Slashdot Mirror

Then you adjust up or down until you do it and get 50 of them to die - viola - the value of LD50.

voilà

viola

(the changes are bad from this town's point of view - Maidenhead).

1. transitive senses 1 a : to take or appropriate without right or leave and with intent to keep or make use of wrongfully *stole a car* b : to take away by force or unjust means *they've stolen our liberty* c : to take surreptitiously or without permission *steal a kiss* d : to appropriate to oneself or beyond one's proper share : make oneself the focus of *steal the show*

[P]iracy is robbing ships by force of arms.

That's one definition. Mirriam-Webster has a couple of others:

1 : an act of robbery on the high seas; also : an act resembling such robbery
2 : robbery on the high seas
3 : the unauthorized use of another's production, invention, or conception especially in infringement of a copyright

I'm tired of the "it's not piracy/theft" comments. Face it, the language has evolved. Copyright infringement is theft of the copyright holder's legal monopoly.

Christian editors changed the order of the scrolls when compiled into a codex and changed the meaning by translating to Greek, Latin, and then local languages. The changes aren't significant, but for an infallible source, something like the King James version has significant changes. (Look at the Ten Commandments versus the Jewish Decalogue; which one does everyone want to post in courthouses?)

It was Hellenic Jews -- not Christians -- who translated Jewish texts into (classical) Greek. And the King James translation was not translated from Latin. And yes, it was flaws as well as outright errors, but for its time it was an amazing piece of scholarship.

I smelled bullshit rule. Check it out, license and licence are mearly variant spellings of the same word. There is no noun verb rule with them. I don't like the variant, since it makes much more sense to inflect license -> licensed than licence -> licensed.

Geez, for crying out loud, that post was ignorant and off topic, not insightfull. What's wrong with the mods today?

Just because he mentioned Mozilla doesn't make him insightfull, no matter how much Firefox rocks (which is a lot).

Censorship is a word used in reference to a Government office

NO ITS NOT!
(Well, it is, but not exclusively)

Read the other replies (yes, I'm in there too), plenty of people have corrected that ignoramus (that's not a swear word, btw), and the AC still got modded up afterwards.

Censorship is not limited to governments. Private censorship is not only possible but a reality.
Censorship happens to all layers of society. Individuals censor themselves, parent censor ther kids (don't say that Timmy!), schools (private and public) censor students and teachers, corporations censor themselves and their employees, governments censort heir citizens, but are not the only ones to do so!

censorship
Pronunciation: 'sen(t)-s&r-"ship
Function: noun
1 a : the institution, system, or practice of censoring

censor
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): censored; censoring /'sen(t)-s&-ri[ng], 'sen(t)s-ri[ng]/
: to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable

As a recomendation - Don't use this tense in American Schools! You will loose points!
I am in a program with lots of people who speak English as a second langauge. They learned English from British teachers. Well, to make a long story short, my classmate wrote a paper using this tense and lost a shit load of points. I recomended that she take it up with the professor - she didn't think it was wise. She was right not to. I challenged the prof about something and she, let's say, didn't like it. FYI, I was sweet as honey too!

One of the amazing things about the English language and languages in general, are their ability to be continuously changing and to adapt to how people use words over time.

Webster's Dictionary seems to define piracy, in definition 3, as copyright infringement. Similarly, if you look at the definition of to steal, it only says to take or appropriate, it says nothing about the original owner losing anything. Like the example they give to "steal a kiss," that doesn't imply it stops, say the original boyfriend, from kissing the girl (unless it was a really good kiss...).

Of course the dictionary doesn't carry the connotations of the words, which are slightly different. People are going to use the connotation that represents their opinion of how bad the act is. And since whether this is wrong or not is an opinion and not a fact (as in morally, not legally), this is going to differ between people. If the RIAA wants to communicate it is morally wrong in addition to legally wrong, as they are perfectly allowed to do, they will probably want to use a stronger word. In a legal sense, things a little different and legalese is definitely more precise... but thankfully we don't all speak or communicate in legalese.

I think it is pointless to debate over which single word they should be using, since all of them seem to work. Instead, I think some people need to say why they think it is right or wrong instead of hiding behind claiming which word is the only correct word since it happens to have a better connotation.

One of the amazing things about the English language and languages in general, are their ability to be continuously changing and to adapt to how people use words over time.

Webster's Dictionary seems to define piracy, in definition 3, as copyright infringement. Similarly, if you look at the definition of to steal, it only says to take or appropriate, it says nothing about the original owner losing anything. Like the example they give to "steal a kiss," that doesn't imply it stops, say the original boyfriend, from kissing the girl (unless it was a really good kiss...).

Of course the dictionary doesn't carry the connotations of the words, which are slightly different. People are going to use the connotation that represents their opinion of how bad the act is. And since whether this is wrong or not is an opinion and not a fact (as in morally, not legally), this is going to differ between people. If the RIAA wants to communicate it is morally wrong in addition to legally wrong, as they are perfectly allowed to do, they will probably want to use a stronger word. In a legal sense, things a little different and legalese is definitely more precise... but thankfully we don't all speak or communicate in legalese.

I think it is pointless to debate over which single word they should be using, since all of them seem to work. Instead, I think some people need to say why they think it is right or wrong instead of hiding behind claiming which word is the only correct word since it happens to have a better connotation.

Webster agrees with wikpedia.
Entry for Hades

To be pedantic, during the middle ages the common thought was that the ancient cultures had learned everything there was to know, then the knowledge was lost with the fall of their cultures. The word "discover" is "dis-" (not) "cover" (as in hide) was coined to indicate that scientists were merely again finding what the golden age cultures had already found.

In this case, you have a liquid (beer) lightly saturated with gasses. Like crystals, the gasses collect on the impurities on the glass (notice when you drink soda, the bubbles always seem to form at the same spots), until you've reached a "critical mass" where the bubble can break its tension with the glass. The bubbles rise up the middle of the glass, inducing a current (similar to convection) which has a counter current going down the edges of the glass. The force of the current (down) is sometimes greater than the buoyancy (up) of the smaller bubbles, and they are drawn downwards towards the bottom of the glass. Now where's my money??

Yes there is, its called ignoring them.

You can ignore moderation results, too. There are settings for each moderation category that allow you to modify the scores.

Don't want to read "funny" comments? Give it a -6 modifier, everything else a +1 and browse with comment score 0. Want to read nothing but flaimbait? Give everything a modifier of -6 and flaimbait +6. The moderation system is only a "community suggestion" for which topics are worth reading. Sure it's not perfect, but it was never touted to be.

Once the bad moderation is done, the damage is permanent. And its quite easy to make multiple accounts to get multiple mod points. I dont see any reduction in the frequency of bad moderation either.

What damage? Your karma score? Cry me a river... as for making multiple accounts, it's also possible to post as an AC hundreds of times in the same thread and spam it to hell and back. At least you have to put effort into maintaining good karma and activity on multiple accounts to get those mod points.

How so?

Simple: He wants others to be accountable, but by posting as an AC he can't be held accountable himself. That's hypocrisy.

Maybe he didn't register, sure, but that's really not an excuse. If he's been around long enough to be that pissy about the moderation system chances are he does have an account anyway.
=Smidge=

Diebold should just be banned, period. My bank used to have a bunch of Diebold ATMs at the drive-through and in the main lobby, but they just replaced them with some much cooler color LCD-based machines from some other vendor. For some reason ... I felt relieved.

Thank you, ScrewMaster, for your textbook demonstration of prejudice.

At least the BBC had the decency to call them malicious hackers.

You mean there's another kind?

You are confusing government and sovereignty. In the UK, Queen Elizabeth is the sovereign. Can you dispute that?

I feel the gaming violence entertaining.... however I think it settles down my agression/violence, not improves it ...

That is called catharsis.

The people who think games cause violence are the people who are in denial about heir own violent thoughts and impulses and who repress them continually. When exposed to art that brings these natural emotions to the surface they stay in denial but cannot continue to supress them, and so blame the game for generating these feelings.

Then there's the moms that blame lil' Timmy's outbursts on the games, because he was so nice before, and now that he's 13 and playing these horrible games, he's just not the same!
Forget about Timmy's testotesrone shooting way up on account of that puberty thing, it must be the games.

Squalor is an excellent word for such a description, but I was thinking of squander (I misspelled it squandor, sorry) as webster defines it, to lose (as an advantage or opportunity) through negligence or inaction . I meant they really aren't being given priority, although that is debatable through indirect action being taken with its movement towards economic diversity in the global scheme of things and all.

As for the legal definition, I believe it's more along the lines of: If the cops set up a lure car and you try to steal it then they bust you, that is fine. You decided to steal the car (or, in the analogy, rough up a street vendor) of your own volition.
Legal entrapment is more like the cops setting up the "lure car" then an officer (undercover) coming up to you and saying "Hey man.. that car over there is unlocked.. wanna steal it?" Then busting you.

The grandparent post has a good strategy - set up a legal street vendor, then sue the shit out of the thugs (RIAA) that harass them.

I am reminded of a friend I used to know who was a VERY staunch vegetarian, she wouldn't even eat food that had been prepared on the same grill or in the same pan as a meat product. And yet she wore LEATHER shoes.

I believe the word license in this sense is:

3 a : freedom that allows or is used with irresponsibility b : disregard for standards of personal conduct : LICENTIOUSNESS

Implying that non-good men love the opportunity to act irresponsibly, which is what freedom offers them.

Actually, the name of the technique as named by the inventor (Paul Lauterbur) was originally zeugmatography.

http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=IRREG ARDLESS

I'm sorry but it is you who aren't familiar with the term socialism. I have read all of the FSF materials many years ago. I do not argue that one can make money from software written under the tenants of FSF, and calling it socialistic does not imply that either. I point out that the person making the money is not necessarily (and usually isn't) the person who wrote it, thereby eliminating profit motive. Free software is a community effort, profit or lack thereof is to the community, meaning it is socialist (Q.E.D.). Hence the failings that the gnome project is now having to work around, per the article and my original post.

Property is inherent in the dollar and money since it has been conceived as an idea and brought to fruition. If you read the Bureau of Engraving and Printing you see the words Confidence. Trust. Value.

Websters defines money as something generally accepted as a medium of exchange, a measure of value, or a means of payment: as a : officially coined or stamped metal currency.

The only question left is the right to be free from theft, and or taxation.

Some might not see the difference.

Product activation is amoral, any company doing that deserves a boycot.

Why does a company deserve a boycot for doing something amoral, "being neither moral nor immoral"?

Product activation is amoral, any company doing that deserves a boycot.

Why does a company deserve a boycot for doing something amoral, "being neither moral nor immoral"?

It is "separation" and not "seperation."

Remember, movie piracy doesn't just hurt actors, but also camera operators, key grips, makeup artists, and costumers.

The only adverb defintion for verbatim given in Webster's Diectionary says, in its entirety, "in the exact words : word for word." Your first two sentences argue that verbatim copying did not occur.

[...] He cannot use this code in his own software, it flat out doesn't belong to him. [...]

If there is no law making something illegal, it's generally legal (although some broadly written laws can theoretically make a lot of things illegal). You haven't quoted a law that defines a penalty on which he could be prosecuted, nor have you identified a law that creates a private right of action on which he could be sued. Indeed, you haven't quoted or even identified a single law, court decision or any other reference in this entire discussion. I don't know what you mean by "belong" in this theory, given that copyrights in the United States are not derived from a theory of property, but rather from a power of congress in article 1 section 8 of the US Constitution, "The Congress shall have power [...] To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries; [...]." "Sweat of the brow" copyright theory has been explicity rejected by the Supreme Court (Feist v. Rural). One can imagine all sorts of legal systems that might be possible, and that might be useful for writing science fiction, but that is not a substitute for information about what our laws happen to be.

However, I am not a lawyer, so one should still not rely on anything I've said as legal advice.

Palestinians, being semites themselves, can hardly be anti-semitics...

Somebody's not paying attention.
Semite means of the Semetic peoples, ie those in and around the Arab world
but 'anti-semite' has been tied to the jewish people for a long time.
Even your own source agrees with me (emphasis in dictionary):

Main Entry: anti-Semitism
Pronunciation: "an-ti-'se-m&-"ti-z&m, "an-"tI-
Function: noun
Date: 1882
: hostility toward or discrimination against Jews as a religious, ethnic, or racial group

Main Entry: Semitic
Pronunciation: s&-'mi-tik also -'me-
Function: adjective
Etymology: German semitisch, from Semit, Semite Semite, probably from New Latin Semita, from Late Latin Semitic Shem
Date: 1813
1 : of, relating to, or constituting a subfamily of the Afro-Asiatic language family that includes Hebrew, Aramaic, Arabic, and Amharic
2 : of, relating to, or characteristic of the Semites
3 : JEWISH

Palestinians, being semites themselves, can hardly be anti-semitics...

Somebody's not paying attention.
Semite means of the Semetic peoples, ie those in and around the Arab world
but 'anti-semite' has been tied to the jewish people for a long time.
Even your own source agrees with me (emphasis in dictionary):

Main Entry: anti-Semitism
Pronunciation: "an-ti-'se-m&-"ti-z&m, "an-"tI-
Function: noun
Date: 1882
: hostility toward or discrimination against Jews as a religious, ethnic, or racial group

Main Entry: Semitic
Pronunciation: s&-'mi-tik also -'me-
Function: adjective
Etymology: German semitisch, from Semit, Semite Semite, probably from New Latin Semita, from Late Latin Semitic Shem
Date: 1813
1 : of, relating to, or constituting a subfamily of the Afro-Asiatic language family that includes Hebrew, Aramaic, Arabic, and Amharic
2 : of, relating to, or characteristic of the Semites
3 : JEWISH

Palestinians, being semites themselves, can hardly be anti-semitics...

Main Entry: Semite
Pronunciation: 'se-"mIt, esp British 'sE-"mIt
Function: noun
Etymology: French semite, from Semitic Shem, from Late Latin, from Greek SEm, from Hebrew ShEm
Date: 1848
1 a : a member of any of a number of peoples of ancient southwestern Asia including the Akkadians, Phoenicians, Hebrews, and Arabs b : a descendant of these peoples
2 : a member of a modern people speaking a Semitic language

This is really staring to href="http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?bo ok=Dictionary&va=bother">bother me

Some are superior, but why do I need a link to see Panther. I know this is not the worst example, but please let us use the internet if we are clueless.

This is really staring to href="http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?bo ok=Dictionary&va=bother">bother me

Some are superior, but why do I need a link to see Panther. I know this is not the worst example, but please let us use the internet if we are clueless.

This is really staring to href="http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?bo ok=Dictionary&va=bother">bother me

Some are superior, but why do I need a link to see Panther. I know this is not the worst example, but please let us use the internet if we are clueless.

This is really staring to href="http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?bo ok=Dictionary&va=bother">bother me

Some are superior, but why do I need a link to see Panther. I know this is not the worst example, but please let us use the internet if we are clueless.

This is really staring to href="http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?bo ok=Dictionary&va=bother">bother me

Some are superior, but why do I need a link to see Panther. I know this is not the worst example, but please let us use the internet if we are clueless.

This is really staring to href="http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?bo ok=Dictionary&va=bother">bother me

Some are superior, but why do I need a link to see Panther. I know this is not the worst example, but please let us use the internet if we are clueless.

Their "about us" page seems to say they are an "consultancy" (is that a word) for international standards. Ironic, eh?

Indeed, although I would guess that "international standards" doesn't mean "all international standards"; I'd doubt they would step in if someone started hawking a dodgy TCP stack.

(Also, 'consultancy' is a word; it means pretty much what you'd expect it to mean: a business that either acts as a consultant or is set up to employ consultants to businesses. I've generally heard it more from Commonwealth-types than from Yanks, but it's real.)

Do like I did and email them to make fun of them.

One step ahead of you, hoss. :-)

When I first saw the ads talking about a virus and seeing the people turn, seconds from contamination, into bloodthirsty maniacs, I thought "Oh, so its flash-rabies, big whoop".

Rage is the french name for rabies.

The rabies cure was found by a french man.

And from Webster's:
Main Entry: 1rage
Pronunciation: 'rAj
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old French, from Late Latin rabia, from Latin rabies rage, madness, from rabere to be mad; akin to Sanskrit rabhas violence

PS Anyone trolling with the usual, boring, old crap about french surrender, wich is automatic anytime france or french is mentioned will thereby prove their lameness.

The All Music Guide for music references.
Merriam-Webster when I need help spelling in English.
DVD-Basen when I want to find a review of a DVD-movie.

Holy crap! You're right, that isn't a word. I guess I meant populace. Thanks.

First, we have to agree that governments, no matter what, are populated with people. Agreed? Agreed. Second, we have to agree that those people have definite directions they would like the government to go in. Agreed? Agreed. (These are, after all, common sense things.)

Capitalism, as defined by Webster's on-line dictionary is said to be ": an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market." So first notice that there is nothing said about people. Capitalism talks instead about companies and corporations.

Democracy, as defined by Webster's on-line dictionary is "1 a : government by the people; especially : rule of the majority b : a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections." Notice that a Democracy is of, by, and for the people and has nothing to do with companies or corporations. Or in other words - what I said in the first paragraph.

They are NOT mutually exclusive in that people have to run both of them. But they ARE mutually exclusive in their orientation towards their goals. In Capitalism it is the companies who rule and the people are the slaves. In a Democracy the people rule and the companies are the slaves. The distinction is in who rules and who doesn't. Not in the fact that both of them have people in them.

And while we are on the subject - FEUDALISM is closer to Capitalism than Democracy. As defined you-know-where, feudalism is "1 : the system of political organization prevailing in Europe from the 9th to about the 15th centuries having as its basis the relation of lord to vassal with all land held in fee and as chief characteristics homage, the service of tenants under arms and in court, wardship, and forfeiture." In Capitalism you give your loyalty and support to a company, in feudalism you give it to a king. But you are still a vassal no matter what in either system! There can be only one king and there can be only on president or CEO of a company. Same thing - just different titles.

IRAQ: All I can say is "Show me the weapons!" You can't! They didn't have any! They were in compliance! Watch CNN, read stories from OUTSIDE OF THE US! Get other people's input before you say they did anything wrong. The only thing is - the US is the big bully on the block and we didn't like what Iraq was doing. So we went over there and killed people, invaded a country, created another Afghanistan! Wow! Wasn't that wonderful? This huge superpower went over and wiped out a government in another country which wasn't even as big as our largest state, had no weapons of mass destruction that we can find(!), and wiped out their economy. Wow! I'm impressed! Not.

And I realize you have your way of looking at it and I have mine. So I tell you what I'll do. I'll look at the dead bodies and weep. You can look at the elected officals and cheer.

One World: WIPO is the organization which has helped to push copyrights so they will last for 175 years. WIPO isn't made up of politicans. It is made up of corporate CEOs and other higher management personnel. They are the ones who got the US (and now other countries) to extend copyrights which were originally set to be 14 years with a single extension of 14 years to last over 100 years past the death of the copyright holder. Why? It can't be because the copyright owner needs the money. So come on - let's hear it - it benefits the corporations and companies of the world. Ah - there we go - taking the "We the people" out of things again. You can look around for others

First, we have to agree that governments, no matter what, are populated with people. Agreed? Agreed. Second, we have to agree that those people have definite directions they would like the government to go in. Agreed? Agreed. (These are, after all, common sense things.)

Capitalism, as defined by Webster's on-line dictionary is said to be ": an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market." So first notice that there is nothing said about people. Capitalism talks instead about companies and corporations.

Democracy, as defined by Webster's on-line dictionary is "1 a : government by the people; especially : rule of the majority b : a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections." Notice that a Democracy is of, by, and for the people and has nothing to do with companies or corporations. Or in other words - what I said in the first paragraph.

They are NOT mutually exclusive in that people have to run both of them. But they ARE mutually exclusive in their orientation towards their goals. In Capitalism it is the companies who rule and the people are the slaves. In a Democracy the people rule and the companies are the slaves. The distinction is in who rules and who doesn't. Not in the fact that both of them have people in them.

And while we are on the subject - FEUDALISM is closer to Capitalism than Democracy. As defined you-know-where, feudalism is "1 : the system of political organization prevailing in Europe from the 9th to about the 15th centuries having as its basis the relation of lord to vassal with all land held in fee and as chief characteristics homage, the service of tenants under arms and in court, wardship, and forfeiture." In Capitalism you give your loyalty and support to a company, in feudalism you give it to a king. But you are still a vassal no matter what in either system! There can be only one king and there can be only on president or CEO of a company. Same thing - just different titles.

IRAQ: All I can say is "Show me the weapons!" You can't! They didn't have any! They were in compliance! Watch CNN, read stories from OUTSIDE OF THE US! Get other people's input before you say they did anything wrong. The only thing is - the US is the big bully on the block and we didn't like what Iraq was doing. So we went over there and killed people, invaded a country, created another Afghanistan! Wow! Wasn't that wonderful? This huge superpower went over and wiped out a government in another country which wasn't even as big as our largest state, had no weapons of mass destruction that we can find(!), and wiped out their economy. Wow! I'm impressed! Not.

And I realize you have your way of looking at it and I have mine. So I tell you what I'll do. I'll look at the dead bodies and weep. You can look at the elected officals and cheer.

One World: WIPO is the organization which has helped to push copyrights so they will last for 175 years. WIPO isn't made up of politicans. It is made up of corporate CEOs and other higher management personnel. They are the ones who got the US (and now other countries) to extend copyrights which were originally set to be 14 years with a single extension of 14 years to last over 100 years past the death of the copyright holder. Why? It can't be because the copyright owner needs the money. So come on - let's hear it - it benefits the corporations and companies of the world. Ah - there we go - taking the "We the people" out of things again. You can look around for others

When you talk to people, do you see yourself as a person of understanding, or as an arrogant arsehole? Because you come off as the latter towards me.

Yes, towards you.
I do feel arrogance, because you're so...emotionally involved with this whole thing. And you talk about logic, but do not demonstrate any logic. I'm still waiting for your actual views, all you give me is your feelings about your views. Stop telling me how much people not sharing your views hurt your feelings and show me your wonderfull creationist insights already.

I think evolution is a load of unbelievable nonsense

Define "evolution".
You obviously have some kind of special meaning for the word, why not clear it up?

Here's the relevant part of the definition given by Webster: "a theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations"

I've studied biology, we had classes that compared organs of primitive life forms with the more advanced corresponding organs of superior life forms. The whole thing was very convincing. Now its your turn.

That's how I feel about you, despising wisdom.

Well, you're very, very wrong. Wisdom is my friend.

If I were to show you how creationism is logical, and how our criticisms are real, logical, and scientific, I'll bet you wouldn't listen.

Notice how you've not even tried to explain your view? You just claim its logical and well thought out, but you don't actually explain or demonstrate anything...yet.

And you have the nerve and arrogance to call a model a story of magic of which you have no idea, not even an incling of understanding.

Well, I've read many creation myths, heard others. Calling those stories "models" instead of "myths" doesn't change them, its just meant to make them sound more respectable. I'm not impressed by name calling, unlike say, you. You call me arrogant, you call me ignorant, a fool, and I don't really mind. Go on, tell me your creationist "model".
I can tell from your bible quote that you work within the Judeo-Christian model, so I don't expect Vishnu to play a significant role in it...I'm still a bit curious though. So, please, if you will, tell me about your "creation of life Model".

Keep in mind though, that while I'll refrain from childish name calling, I will be critical of your views if they are flawed.

Then you should know that AMERICANS don't speak "The Queen's English," we speak American English.

Which makes it kind of funny that the definition for wherefore given is the same one found on webster.com

Last I checked Merriam-Webster was an American dicitonary, not a British one.

SCO wants to use the courts to attack us and claim control of the Linux code; let's make them rue the day they thought this was a good idea, by proving that they have no trade secrets.

Byblos.
Ancient city, E Mediterranean coast. Located north of modern Beirut, it was occupied at least by the Neolithic period; extensive settlement developed during the 4th millennium BC. As the chief harbor for the export of cedar to Egypt, it was a great trading center. Papyrus received its early Greek name, byblos, from its export to the Aegean through Byblos; Bible means essentially "the (papyrus) book." Byblos has yielded almost all the known early Phoenician inscriptions, most from the 10th cent. BC. By that time Tyre had become predominant in Phoenicia, and Byblos, though it flourished into Roman times, never recovered its former supremacy.

Paper also comes from papyrus:

Etymology: Middle English papir, from Middle French papier, from Latin papyrus papyrus, paper, from Greek papyros papyrus Date: 14th century