Slashdot Mirror

http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/socialism
http://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/american/socialism
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism
http://www.collinslanguage.com/results.aspx?context=3&reversed=False&action=define&homonym=-1&text=socialism
http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?refid=1861709575
http://www.yourdictionary.com/socialism
http://www.wordsmyth.net/?ent=socialism

All say that government owns the means of production. Aka government run.

Means nothing. If a resource is available in the US thats not or not timely available here, the system will pay for the patient to get care in the US. If someone wants to pay for a US service, then they are free to do that as well.

it means something if you die waiting. It means something if your town has lottery to determine who gets a family doctor. It means something if your life threatening illness is somehow classified as optional.

All of which are very real scenarios in canada.

And I've never stated that the US system was a good system. Well, it was 70 years ago or so. right now, the US lacks almost any market forces to get prices low.

I have a right to grow my own food if I like. I dont have to buy food if I dont want to. I can also pick up free food at the food bank if I wanted.

I can make clothes or get free clothes from charities. Water is free since it falls from the sky. Electricity is a commodity, not a right, but I can go off grid and make my own from wind or solar.

Which is my point. You don't have a right to those things. You don't have a right to other people's services.

You realize that eye surgery was perfected in communist Russia (almost no Russians wear glasses) and the biggest Lasik company is Canadian?

And that changes what? We get lots of things from outside the US.. the prices don't go down in other areas of healthcare.

Mod parent -1 Pedantic Wanker

No it isn't ironic. However, it is callous,
hypocritical, and cruel. Doing what's in their clients best interest, regardless of what other ramifications may result, is exactly what lawyers do. Katie T. is not doing something actually unexpected based on her backstory. She was abused sexually and then is fighting to get her message out, regardless of who she has to roll over to do it. It doesn't mean she cares about any other online rights. She may be an obnoxious, bitch, but she is still not acting in any manner that is unexpected.

Mod parent +5 funny, not insightful...

No it isn't ironic. However, it is callous,
hypocritical, and cruel. Doing what's in their clients best interest, regardless of what other ramifications may result, is exactly what lawyers do. Katie T. is not doing something actually unexpected based on her backstory. She was abused sexually and then is fighting to get her message out, regardless of who she has to roll over to do it. It doesn't mean she cares about any other online rights. She may be an obnoxious, bitch, but she is still not acting in any manner that is unexpected.

Mod parent +5 funny, not insightful...

No it isn't ironic. However, it is callous,
hypocritical, and cruel. Doing what's in their clients best interest, regardless of what other ramifications may result, is exactly what lawyers do. Katie T. is not doing something actually unexpected based on her backstory. She was abused sexually and then is fighting to get her message out, regardless of who she has to roll over to do it. It doesn't mean she cares about any other online rights. She may be an obnoxious, bitch, but she is still not acting in any manner that is unexpected.

Mod parent +5 funny, not insightful...

No it isn't ironic. However, it is callous,
hypocritical, and cruel. Doing what's in their clients best interest, regardless of what other ramifications may result, is exactly what lawyers do. Katie T. is not doing something actually unexpected based on her backstory. She was abused sexually and then is fighting to get her message out, regardless of who she has to roll over to do it. It doesn't mean she cares about any other online rights. She may be an obnoxious, bitch, but she is still not acting in any manner that is unexpected.

Mod parent +5 funny, not insightful...

No it isn't ironic. However, it is callous,
hypocritical, and cruel. Doing what's in their clients best interest, regardless of what other ramifications may result, is exactly what lawyers do. Katie T. is not doing something actually unexpected based on her backstory. She was abused sexually and then is fighting to get her message out, regardless of who she has to roll over to do it. It doesn't mean she cares about any other online rights. She may be an obnoxious, bitch, but she is still not acting in any manner that is unexpected.

Mod parent +5 funny, not insightful...

No it isn't ironic. However, it is callous,
hypocritical, and cruel. Doing what's in their clients best interest, regardless of what other ramifications may result, is exactly what lawyers do. Katie T. is not doing something actually unexpected based on her backstory. She was abused sexually and then is fighting to get her message out, regardless of who she has to roll over to do it. It doesn't mean she cares about any other online rights. She may be an obnoxious, bitch, but she is still not acting in any manner that is unexpected.

Mod parent +5 funny, not insightful...

Did you mean "pot shot"?

Calling copyright violators pirates IN COURT is simply an attempt to emotionally influence the jury.

"Secure" is not being used as an adjective, it is being used as a verb, so skip down to the second section here on wordsmith:
Inflected Forms secured, securing, secures
Definition 1.to obtain; acquire. Example He secured a good job. Synonyms get (1) , procure (1) , gain (1) , acquire (2) , obtain

Yes, the second definition is:
to make safe or free from harm
But that usage makes absolutely no sense in the context used in the constitution. It would be absurd to say that congress may only make an existing right "safe or free from harm" for a limited time. That section is not a list of existing rights that need to be "made safe free from harm" such as voting, it is a list of extra powers to act that the congress is granted such laying taxes, borrowing money, and establishing post offices.

Specificly, the text says that congress is granted the power "To promote the progress of science and useful arts". THAT is the power to act that congress is granted. It then specifies the means that congress may use: "by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries".

Congress may promote progress by getting / procuring / gaining / acquiring / obtaining these exclusive rights for authors. The only place to aquire them is to taking them away from the public.

The constitution says that congress may temporarily take this freedom away from the public for the purpose of promoting progress. When that limited period ends the information falls back to it's natural state - the public domain.

There is no right to copyright protection anywhere in the constitution. The rights of copyright are granted solely by Title 17 Chapter 1 Sec. 106. - Exclusive rights in copyrighted works. If you were to remove that one section then copyright holders would have no rights whatsoever. The rest is definitions, limitations on those rights, penalties, yada yada yada. Mostly limitations on those rights.

To quote Thomas Jefferson:
If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me

There is no inherent right to limit other people's freedom to repeat / write / draw / scuplt thier own copy of something they have seen - someone sitting in the privacy of their own home with their own property. Copyright is a policy with the purpose of promoting progress. That is a very worthwhile goal, but copyright is only valid in proper service of that goal.

-

The question isn't how much the other party downloads from you. It's how much you make available. You're making the whole available for download; you are therefore subject to action on copyright infringement. Maybe it was serious, maybe not, but there's enough evidence to shift the burden of proof onto you.

Now, if you have logs of what was transferred, you may be able to say to the judge, "Only 100 kB of this file was ever transferred, therefore my crime is not great," and have your punishment reduced -- provided you never again infringe in this manner. If the other party can demonstrate that you knowingly made copyright material available illegally, this argument flies right out the window.

1. 1 To get into one's possession by force, skill, or artifice, especially:
2. 
   a. To capture physically; seize: take an enemy fortress.
   b. To seize with authority; confiscate.

If I capture, seize, or confiscate your property, I have control and possession of your property while you lose it. That is the point you cannot see. If I don't take, or remove your property there is no theft. There might be copyright infringment, forgery or plagerism, but there is no theft without a transfer of possession.

But if that's not good enough for you, perhapse you'd like a few more. While you're noting the complete absence of any copying of so called "intellectual property" from any of those, check out how many specifically say "taking and removing". Thats because theft is concrete. I've either stolen your car from your garage or I haven't. I've either removed some stereos after breaking into Radio Shack or I haven't. That doesn't apply to downloading a copy of Office XP without paying for it, because there is no guarantee that I would have bought it in the first place. And even if it was guaranteed, MS has only "lo

1. 1 To get into one's possession by force, skill, or artifice, especially:
2. 
   a. To capture physically; seize: take an enemy fortress.
   b. To seize with authority; confiscate.

If I capture, seize, or confiscate your property, I have control and possession of your property while you lose it. That is the point you cannot see. If I don't take, or remove your property there is no theft. There might be copyright infringment, forgery or plagerism, but there is no theft without a transfer of possession.

But if that's not good enough for you, perhapse you'd like a few more. While you're noting the complete absence of any copying of so called "intellectual property" from any of those, check out how many specifically say "taking and removing". Thats because theft is concrete. I've either stolen your car from your garage or I haven't. I've either removed some stereos after breaking into Radio Shack or I haven't. That doesn't apply to downloading a copy of Office XP without paying for it, because there is no guarantee that I would have bought it in the first place. And even if it was guaranteed, MS has only "lo

Look at this link and NO its not goatse.cx!

Come on Aaaaaron (in your average dictionary proper names are not to be found)

I don't know who you're refering to, but my name (Aaron) appears in most dictionaries. It's a biblical name (that my mother chose for secular reasons, not that it matters), so the reference is almost always listed. Aaron was the grandfather of Eli, and the brother of Moses and the first high-priest of the Hebrew nation.

you will find several references to it in on-line dictionaries as well....

If you can't be bothered to check even a fact that exists at the very beginning of your dictionary, this conversation is really not worth having.

From ultra technical to ultra controversial, Slashdot is where the nerds converge to form the largest online community for Linux/Open Source developers interested in reading cutting-edge, Open Source Journalism

By the way, Taco, I find Wordsmyth and OneLook Dictionaries useful (you don't need MS Windows to use a spell checker).

Having trouble finding online dictionaries?
--
Patrick Doyle

definition of can't from www.dictionary.com:

"can't \Can't\ A colloquial contraction for can not."

Colloquial means that it is used in conversation, but is not valid English.

/me explains in a patient tone that "HDTV is like IPv6" is an analogy because it points out a "similarity or correspondence between two dissimilar things."

Perhaps you'd like to look up the word cretin.

And while he's looking perhaps you could take a gander at this.

Pete

Just asking.

It's a joke. You may wish to look it up if you are unfamiliar with the concept.

The AOL/Time-Warner "Incubus"? A quick perusal of Wordsmyth gives us the classic and Katzian definitions:

1. an evil spirit in male form that is said to have sexual intercourse with women as they sleep. (Cf. succubus.)
2. a frightening dream.
3. anything that oppresses one.

Just to make a niggling point, almost no one uses senses 2 or 3. "Incubus" and "incubi" are almost exclusively used to depict male vampiric entities. (Anyone remember that clever Reebok rep who used the clever CLM of calling a running shoe the "Incubus" a couple years back *G*?)

Jon, I know you write for a living (despite what many other posters here consider what it is you do for a paycheck ;-), so I'd expect that you'd aim for clarity of point, not cleverness of phrase. . . remember, if you say something and get misinterpreted because of ambiguity, the blame is shared equally.

Rafe

V^^^^V