Slashdot Mirror
Judge Deals Blow to RIAA
jcgam69 writes "A federal judge in New Mexico has put the brakes on the RIAA's lawsuit train, at least in the US District Court for New Mexico. The case in question is part of the RIAA's campaign against file-sharing on college campuses and names "Does 1-16," who allegedly engaged in copyright infringement using the University of New Mexico's network. In a ruling issued last month but disclosed today by file-sharing attorney Ray Beckerman, Judge Lorenzo F. Garcia denied the RIAA's motion to engage in discovery. This means that the RIAA will not be able to easily get subpoenas to obtain identifying information from the University."
W00t!
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
do I ever have a lot of soul
OK, I am going to call this one:
irregardless is not a word..or at best a nonsense word. You look uneducated when you use it.
I am pretty liberal, but man I can't end this sentence. The word you want was "regardless"
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
It would really be nice is the states made the feds prove the pot in question crossed state lines. If not, it's not a federal issue. irregardless* of what I think, the states pretty much roll over for the feds.
* I kid.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
irregardless - Show Spelled Pronunciation[ir-i-gahrd-lis] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
-adverb Nonstandard.
regardless.
[Origin: 1910-15; ir-2 (prob. after irrespective) + regardless]
--Usage note Irregardless is considered nonstandard because of the two negative elements ir- and -less. It was probably formed on the analogy of such words as irrespective, irrelevant, and irreparable. Those who use it, including on occasion educated speakers, may do so from a desire to add emphasis. Irregardless first appeared in the early 20th century and was perhaps popularized by its use in a comic radio program of the 1930s.
Non-standard but accepted as a word for quite some time due to almost a century of usage.
StarTrekPhase2 - The Five Year Mission Continues!
"nonstandard" also applies to the word "ain't" which your source states is used by the uneducated.
Regardless, you failed to quote the rest of the citation from dictionary.com:
Irregardless is a word that many mistakenly believe to be correct usage in formal style, when in fact it is used chiefly in nonstandard speech or casual writing. Coined in the United States in the early 20th century, it has met with a blizzard of condemnation for being an improper yoking of irrespective and regardless and for the logical absurdity of combining the negative ir- prefix and -less suffix in a single term. Although one might reasonably argue that it is no different from words with redundant affixes like debone and unravel, it has been considered a blunder for decades and will probably continue to be so.
0x09F911029D74E35BD84156C5635688C0
Just say "Irregardless? That's not even a real word. You're affixing the negative prefix 'irr-' to 'regardless', but, as 'regardless' is already negative, it's a logical absurdity!"
Then how about I quote Wikipedia where it states that more (and more) dictionaries and reference books are considering it an accepted form?
Appearance in reference booksOne way to follow the progress of and sentiments toward irregardless is by studying how it is described in references throughout the twentieth century. Webster's New International Dictionary (2nd. Ed. Unabridged) described the word as an erroneous or humorous form of regardless, and attributing it to the United States. Although irregardless was beginning to make its way into the American lexicon, it still was not universally recognized and was missing completely from Fowler's Modern English Usage,[3] published in 1965, nor is irregardless mentioned under the entry for regardless therein. In the last twenty-five years, irregardless has become a common entry in dictionaries and usage reference books. It appears in a wide range of dictionaries including: Webster's Third New International Dictionary of the English Language Unabridged (1961, repr. 2002),[4] The Barnhart Dictionary of Etymology (1988), The American Heritage Dictionary (Second College Edition, 1991),[5] Microsoft Encarta College Dictionary (2001), and Webster's New World College Dictionary (Fourth Edition, 2004).[6]This word was first seen in print in the Gordon family anthology.
Or the summary...
SummaryIrregardless seems to be moving slowly in the direction of standardization.[citation needed] It has gone from nonexistence in the 1910 publication of Etymological Dictionary of the English Language,[7] to being a normality in modern dictionary publications, and it frequently occurs in edited professional prose. The fact that its listing as a "humorous usage" has practically disappeared today supplies further evidence in favor of acceptance. However, strong resistance to this word still remains. Australian linguist Pam Peters (The Cambridge Guide to English Usage, 2004) suggests that irregardless has become fetishized, since natural examples of this word in corpora of written and spoken English are greatly outnumbered by examples where it is in fact only cited as an incorrect term.
All of which indicate that it is becoming (if not already) (a) widely accepted (variant of the word regardless) - all irregardless of your wishes on the matter.
And more importantly, this whole thread section is quite off-topic. The original post (which wasnt by me) was quite comprehensible (ir)regardless of the poster's word selection.
Enjoy your +3 Informative/Interesting for being wrong - while it lasts... ;-) I'm sure I'll earn another -1 OffTopic to make up for it! :-)
StarTrekPhase2 - The Five Year Mission Continues!
Then how about I quote Wikipedia where it states that more (and more) dictionaries and reference books are considering it an accepted form?
That won't stop us from fighting the good fight, much like I try to get people to stop using the word 'blog.' I don't like it because it's a lazy shortcut of weblog, and it has a clumsy and abrupt sound to it that I find displeasing.
You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
Dugg Down for wailing on my main man "Disco Duck".
(And yes I know this isn't digg)
GCS/S d-x s+(+): a C++++$ UL+$ P+ L++$ !E--- W++@ N++>$ !o !K-- w++$ !O !M !V PS++>$ PE !Y PGP+ t+ 5++ X++ R tv b
Wikipedia, regardless of its apparent usefulness on geeky and interesting subjects, is not something I'd risk my career on its trustworthiness. While I'm sure all sorts of dictionaries are lowering their standards, the fact that "ain't" hasn't made it out of the "non-standard" class even after, what, 500 years of use speaks volumes, redundant volumes, of those who use or accept "irregardless" as anything more than a nonsensical word. Fnord.
0x09F911029D74E35BD84156C5635688C0
That was YOU!?!?!? You jerk!!!!
;)
No seriously, these days I've found it's much easier to do your best to mod positively, otherwise you spend far too much energy pointing out the negative things. I'll still point out a lot of negative things but at least I search for insightful, interesting or funny comments first before I look for Mac fanboys who need to be brought down a notch or two.
0x09F911029D74E35BD84156C5635688C0
How do you estimate the '500 years' of use? The usage is typically American, and America was founded when? I do not believe that the native Americans used it, and its current usage in Europe is as a result of the influence of TV over recent decades.
Have a look at soylentnews.org for a different view
Lazy shortcuts are one thing.. the language is full of them.
Making a word *longer* by adding redundant letters in front of it is just insane. What's wrong with regardless? Why add 'ir' onto the front for no apparent reason?
As for its use becoming commonplace.. well on Slashdot maybe.. but Slashdot seems to be a world unto itself. I've never seen or heard of that usage outside this site. (Wikipedia doesn't count.. that's even less of a reliable source than slashdot, and that's saying something). Websters and the OED both consider it an abberation.
The earliest written reference to ain't is 1778, so that's nearly 230 years of its use... It's not american it derives from cockney (London) speech in Dickens (there's an earlier form an't that dates back to 1706).
Just like using flammable instead of inflammable and toxic instead of ittoxic. Like Strunk & White says, this should only be done to protect "idiots and children".
Your ad here. Ask me how!