfang earned $60.50 by selling 18 shares. joranbelar earned $6 by selling 60 shares.

Bigger sales = more manufactured = bigger losses.
Less sold = less manufactured = lower losses.
Got it?

Doctrine: a principle of law established through past decisions or a statement of fundamental government policy especially in international relations.

...reciprocity, the legal tenet that says each state, being part of the United States, is obliged to respect the rights and laws espoused by the other states in The Republic. Which is why your driver's license is valid in all 50 states and the territories. This includes taxation for the purposes of interstate commerce - exemptions can (and have been) made in the past, but it requires the agreement of all 50 states. And it is also possible to recoup these sales taxes in certain cases.

/pet peeve

While persuaded may mean 'to succeed in causing a person to do or consent to something.',dictionary.com
it can also simply mean 'to plead with: urge'.webster.com
So it could be possible he was persuaded to sign a document, but refused.

3 : the quality of being actual
4 a : something that has actual existence b : an actual occurrence
5 : a piece of information presented as having objective reality
- in fact : in truth

3 : the quality of being actual
4 a : something that has actual existence b : an actual occurrence
5 : a piece of information presented as having objective reality
- in fact : in truth

"The word you've entered isn't in the dictionary. Click on a spelling suggestion below or try again..."Webster.com

Regardless of the spelling inadequecies of the title, this list is interesting, though I'd found quite a while back that repetitively stabbing 0 seemed to be the panic sequence/secret-code-for-this-is-a-truly-p-o'd-cus tomer for multiple companies.