Slashdot Mirror

While we are being pedantic, towards is a perfectly acceptable variant of toward and is not intended to indicate plurality.

Good job it's $ not £

British Trillion is FAR bigger than the American trillian:

http://www.askoxford.com/asktheexperts/faq/aboutwords/billion?view=uk

Popularity does generally relate to quality, or at least a perceived quality. There are a lot of plebs that actually like what's on the 'popular' music charts. After a quick google, the most common definition of popular goes along the lines of liked or admired by many or by a particular group. One could argue that the topic of Objective-C is popular, but that the language itself is not.

It is censorship, self-censorship.

Falcon

Here you go.

Protip: this was the first result of googling "etymology quiz", which is actually 3 fewer characters to type than "[citation needed]".

[citation found]

I know he claimed to be a Deist, but remember, he was also a politician.

He got into trouble with other Christians because he was Deist. As I said in my previous post some Christians campaigned against him because he was not their kind of Christian, he didn't believe Jesus was the "Son of God". That's not something a politician would claim without good reason.

The Deists claimed to be Christian, which was good PR

I don't know if Thomas Jefferson or any other Founding Father claimed to be Christian, at least in public. They did make sure the Constitution did say "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." Jefferson even said in a letter to his son that religion was a private matter and that's where is should stay. A number of religious people say the USA Constitution and Bill of Rights says nothing about the separation of church and state, however Jefferson did say it about the First Amendment.

Yes, the word itself just means "without knowledge", but I've never encountered it used in reference to any knowledge other than religious knowledge...at least without qualifying phrases as in "I'm a UFO agnostic.". (I don't *think* that's a religious usage.)

Well I shortened the definition from it's full meaning, the AskOxford.com definition of agnostic is "noun a person who believes that nothing can be known concerning the existence of God."

Oh, and some for some people UFOs are religious, some believe life or at least humans were seeded on earth by aliens.

Falcon

Actually, one could argue reasonably about whether he was, indeed, a christian, but I tend to give him the benefit of the doubt, and suppose that he was, at worst, a Deist, and more probably either a Gnostic or an Agnostic.

Thomas Jefferson was a Diest, however by 1 definition he was also a Christian. Being a Diest he didn't believe Jesus was the "Son of God" but he did believe Jesus was a great teacher. TJ took the Bible and cut out all the stuff about miracles, the supernatural, and such and published his own Jefferson's Bible.

Agnostic: One who is not certain that such a truth exists.)

"Agnostic" is used in another way, a, without and gnosis, knowledge, so "without knowledge". That's how I use it myself, I am agnostic or without knowledge.

Falcon

Actually, one could argue reasonably about whether he was, indeed, a christian, but I tend to give him the benefit of the doubt, and suppose that he was, at worst, a Deist, and more probably either a Gnostic or an Agnostic.

Thomas Jefferson was a Diest, however by 1 definition he was also a Christian. Being a Diest he didn't believe Jesus was the "Son of God" but he did believe Jesus was a great teacher. TJ took the Bible and cut out all the stuff about miracles, the supernatural, and such and published his own Jefferson's Bible.

Agnostic: One who is not certain that such a truth exists.)

"Agnostic" is used in another way, a, without and gnosis, knowledge, so "without knowledge". That's how I use it myself, I am agnostic or without knowledge.

Falcon

I wasn't sure myself, so I decided to check it out:
  - According to the Meriam Webster Dyke is the British spelling of Dike: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dyke .
  - The Oxford Dictionary agrees: http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/dyke_1?view=uk , though the same spelling can also mean lesbian: http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/dyke_2?view=uk

So, depending where you are either spelling will do.

I wasn't sure myself, so I decided to check it out:
  - According to the Meriam Webster Dyke is the British spelling of Dike: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dyke .
  - The Oxford Dictionary agrees: http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/dyke_1?view=uk , though the same spelling can also mean lesbian: http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/dyke_2?view=uk

So, depending where you are either spelling will do.

http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/architect?view=uk US

Which fucking flavor, dammit? Verb, past-tense. Not even of the oddly-ending varietal. Architoke? Architaken? Architoken?

I stopped RTFB'ing when I read the word "orientated."

His choice of words betray his place in the hifalutin versus technical continuum.

Oh crap I said "continuum", I'm turning into one of them droids! I'm meltiiiiiiiiiing...

Real dictionary link:

http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/jibe_3

Depends on whether those are British billions or normal billions.

http://www.askoxford.com/asktheexperts/faq/aboutwords/billion?view=uk

I'm not so sure that car would be incorrect. I believe they both are correct, car is a subset of automobile.

Agree, I did not mean to imply otherwise. "Car" has become a correct form, derived from a slightly larger form of the word. From the Oxford English Dictionary:

car

noun 1 a powered road vehicle designed to carry a small number of people. 2 a railway carriage or (N. Amer.) wagon.

-- ORIGIN originally meaning wheeled vehicle: from Latin carrus.

You laugh now, but wait until I've bred a few generations of social octopodes.

Actually, this post is just an excuse for me to show off that I know the proper plural form of "octopus," which I might have looked up here.

The traditional dictionaries you use are poor if the do not cover common and well established slang like that. The OED does, even in the free web version: http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/cock

Urban dictionary is useful for slang, but you are somewhat exaggerating things.

Reach for the tinfoil hat indeed...

The reason they come out with new dictionary versions every year is that new words are added to the dictionary, and sometimes old words are removed, or have their definitions changed. I don't see any reason that online shouldn't also follow this trend, but the advantage to an online format is that the change can happen relatively quickly, once it's accepted by the editor, whereas some people still use decades-old versions of the printed dictionary and don't see a reason to buy a new copy every couple of years.

And there are some *print* dictionaries that include "ginormous" in the list of words. Language, by definition, is fluid. It changes over time, and the dictionary needs to change with it. "Ginormous" is a word that has made it into the popular vernacular, and it has a generally accepted meaning as a portmanteau of the words "giant" and "enormous". As such, it belongs in the dictionary, and it's only a matter of time before the remaining editions of the dictionary add the word. A language isn't defined by the dictionary, but rather, the dictionary is defined by the language. (it's already in the Oxford English Dictionary as well as the Collins Dictionary, and Merriam-Webster.)

Obligatory disclaimer: One of my two major fields of study in my undergrad was applied linguistics.

If it's in the Oxford, then it's a bloody word! http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/ginormous?view=uk ... And that's the Compact dictionary - so it's definitely in the ginormous one!

But the real question is ... "When he asks for a billion, does he mean a thousand million or a million million?" How many is a billion?

It's also a correct spelling in British English. Please see this page.

Impact may be a noun or a verb:
http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/impact?view=uk

As someone posting from Australia and born in England I can say that in my personal experience most people use the word American to refer to someone who is a citizen of the USA, and the word America to refer to the USA.
This is called a colloquialism, look it up.
This is from the oxford dictionary:
American

adjective relating to the United States or to the continents of America.

noun a person from the United States or any of the countries of North, South, or Central America.

Please read the definition you provided again. It says "sharing _or_ exchange". The word "sharing" allows it to be one-way. And even if your logic were valid for that single definition, to then say that because it does not match _that_ definition, email is not communication, is a "strawman" fallacy. It's selecting a single relatively easily argued point and ignoring the rest of the issue. In fact, I'm looking at the definition from the Oxford Compact Dictionary, at http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/communication?view=uk, which says:

        communication: * noun 1 the action of communicating. 2 a letter or message. 3 (communications) means of sending or receiving information, such as telephone lines or computers. 4 (communications) means of travelling or of transporting goods, such as roads or railways.

So even without my correcting your interpretation of that first definition you cited, the definitions above, from a related source, _specifically_ include letters and messages. So your entire line of reasoning that somehow email is not communication falls apart.

It's not that you don't have a point that staggered communications, such as email or letters or Usenet or Slashdot or Wikis, do not alter communication and reduce or delay feedback. But to say that it's therefore not communication is ill-founded.

AskOxford: Commonly Confused Words. I suspect most people will discover that they regularly make at least one of the mistakes in that list; I certainly did.

Actually, a "fine" is not something that happens as a result of government action at all. According to Oxford it's a sum of money exacted as a penalty by a court of law or other authority. Note the "or other authority" (which doesn't necessarily have to be government).

They also wouldn't have to sue you, since you signed a contract saying exactly what happens if you screw up. It's not necessary to sue someone to enforce a contract (although sueing can certainly resolve it if one party decides to get argumentative).

Oh, and PCI DSS is not negotiable, no matter how big you are. In fact, it gets harder to comply with the larger you get.

In the UK we have a thing called the Privvy Council. Amusing really as privvy is a slang word for toilet.

Since "Privy" is derived from an old french word for "private", I don't think it is that surprising.

I thought "orientated" is standard usage in the UK. Look at this from AskOxford.com.

"Oriented" not "oreientated".

http://www.askoxford.com/asktheexperts/faq/aboutgrammar/oriented

Are you intentionally stupid?

I am not being stupid. You took the stance that "free software" should only ever mean without cost without citing evidence and decreed that talking about freedom instead is inherently retarded. Such an argument is asinine.

But thanks for repeating my point.

I did not claim that GNU's definition was retarded. Your "point" presupposed that free means without cost. I disagree (as do many), and not just in software licenses. For example, one definition of free has as it's primary focus the concept of freedom. Removing the requirement of payment is only a subcategory of being free.

"Are spellings like 'privatize' and 'organize' Americanisms?"

No, not really.

Not according to these:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/venereal

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/venereal

http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/venereal

If it is, it must be a very obscure reference. I doubt you'd be able to use it and convey the meaning you claimed.

http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/atheism?view=uk
the belief that God does not exist. :

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/atheism
1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheism
2 a: a disbelief in the existence of deity b: the doctrine that there is no deity

And since you asked the personal question: I self-identified as atheist for decades until I had this debate and lost, discovering that atheism required a belief that an unevidenced god was also impossible.

I don't believe there is a god. I believe there is no evidence for one, and the flying-spaghetti monster is just as likely as there to be any god at all. I will be shocked if one exists.

But I can't prove a negative, and I would be believing without evidence (appealing to ignorance) to Believe there wasn't one rather than simply not believe there was.

You appear to by lying.

http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/atheism?view=uk

"the belief that God does not exist."

Using your own definition of these words makes the discussion much more difficult than it needs to be. Please use the meaning of these words as defined by a dictionary such as Oxford:

http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/agnostic?view=uk

http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/atheism?view=uk

Using your own definition of these words makes the discussion much more difficult than it needs to be. Please use the meaning of these words as defined by a dictionary such as Oxford:

http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/agnostic?view=uk

http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/atheism?view=uk

And Quayle's spelling of potato isn't the most common, but is technically a valid alternative. (Although the potato incident was dumb for other reasons.)

[citation needed]

My usual dictionary certainly doesn't have an entry for that spelling. I think you've picked the exception to your rule here.

From http://www.askoxford.com/asktheexperts/faq/aboutgrammar/data :

"However, there has been a growing tendency to use it as an equivalent to the uncountable noun information, followed by a singular verb. This is now regarded as generally acceptable in American use, and in the context of information technology."

Vintage - referring to something from the past of high quality.

Welcome to the English Oxford Online Dictionary: http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/gratis?view=uk
Oh and welcome to Latin BTW...

Sigh. No, it is not. Not at all in fact. Wasn't it you who quoted the Oxford dictionary on this?

No, it wasn't me. Oxford is not the only dictionary in existence, and I found the word supernatural in another dictionary. Even so, let's look at Oxford's:

"1 the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods. 2 a particular system of faith and worship. 3 a pursuit or interest followed with devotion."

Obviously 1 refers to the supernatural. According to 3 (the LAST in the list), even capitalism falls under this. Anything can, even science (note how some theists like to say scientist have their own religion). It's an incredibly weak argument, and doesn't fit in with your "kings and priests" quote. In fact, you can even say the extreme devotion to anti-religion is itself a religion using this definition.

I know, and you shouldn't, but you should read things in context and try to figure out what is written.

I read up a little about Diderot, and he clearly had the first and second definitions in mind when arguing against religion, not the third. I also note that he was imprisoned for his anti-religious texts. That might make him more inclined to call for violent revolution, even under the guise of "poetic imagery".

I was arguing against capital punishment

I'm sorry, you haven't provided any evidence for this. The post you replied to said "All kings and queens should be beheaded in this day and age, be them British or Thai." And you provided a naked quote of "Man will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest." The casual reader is supposed to see this as arguing against capital punishment?! Especially when, throughout history, kings and priests have been murdered in violent overthrow?

Maybe you should read the postings again, but this time with an adult at your side that can explain it to you.

Maybe you should learn to argue honestly, instead of calling an adult a child, or claiming I don't know how to read.

I would love to see a quote like this, and until you produce it I will have to assume that you are either just making it up or simply misunderstanding what you read.

I could do so, but that would require a somewhat significant amount of effort on my part to dig them up. My distinct feeling is that you wouldn't acknowledge them or my argument, given the kind of arguments that I've seen from you so far. If I don't believe the other side is arguing honestly, it is not worth my effort. This will probably be my last reply as is for these very reasons.

And that is utterly irrelevant when it comes to the point of said story.

That the clothes don't, in fact, exist, even when everybody was saying how fine they looked is the whole premise of the story. Without it there is no story. There is a more general lesson about how people will not state the obvious for fear of looking foolish, but that doesn't mean that the device of the clothes themselves can't be referred to. They often are in contemporary usage: http://www.google.com/search?q=emeperor+has+no+clothes

No, this is what religion means. You are using an argument that was popular in the McCarthy era when fighting the godless commies wasn't enough they insinuated that socialists revered Marx as like a God and worshiped Lenin in some perverse personality cult. Yes, some of the top people carrying out the orders in Russia worshiped Lenin but most of the country hated him but were afraid to speak their minds.

Socialism != Totalitarianism or Religion

man
noun (pl. men) 1 an adult human male. 2 a male member of a workforce, team, etc. 3 a husband or lover. 4 a person. 5 human beings in general. 6 a figure or token used in a board game.

While you are correct in that it is not typically used that way, you'll notice that usage #4 IS Person. So technically 3-man team is an acceptable usage.

You know that "decimated" means that a tenth was taken... so it was more than decimated...

More specifically,

The earliest sense of decimate was 'kill one in every ten of', a reference to the ancient Roman practice of killing one in every ten of a group of soldiers as a collective punishment. This has been more or less totally superseded by the sense 'kill or destroy a large proportion of', although some traditionalists argue that this later sense is incorrect.

Yeah, yeah, I know. But apart from the aqueduct, the sanitation, the roads and the word 'decimate', what else have the Romans ever done for us?

I would encourage you (and the mods presumably) to look this up in a reputable English dictionary

From Merriam-Webster:

Recent criticism of the use of myriad as a noun, both in the plural form myriads and in the phrase a myriad of, seems to reflect a mistaken belief that the word was originally and is still properly only an adjective. As the entries here show, however, the noun is in fact the older form, dating to the 16th century. The noun myriad has appeared in the works of such writers as Milton (plural myriads) and Thoreau (a myriad of), and it continues to occur frequently in reputable English. There is no reason to avoid it.

Some more: Cambridge

Oxford

dictionary.reference.com says:

Usage Note: Throughout most of its history in English myriad was used as a noun, as in a myriad of men. In the 19th century it began to be used in poetry as an adjective, as in myriad men. Both usages in English are acceptable, as in Samuel Taylor Coleridge's "Myriad myriads of lives." This poetic, adjectival use became so well entrenched generally that many people came to consider it as the only correct use. In fact, both uses in English are parallel with those of the original ancient Greek. The Greek word mÅrias, from which myriad derives, could be used as either a noun or an adjective, but the noun mÅrias was used in general prose and in mathematics while the adjective mÅrias was used only in poetry.

From Wikipedia:

In English, the term "myriad" is most commonly used to refer to a large number of an unspecified size. In this way "myriad" can be used as either a noun or an adjective. Thus both "there are myriad people outside" and "there is a myriad of people outside" are correct.

From the Oxford Dictionary http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/myriad?view=uk :

myriad

/mirid/ literary

â noun 1 (also myriads) an indefinitely great number. 2 (in classical times) a unit of ten thousand.

â adjective innumerable.

â" ORIGIN Greek murias, from murioi â10,000â(TM).

I'd trust the Oxford over Wikipedia on this one.

I'm American, but I've never heard Brits use "pah-tent" in any context. In Jeremy Clarkson's "Inventions that Changed the World" series, for example, when he was talking about the race to the patent office between Alexander Graham Bell and Elisha Gray, pronounced it "pay-tent".

The OED says that both pronunciations are valid for the legal document:
http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/patent?view=uk

Would 4 letter words like 'smeg' be covered ? It is not in the Oxford English Dictionary. What about words in other languages - like merde ('shit' in French), or ãç--ã'æä (google gives me that when I ask it to translate 'fuck' into Chinese) ?

According to the all-powerful Google:define (and the Oxford Dictionary), gantlet appears to be an alternative spelling of Gauntlet. They do, in fact, mean the same thing(s).

Thanks for playing, though.