In high school, they took the me and other 49 or so kids that were taking more than 2 AP classes aside for an entire day of testing in the school library. We had snacks and were able to take breaks. They did this so that we would have a calm, cool, environment to do the best we could and thus bring the school scores up. Far from ethical, but better than denying others the same test.
Working now in education and having worked with a very large school district, I've seen a similar system practiced.
Thanks to all who replied and cleared this up! =) (The mix up of mine being the terminology "patent" and "copyright".)
According to the patent here HERE it looks exactly like a "Buy-Out Auction" but on a computah. Does this then imply that I can take any archaic process put it on a computah (or just say I can) and patent troll, too?
Sounds very Half Baked -- "... but have you seen it... on weed?
Could someone please explain to me why certain patent battles, such as this, aren't just investigated for "independent creation" on the part of the accused infringer?
I'm pretty sure that I was taught in college that 2 people can hold the patents to 2 very similar products so long as both came up with their respective products independent of each other. With such a simple idea as "Buy it now", wouldn't a rational judge throw such a case out?
Besides simple corruption of the legal system by big money, what am I missing?
Look, we get that some people don't like love story to interrupt their action and gigantic fires, but Jericho is a realistic story about a fictional place. If the majority of American civilization were to suddenly disappear, all imports and exports were to halt, and you were essentially left alone in your city with a bunch of singles, wouldn't you try to hook up? Wouldn't other people try to hook up with you or your "target"?
Yes, they would. The main character (a reluctant leader with a bad past and a scruffy face) is single and is quite likely going to try to get it going with his former flame.
When bad things go down, people try to get booty before they die. They lose their inhibitions. Jericho isn't a movie where a love triangle will take up 1 of 2.5 hours... it's a series where it will instead take up 2 of 24.
That said, I do agree with you under one condition... So long as the airlines all get together and agree to ban cell-phone use as well.
That's is how it should work. Airlines have the power to regulate "politeness" in their private aircraft by saying, "No cell phones, please. Too many of you loud mouths have proven yourselves inconsiderate and we risk losing the business of normal people because of you". Not the federal government. The government getting involved opens up too wide a precedence.
This is so disastrously wrong, I can't tell if it's the opinion of someone who hates the world or just flamebait.
Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969), was a United States Supreme Court case based on the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. It held that government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless it is directed to inciting and likely to incite imminent lawless action.
Look at that. That's supporting the rights of all people trying to piss you off until the point where they actually attempt to get you to do something violent. Unknowingly, or with simple disregard for politeness, you see, is so damn protected, it probably hurts.
Lastly, "personal space" is so damn subjective that it doesn't even bare any use while in a confined space. If it were a simple question of "personal" space, you'd be supported in punching the person on the elevator who decided to work out before work but didn't put on deodorant. But, you can't.
As for the personal attack of not having consideration about those around me, you may need to re-read my post. I never said I did anything of the sort. I've never been on a plane. I hate my cell phone. You lose validity in your argument too quickly when you resort to insults.
Hasn't it been a generally accepted concept of Constitutional philosophy that only harmful actions are to be banned and/or prosecuted? You guys are saying "Thank god they're banning it... people with cell phones annoy me so much!", but the use of a cell phone is not in itself bad. In fact, talking about inane subjects on a cellphone in a confined space is by all means supported by law unless it interferes with necessary functions (which the ban may or may not be saying).
Since when does the Slashdot community suggest and support that behavior be regulated? What next: No homosexuality because it's icky for it to go "in there"? No driving at the speed limit because you're late and it's annoying when other people don't understand that YOU didn't get up on time in the morning? Shall we now force people to speak with a specific accent because you don't like a regional diction?
At no point should it EVER be the government's responsibility to enforce "polite behavior" because you/may/ get this "air rage". It's your problem to deal with the situation-- politely if you choose to practice what you preach. Note, however, that if you choose to be violent, YOU will be held accountable.
Grow a pair, complainers, and solve your own social problems.
Work has my balls for 8 hours (sometimes more) a day. I love what I do and sometimes I allow work to spill over into my non-work life. It's not that I prefer it segmented or integrated, but that I can say "Yes" or "No" and no one can say sh*t about it. It's my option and I reserve the right to change my mind whenever I want.
Cars harm more youth and teenagers per year than do social networking sites. Restrict Cars (from every one) further than they are already restricted before "protecting" your children from phantom bad guys you think are chasing your "special little girl".
Oh, you think we train our kids to survive as drivers and passengers sufficiently? Well, then, we definitely train our kids well enough to not get raped over the internets. If not, train your kids more.
Ok, I'm not usually a sucker for trolls, but hey, I'll bite.
The main problem with any sort of solution the *AA does to curb piracy is that they rarely allow the law to take its course. The MPAA is strong-arming ISPs with threats of legal action unless they shut someone down. This is akin to getting rear-ended while stopped at an intersection, getting out of your car, and then threatening to sue the offender for every penny he's ever had unless he pays gives up all his cash, credit, and debit cards on the spot. That's not the way it should be done.
Instead, the *AA should go to the courts, file a grievance, and allow investigators to find evidence. Then, those investigators will bring that evidence before an tech-literate judge (no, no one that has simply dealt with tech cases in the past) and bring the case. Once all that's done and there is a logical precedence found or created, there can be no complaints.
As to your other point, you are referring to the cases where people who are tech-illiterate and whom would have no knowledge on how to use a bittorrent client being charged with massive piracy. There is a complete lack of evidence in a few of these cases, but the defendants are still having to pay massive out-of-pocket legal fees so that they wouldn't be bullied into an irrational verdict. They are in essence being punished by the *AA prosecution without having been proven to have committed a crime. This, too, is objectionable.
Best Case Scenario: The new Netflix model of entertainment delivery (subscription fees for downloadable and disc'd entertainment) will be emulated over and over. The entire Slashdot community has been screaming for something like this for years, but no one in the entertainment industry has really taken heed to the tech-literate. They're old people with their old ways. Very few are saying that movies/music should be be free, but just about everyone is saying that they want to have online-access to movies/music on demand and the amazing majority are willing to pay for it.
Couldn't it be argued that the MPAA is setting up a honeypots? Since honeypots are questionably legal (or illegal) because they are intercepting communications that are not intended for the interceptor, couldn't they be prosecuted? (ie The file transfer is intended for sharers and trackers who exist to benefit sharers)
OR
Since the MPAA is uploading the torrents to begin with, aren't they giving permission to view whatever they upload?
Wilson and Nike would laugh themselves around their corporate offices before they go to court against a similar claim.
If you can't hold on to the game unit, do not play the game. If you can't grip the steering wheel, do not drive. If you cannot grip the bat, do not play baseball.
' "It's also worth pointing out that WorldNetDaily could be described as just wee bit conservative"
Was this comment absolutely necessary or even relevant to the story? '
Yes. When citing sources, one must always note whether or not the reader should note a form of bias. The statement about WND was a humorous understatement, like "The Weekly World News is known to post fiction here and there."
What happened here is that SOMEONE reported the censoring of a political ad (act that most Slashdot'rs find abhorrent) but that the source could be possibly blowing the situation out of proportion for the sake of a political agenda and thus the referrenced article should be take not for complete truth, but at least for the spark of conversation and investigation. Oddly enough, most everyone else caught on to this. In the future, we'll make sure to minimize sarcasm and humorous undertones.
"People will always mod down speech they don't agree with, completely disregarding said person or organization's absolute right to say it."
If you don't think Slashdot mods are moderating fairly, then meta-moderate. If you think that everyone in Slashdot is squelching your speech, then check out the Slashdot posting guidelines and read up on the posts that are most likely to be modded down and attempt to make some connections.
"Disappointing indeed that the "flagged" content wasn't reviewed by YouTube and simply left be, being that it doesn't violate the terms of use of the site."
No one said it did. You're crossing two separate systems that attempt to perform the same function in a community. One is community moderation, the other is system moderation. If you were verbally acosted by a stranger on the street, would you claim that the federal government is repressing your right to travel on public roads? Of course not. The video was flagged by many as inappropriate (justly or unjustly) and was removed. Unless someone reports the removal as unjust, the YouTube admins can never know if the mis-use of community power has occured. Refusal to review the content after a protest of the removal would be irresponsible on YouTube's behalf, but that isn't the case, now, is it?
Watch your vocabulary friend. He said nothing about his reason being an excuse, so get off your holier-than-thou rant and read the post for what it said.
Summary: I believe teens just don't have enough money to entertain themselves in all the ways they'd prefer. Music is easy to get for free, so they pirate.
Was there a request for validation or suggestion that his reasoning was just? No. Ok, so back off.
I disagree. I think his clout and following would be useful in the NBC/SciFi show "Heroes". If anything, he knows how to write a story -- NO ONE can deny that. Heroes seems to be a ton of trailers all mashed up-- never allowing for any substance.
Each amount of freedom and expectations is unique to each site's developed or developing following and culture. Rules, guidelines, or the lack thereof are set forth in the beginning and they're enforced mainly by the site creators. Eventually a culture that shares the original philosophy begins to amass and develop and the community begins to regulate itself based on the now evolving culture.
Slashdot's a great example of a more hardline approach with active moderators. Fark is a more lenient approach with article responses and conversation moderated only by word-filters and image moderators. The majority of crap entries are torn apart by the community.
Social sites, however, lack the general community that fosters the sense of personal responsibility for a site and its functions. To most users, MySpace and Facebook are services, whereas Slashdot is often reffered to, in the real world, as a very descriptive characteristc of a social belonging.
When sites develop enough of a community to have their users develop that sense of belonging, then you will see the need to closely govern the users deteriorate.
Go into any MMORPG that is developed enough to have a Guild system and you will see a full on society.
There's politics, currency, responsibilities, governments, charters, social contracts, friends going on outings, etc. IThey're nothing short of microcosms of societies that bring out different characters or enhance the characters of real life people.
An example: I'm an EQ addict. I belong to a "family guild" (a guild who doesn't want the focus of their organization to be raid "work" on a nightly basis) who is party of an alliance of "family guilds" whose joint efforts are to do "raiding guild" things. Consider it neighborhoods banding together for a common goal.
Recently, scandal arose when a full-on raiding guild engaged a target that belonged to the alliance. One of our alliance members, very angered, ensured that the target would be unkillable by the raiding guild force and thus brought severe shame on the alliance. Our member, after a "town hall meeting" in the forums, has chosen to disband from his guild and thus the alliance, while his guild decides what's to be done.
Furthermore, some are questioning the value of our raid leader and there is mumbling about asking him to step down.
Friends leave guilds. Guildies left behind are saddened. When a guild who enjoys its members witty banter and opinions disbands, people are actually sad.
People are social animals -- social meaning they require communication. These MMORPGS are 10% game, 90% communication. That's what sucks people in and that's why MMOs are closer to virtual political bodies than checkers and tic-tac-toe.
Well, those are just a couple of the target audiences. Companies target multiple audiences. If I had the money and the knowledge of these craptacular rehashes 10 years ago, I would have invested in the rights and pushed them on the unsuspecting Wal-Mart throngs myself. Deer Hunter! for god's sake.
I don't think it's a show of market influence though. Blizzard et al aren't dropping their current money makers for the sake of Atari re-stamps and I'm not going to pop on over the next department store to buy my games. Differenct targets, different games.
I would like to know how many Everquest and EQ Expansions have been sold though. At stores, online stores, and streaming installation.
The list wasn't the "BEST GAMES of the last 5 years", it was "THE MOST STORE-BOUGHT games of the last 5 years".
It has nothing to do with the quality of the games, but instead what people most frequently purchase at store as opposed to online/delivery or digital download (such as EQ expansion packs).
Remember that languages are written and enforced, but DIALECTS are spoken and understood. Thus, there may be multiple meanings for a single word or phrase to different cultures or sub-cultures.
We'll use your example of "Feminazi". To some people, any feminist is a "Feminazi". To others (take some feminists), it's a feminist who is irrational in his/her ways and seeks power over equal or fair treatment and expectations.
Another example would be the word "Jew". It can be said or used in such a way to give insult or it can be a simple description or ethnic, religious, or cultural background. Different groups of people will automatically assume particular meanings especially when particular groups of people use the term.
Slashdot Mirror
In high school, they took the me and other 49 or so kids that were taking more than 2 AP classes aside for an entire day of testing in the school library. We had snacks and were able to take breaks. They did this so that we would have a calm, cool, environment to do the best we could and thus bring the school scores up. Far from ethical, but better than denying others the same test.
Working now in education and having worked with a very large school district, I've seen a similar system practiced.
Thanks to all who replied and cleared this up! =) (The mix up of mine being the terminology "patent" and "copyright".)
According to the patent here HERE it looks exactly like a "Buy-Out Auction" but on a computah. Does this then imply that I can take any archaic process put it on a computah (or just say I can) and patent troll, too?
Sounds very Half Baked -- "... but have you seen it... on weed?
Could someone please explain to me why certain patent battles, such as this, aren't just investigated for "independent creation" on the part of the accused infringer?
I'm pretty sure that I was taught in college that 2 people can hold the patents to 2 very similar products so long as both came up with their respective products independent of each other. With such a simple idea as "Buy it now", wouldn't a rational judge throw such a case out?
Besides simple corruption of the legal system by big money, what am I missing?
Look, we get that some people don't like love story to interrupt their action and gigantic fires, but Jericho is a realistic story about a fictional place. If the majority of American civilization were to suddenly disappear, all imports and exports were to halt, and you were essentially left alone in your city with a bunch of singles, wouldn't you try to hook up? Wouldn't other people try to hook up with you or your "target"?
Yes, they would. The main character (a reluctant leader with a bad past and a scruffy face) is single and is quite likely going to try to get it going with his former flame.
When bad things go down, people try to get booty before they die. They lose their inhibitions. Jericho isn't a movie where a love triangle will take up 1 of 2.5 hours... it's a series where it will instead take up 2 of 24.
This may not be the best worded post out there, but it's far from flamebait. Re-mod this one.
That said, I do agree with you under one condition... So long as the airlines all get together and agree to ban cell-phone use as well.
That's is how it should work. Airlines have the power to regulate "politeness" in their private aircraft by saying, "No cell phones, please. Too many of you loud mouths have proven yourselves inconsiderate and we risk losing the business of normal people because of you". Not the federal government. The government getting involved opens up too wide a precedence.
This is so disastrously wrong, I can't tell if it's the opinion of someone who hates the world or just flamebait.
Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969), was a United States Supreme Court case based on the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. It held that government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless it is directed to inciting and likely to incite imminent lawless action.
Look at that. That's supporting the rights of all people trying to piss you off until the point where they actually attempt to get you to do something violent. Unknowingly, or with simple disregard for politeness, you see, is so damn protected, it probably hurts.
Lastly, "personal space" is so damn subjective that it doesn't even bare any use while in a confined space. If it were a simple question of "personal" space, you'd be supported in punching the person on the elevator who decided to work out before work but didn't put on deodorant. But, you can't.
As for the personal attack of not having consideration about those around me, you may need to re-read my post. I never said I did anything of the sort. I've never been on a plane. I hate my cell phone. You lose validity in your argument too quickly when you resort to insults.
Who said someone has to be at fault? It's a recently discovered pattern. Who's putting blame anywhere. Just adapt and continue.
Hasn't it been a generally accepted concept of Constitutional philosophy that only harmful actions are to be banned and/or prosecuted? You guys are saying "Thank god they're banning it... people with cell phones annoy me so much!", but the use of a cell phone is not in itself bad. In fact, talking about inane subjects on a cellphone in a confined space is by all means supported by law unless it interferes with necessary functions (which the ban may or may not be saying).
/may/ get this "air rage". It's your problem to deal with the situation-- politely if you choose to practice what you preach. Note, however, that if you choose to be violent, YOU will be held accountable.
Since when does the Slashdot community suggest and support that behavior be regulated? What next: No homosexuality because it's icky for it to go "in there"? No driving at the speed limit because you're late and it's annoying when other people don't understand that YOU didn't get up on time in the morning? Shall we now force people to speak with a specific accent because you don't like a regional diction?
At no point should it EVER be the government's responsibility to enforce "polite behavior" because you
Grow a pair, complainers, and solve your own social problems.
Work has my balls for 8 hours (sometimes more) a day. I love what I do and sometimes I allow work to spill over into my non-work life. It's not that I prefer it segmented or integrated, but that I can say "Yes" or "No" and no one can say sh*t about it. It's my option and I reserve the right to change my mind whenever I want.
Cars harm more youth and teenagers per year than do social networking sites. Restrict Cars (from every one) further than they are already restricted before "protecting" your children from phantom bad guys you think are chasing your "special little girl".
Oh, you think we train our kids to survive as drivers and passengers sufficiently? Well, then, we definitely train our kids well enough to not get raped over the internets. If not, train your kids more.
Ok, I'm not usually a sucker for trolls, but hey, I'll bite.
The main problem with any sort of solution the *AA does to curb piracy is that they rarely allow the law to take its course. The MPAA is strong-arming ISPs with threats of legal action unless they shut someone down. This is akin to getting rear-ended while stopped at an intersection, getting out of your car, and then threatening to sue the offender for every penny he's ever had unless he pays gives up all his cash, credit, and debit cards on the spot. That's not the way it should be done.
Instead, the *AA should go to the courts, file a grievance, and allow investigators to find evidence. Then, those investigators will bring that evidence before an tech-literate judge (no, no one that has simply dealt with tech cases in the past) and bring the case. Once all that's done and there is a logical precedence found or created, there can be no complaints.
As to your other point, you are referring to the cases where people who are tech-illiterate and whom would have no knowledge on how to use a bittorrent client being charged with massive piracy. There is a complete lack of evidence in a few of these cases, but the defendants are still having to pay massive out-of-pocket legal fees so that they wouldn't be bullied into an irrational verdict. They are in essence being punished by the *AA prosecution without having been proven to have committed a crime. This, too, is objectionable.
Best Case Scenario: The new Netflix model of entertainment delivery (subscription fees for downloadable and disc'd entertainment) will be emulated over and over. The entire Slashdot community has been screaming for something like this for years, but no one in the entertainment industry has really taken heed to the tech-literate. They're old people with their old ways. Very few are saying that movies/music should be be free, but just about everyone is saying that they want to have online-access to movies/music on demand and the amazing majority are willing to pay for it.
Couldn't it be argued that the MPAA is setting up a honeypots? Since honeypots are questionably legal (or illegal) because they are intercepting communications that are not intended for the interceptor, couldn't they be prosecuted? (ie The file transfer is intended for sharers and trackers who exist to benefit sharers)
OR
Since the MPAA is uploading the torrents to begin with, aren't they giving permission to view whatever they upload?
OR
How is this different from Phishing?
Some mod this guy up.
Wilson and Nike would laugh themselves around their corporate offices before they go to court against a similar claim.
If you can't hold on to the game unit, do not play the game. If you can't grip the steering wheel, do not drive. If you cannot grip the bat, do not play baseball.
' "It's also worth pointing out that WorldNetDaily could be described as just wee bit conservative" Was this comment absolutely necessary or even relevant to the story? '
Yes. When citing sources, one must always note whether or not the reader should note a form of bias. The statement about WND was a humorous understatement, like "The Weekly World News is known to post fiction here and there."
What happened here is that SOMEONE reported the censoring of a political ad (act that most Slashdot'rs find abhorrent) but that the source could be possibly blowing the situation out of proportion for the sake of a political agenda and thus the referrenced article should be take not for complete truth, but at least for the spark of conversation and investigation. Oddly enough, most everyone else caught on to this. In the future, we'll make sure to minimize sarcasm and humorous undertones.
"People will always mod down speech they don't agree with, completely disregarding said person or organization's absolute right to say it."
If you don't think Slashdot mods are moderating fairly, then meta-moderate. If you think that everyone in Slashdot is squelching your speech, then check out the Slashdot posting guidelines and read up on the posts that are most likely to be modded down and attempt to make some connections.
"Disappointing indeed that the "flagged" content wasn't reviewed by YouTube and simply left be, being that it doesn't violate the terms of use of the site."
No one said it did. You're crossing two separate systems that attempt to perform the same function in a community. One is community moderation, the other is system moderation. If you were verbally acosted by a stranger on the street, would you claim that the federal government is repressing your right to travel on public roads? Of course not. The video was flagged by many as inappropriate (justly or unjustly) and was removed. Unless someone reports the removal as unjust, the YouTube admins can never know if the mis-use of community power has occured. Refusal to review the content after a protest of the removal would be irresponsible on YouTube's behalf, but that isn't the case, now, is it?
I would never have heard of this game had not Jack Thompson thrown up such a huff. Now, I want to play it.
"Let's see... we'll just ban these books and NO ONE will ever want to read them... right?"
Watch your vocabulary friend. He said nothing about his reason being an excuse, so get off your holier-than-thou rant and read the post for what it said.
Summary: I believe teens just don't have enough money to entertain themselves in all the ways they'd prefer. Music is easy to get for free, so they pirate.
Was there a request for validation or suggestion that his reasoning was just? No. Ok, so back off.
I disagree. I think his clout and following would be useful in the NBC/SciFi show "Heroes". If anything, he knows how to write a story -- NO ONE can deny that. Heroes seems to be a ton of trailers all mashed up-- never allowing for any substance.
I say, welcome to the boob tube, George.
Each amount of freedom and expectations is unique to each site's developed or developing following and culture. Rules, guidelines, or the lack thereof are set forth in the beginning and they're enforced mainly by the site creators. Eventually a culture that shares the original philosophy begins to amass and develop and the community begins to regulate itself based on the now evolving culture.
Slashdot's a great example of a more hardline approach with active moderators. Fark is a more lenient approach with article responses and conversation moderated only by word-filters and image moderators. The majority of crap entries are torn apart by the community.
Social sites, however, lack the general community that fosters the sense of personal responsibility for a site and its functions. To most users, MySpace and Facebook are services, whereas Slashdot is often reffered to, in the real world, as a very descriptive characteristc of a social belonging.
When sites develop enough of a community to have their users develop that sense of belonging, then you will see the need to closely govern the users deteriorate.
Try being a female at a club, bar, or any other alcohol-related social scene. It's called "pick up lines" and getting "hit on".
;)
The spelling/iteration isn't too far off, either.
Go into any MMORPG that is developed enough to have a Guild system and you will see a full on society.
There's politics, currency, responsibilities, governments, charters, social contracts, friends going on outings, etc. IThey're nothing short of microcosms of societies that bring out different characters or enhance the characters of real life people.
An example: I'm an EQ addict. I belong to a "family guild" (a guild who doesn't want the focus of their organization to be raid "work" on a nightly basis) who is party of an alliance of "family guilds" whose joint efforts are to do "raiding guild" things. Consider it neighborhoods banding together for a common goal.
Recently, scandal arose when a full-on raiding guild engaged a target that belonged to the alliance. One of our alliance members, very angered, ensured that the target would be unkillable by the raiding guild force and thus brought severe shame on the alliance. Our member, after a "town hall meeting" in the forums, has chosen to disband from his guild and thus the alliance, while his guild decides what's to be done.
Furthermore, some are questioning the value of our raid leader and there is mumbling about asking him to step down.
Friends leave guilds. Guildies left behind are saddened. When a guild who enjoys its members witty banter and opinions disbands, people are actually sad.
People are social animals -- social meaning they require communication. These MMORPGS are 10% game, 90% communication. That's what sucks people in and that's why MMOs are closer to virtual political bodies than checkers and tic-tac-toe.
1) It's an NEWS artcle, not an academic paper on neurological degradation.
2) If they included the symptoms, you would not have been able to geta +5, now would ya?
Well, those are just a couple of the target audiences. Companies target multiple audiences. If I had the money and the knowledge of these craptacular rehashes 10 years ago, I would have invested in the rights and pushed them on the unsuspecting Wal-Mart throngs myself. Deer Hunter! for god's sake.
I don't think it's a show of market influence though. Blizzard et al aren't dropping their current money makers for the sake of Atari re-stamps and I'm not going to pop on over the next department store to buy my games. Differenct targets, different games.
I would like to know how many Everquest and EQ Expansions have been sold though. At stores, online stores, and streaming installation.
The list wasn't the "BEST GAMES of the last 5 years", it was "THE MOST STORE-BOUGHT games of the last 5 years".
It has nothing to do with the quality of the games, but instead what people most frequently purchase at store as opposed to online/delivery or digital download (such as EQ expansion packs).
Remember that languages are written and enforced, but DIALECTS are spoken and understood. Thus, there may be multiple meanings for a single word or phrase to different cultures or sub-cultures.
We'll use your example of "Feminazi". To some people, any feminist is a "Feminazi". To others (take some feminists), it's a feminist who is irrational in his/her ways and seeks power over equal or fair treatment and expectations.
Another example would be the word "Jew". It can be said or used in such a way to give insult or it can be a simple description or ethnic, religious, or cultural background. Different groups of people will automatically assume particular meanings especially when particular groups of people use the term.