Slashdot Mirror

http://www.bartleby.com/61/44/F0254400.html American Heritage Dictionary. See second definition.

Matthew 26.52

Did you understand what he was saying? Looks like it. Even if he had a usage error, he got an interesting point across. All I can get from your message is you're a dick.

Plus, you're wrong. Between is perfectly acceptable as he used it, and actually preferable to among.

A better (and significantly more concise) read on the aims of what the revolutionaries were thinking is Thomas Paine's Common Sense. It is about 20 pages, and while half of it relates to religion and King George - the rest is significantly relevant. I like this quip, which relates to security:

And unlike the Google Book you posted, it is in plain-text... which is easier to deal with.

The main link to Common Sense.

The quote actually reads, "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." It's also unclear whether Franklin was the original author of this quote, but that's beside the point.

Anyway, not only did you misquote Franklin (amusing given your criticism of folks not reading their history), but you also fail to explain whether and why it is an essential liberty to not be photographed in public. (Or, for that matter, the other various alleged infringements on civil liberties by us Yanks - though I'll happily admit that at least some of the powers we've given our government recently, or that our government has chosen to appropriate for itself, go too far.)

Whatever happened to common sense?

To get to the point, naming a site like "The Pirate Bay" doesn't necessarily infer

They've been doing it for a long time. Back in the 20s and 30s when "nudist colonies" started up in the US, one of the primary reasons was health. Of course, they emphasized total health - diet, exercise, et al. - one component of which was letting the sun and breeze hit your whole body.

Interesting that a remedy from ancient times has been the sun bath.
Walt Whitman
Some "Wellness Cafe"
Another site

IMHO (with no medical training), one of the bad things about sun exposure is the way we "binge" and "starve" ourselves. In the summer, people will work in an office all week then go to the beach and be in the sun for 10 hours. Or we cower in our offices during winter and then fly to some sunny clime and lay on the beach for a week. Not good.

- Jasen.

Newer generations are being conditioned to be lying, thieving whores,

You are not the first to have said something similar. Here is an earlier one

who think they are entitled to a new piece of music just because it's easily available to download.

And who are you to say they aren't? (Hint: "It's the law", is not a good answer. Laws can and should be changed to reflect the times we are living in. Digital technology is such a change)

Sounds like a nut job? To me, he sounds like a teen following the directions of the assignment and trying to determine where the limits lie. While not as well executed, Lee's essay has elements that are similar to sections of T.S. Elliot's The Wasteland, the drug advocacy of Alan Ginsberg, the poetry of Sylvia Plath. Literature is filled with dead people we now refer to as artists and legends who became thus because they explored the dark edges of humanity. Oedipus Rex is all about incest and patricide, the works of Shakespeare are filled with violence, sex, and death. So, take this background, a bright student, and an assignment that instructs the students not to censor themselves, and just what did you expect to come out? No poets get recognized for writing about happy puppies and cute kittens.

Add to that, the only text from the essay I've seen has been excerpted out of context. If I just give you this text "And ate the fellow, raw.", what would you think the poem was about? Perhaps a bit from Silence of the Lambs? A quote from Penthouse Letters? A story about eating octopus? Nope. That's from Emily Dickinson's "In the garden". Context is key to meaning.

Should the teacher have done something? Probably. Should someone have talked with Lee to find out if he really had violent tendencies? Sure. Should they have charged the kid with a crime for following, perhaps to the logical extreme, the explicit instructions on the assignment? Definitely not.

First, if any opinion is compelled to silence, that opinion may, for aught we can certainly know, be true. To deny this is to assume our own infallibility.

Secondly, though the silenced opinion be an error, it may, and very commonly does, contain a portion of truth; and since the general or prevailing opinion on any subject is rarely or never the whole truth, it is only by the collision of adverse opinions that the remainder of the truth has any chance of being supplied.

Thirdly, even if the received opinion be not only true, but the whole truth; unless it is suffered to be, and actually is, vigorously and earnestly contested, it will, by most of those who receive it, be held in the manner of a prejudice, with little comprehension or feeling of its rational grounds. And not only this, but, fourthly, the meaning of the doctrine itself will be in danger of being lost, or enfeebled, and deprived of its vital effect on the character and conduct: the dogma becoming a mere formal profession, inefficacious for good, but cumbering the ground, and preventing the growth of any real and heartfelt conviction, from reason or personal experience.

>That in five minutes you COULDN'T care less about. Don't use a phrase if you don't know how to use it.

You fail it.

If you don't understand the language completely, you don't get to complain.

Both are perfectly valid turns of phrase. One American, one British.

Could care less: I am so uninterested that while I could care less about the subject, I'm not even bothered to that point. Also, I am so interested that I care about the subject, therefore proving I could care less.

Couldn't care less: I am so uninterested that my caring level is at zero. Also, I am so interested that caring less would be physically impossible.

Both are correct and incorrect at the same time.

Yes, it's on the list of English errors. That in itself is an error, as the author is American. He needs to read up on his English history a bit, perhaps? alt.usage.english beat him to the punch on this one. Oddly enough, this clearly prescriptive English teacher is pro ending sentences in prepositions. How contradictory. He does agree he is fighting a losing battle on it (One he lost BEFORE he put up the website, ironically).

Irregardless, I ain't wrong. Here's some more references on the matter. Cheap at half the price, I tell you!

BTW: This topic truly is important to me, I couldn't care less about it, so don't ask me to. I could care less for rants about it, though, but sometimes I miss them. :-P

Teach, where's my gold star?

Perhaps you should read about modern English usage before spouting off.

Linguistic prescriptivism is bad enough, but uninformed prescriptivism is worse.

You're absolutely right, one should always check one's sources.

Start here: http://www.askoxford.com/dictionaries/quotation_di ct/?view=uk
Search for "Voltaire" and see result #1.

You could try this: http://www.bartleby.com/66/40/63040.html
That's an incomplete fragment from a letter, and, although similar in spirit, not the quote in question.

Anything Wiki is a questionable authority, but even so, here's one on quotes, which was your proposed criterion:
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Voltaire#Misattribute d
More details from the same site:
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Evelyn_Beatrice_Hall

I'd be interested to know of any trustworthy sources which attribute the actual quote to Voltaire.

I understand that MS put in a bid for DoubleClick. Does that mean if the had suceeded, they would have reported themselves for antitrust violations.

'Online advertising firm DoubleClick Inc. is exploring a sale and is in talks with Microsoft Corp'

I am sure they are sour

Resolution Independence? I see no need to bring Wordsworth into this.

Monopolies are, by their very definition, the bane of free market.

In a related story, American Heritage Dictionary says relatedly is a word.

"Virii" isn't a word, you frigging morons.

Neither is "frigging".

about 1,220,000 English pages for "would of".
154,000,000 English pages for "would have".
  22,400 English pages for "would 'ave".
6,560,000 English pages for "would 've".
Of course I should not use google as a concordance. Your correct of course, 'would of' is incorrect

http://www.bartleby.com/68/56/5456.html

shoulda, should of, coulda, could of, woulda, would of

These are aberrant spellings of should have, would have, and could have or their contractions should've, would've, and could've, made to reflect actual pronunciations. The spellings with of are frequently inadvertent; when writing hurriedly we may spell as we pronounce, and would've can come out would of. The of spellings also appear in eye dialect. The spellings shoulda, woulda, and coulda are always eye dialect, locutions deliberately misspelled to suggest the way our speech sometimes sounds.

If you really want to make your eyes bleed google "would 'ave".

Mars is essentially in the same orbit. Mars is somewhat the same
distance from the sun, which is very important. We have seen pictures
where there are canals, we believe, and water. If there is water,
that means there is oxygen. If oxygen, that means we can breathe.

                    --Dan Quayle

"Sein" is the french for breast, teton is more or less the breast point.
OTOH in this case it might be a reference to an indian tribe : http://www.bartleby.com/61/98/T0129800.html

government even in its best state is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one; for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries by a government, which we might expect in a country without government, our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer. Government, like dress, is the badge of lost innocence; the palaces of kings are built on the ruins of the bowers of paradise. For were the impulses of conscience clear, uniform, and irresistibly obeyed, man would need no other lawgiver; but that not being the case, he finds it necessary to surrender up a part of his property to furnish means for the protection of the rest; and this he is induced to do by the same prudence which in every other case advises him out of two evils to choose the least. Wherefore, security being the true design and end of government, it unanswerably follows that whatever form thereof appears most likely to ensure it to us, with the least expence and greatest benefit, is preferable to all others.

Don't you mean a little different *than* America?

No. He's right, you're wrong. Sorry.

Don't you mean a little different *than* America?

No. He's right, you're wrong. Sorry.

That's not very surprising when you think about the roots of modern math: Islamist mathematicians during Europe's middle Ages... Europe wasn't always that mighty thing that it is now you know... In fact Europe got out of that period because of the insights and knowledge they "acquired" from Muslims during the "Crusades"...

The "draconian" part is the disproportionate punishments. And it's "insisting", not "asking".

draconian. ADJ: Exceedingly harsh; very severe: a draconian legal code; draconian budget cuts. from Draco, Gk. statesman who laid down a code of laws for Athens 621 B.C.E. that mandated death as punishment for minor crimes.

1. We are always short of bandwidth. If I had a 1 Gb/s connection instead of a 768 Kb/s connection, I could download the torrent that's running in the background much faster. As it is, I had to stop seeding 3 others to grab this one before my 1 TB disk array arrives.

2. My grandparents stood on the beach in Galveston, TX and wathed 80% of the merchant marine traffic sink within sight of the shore due to German U-Boats (WW2.) Today, we expect that high speed internet will always be available. We don't even bother to keep a few months of food around. There is a problem here.

3. We should keep the resources that can be kept local as local as possible. There's no reason to go to http://www.bartleby.com/ to look up a word in a dictionary, when you can download a dictionary program. I mentioned my 1TB disk array. I'm archiving the educational basics (OCW, eTexts, audio books, online resources, digitized lectures, etc.) and storing them on my USB hard disks. Someone did mention a 200GB HDD and downloading the non-commerical parts of the internet. That's where I'm headed, kinda. Right now, we assume that we will always have PCs that are always connected to the Internet. I am trying to replace that model with PCs that connect to a disk array for reference, and then occasionally connect to the tnternet for real-time stuff. For example, my tablet computer only needs 11GB for its software (Win, Office, Adobe Suite, VS.NET, and a dozen free apps) the rest of my HDD is data I transfer back and forth as I expect to need it from a disk array. At the very least, companies who know the are reliant on certain reference sites can set up local backups. Schools and libraries can set up local archives. This will never replace Slashdot, but it will add reliability to Wikipedia during a crisis.

Andy Out!

http://www.bartleby.com/100/420.47.html

Consistency is great... if all your code does the exact same thing, the exact same way. Otherwise, it can be misleading, and the ability to express differing functions in differing formatting is an indispensable boon to clarity.

Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death! Patrick Henry

The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure. Thomas Jefferson

Call it a hunch, but I believe it's because orange juice and paper towels aren't known for causing problematic side effects.

People take medicine on good faith that, while it should improve their current condition, it must not cause worse problems. But you can go back to taking tartar emetic.

As a good Christian, maybe you can tell us where God says that two unmarried people shouldn't have sex. Hopefully, he says it more forcefully than in Bible passages where he instructs people to rape prisoners, take multiple wifes and kill your own children.

However, since Wikipedia is not the model of truth hopefully they are going to perform crosschecks with other sources? Or maybe they will just use peer reviewed pages or "feature articles"? Still, cross-checks with additional online encyclopedias would be a good idea.

I can certainly say that *my* image of them has tarnished over time, and I am now seriously thinking about buying HD-DVD just to spite them.

I believe the term you were looking for is "Cut off your nose to spite your face".

I can understand someone being angry at Sony and thus not wanting to buy products from them.

But walking into an obvious dead end like HD-DVD when Sony is clearly popular and will prevail with Blu-Ray (along with Disney and Apple and Dell and Fox and other other members of the Blu-Ray forum), well that's just silly. How is that going to hurt Sony in the slightest? You'd be much better off simply not giving your money to Sony than to throw it into a competitor. At least think about giving the money to an organization like the FSF, who does more real work to counter proprietary things companies like Sony do than any competitor who simply does the same things as Sony but with a different format.

I'll quote a more respected source than Wikipedia:

http://www.bartleby.com/73/1056.html

  Respectfully Quoted: A Dictionary of Quotations. 1989.

NUMBER: 1056
AUTHOR: Benjamin Franklin (1706-90)
QUOTATION: Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
ATTRIBUTION: BENJAMIN FRANKLIN, Pennsylvania Assembly: Reply to the Governor, November 11, 1755.--The Papers of Benjamin Franklin, ed. Leonard W. Labaree, vol. 6, p. 242 (1963).

    This quotation, slightly altered, is inscribed on a plaque in the stairwell of the pedestal of the Statue of Liberty: "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
SUBJECTS: Liberty
BIOGRAPHY: Columbia Encyclopedia
WORKS: Benjamin Franklin Collection

To sum up my objections best, I'll quote Ben Franklin:

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

Sorry, I'll take plain old freedom over supervised freedom any day.

Given the bosses are just employees (duh, I hope), the rate of bad employees ought the be the same as the rate of bad bosses.

Huh? You think managers are representative of the people that work for them? If promotions were decided by cutting a deck of cards, that would be true. But they're not. Managers are chosen, and by criteria that are very different from those used to hire the people under them.

Two groups that have similar labels don't automatically have similar statistical features.

And there's a body of thought that says that the average manager is less competent than the general work force. It's called The Peter Principle.

Now obviously, being cleared 15 years after your first conviction doesn't count. Nor does having the chief witness recanting their testimony.

I don't know the first thing about the case, and, given that your source of "information" seems to be the American Communist Liberties Union, I wouldn't trust a single aspect of your recounting of the facts of the case, but, if we assume for the sake of argument that "the chief witness" recanted her [or his] testimony, then the fault here lies not with The People of the State of Florida [i.e. the prosecution], BUT RATHER WITH "THE CHIEF WITNESS" WHO PERJURED HER- [OR HIM-] SELF!!!

Human courts are only as good as the human witnesses who choose to honor [or dishonor] their oaths to speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

If we are a nation of liars, who dishonor our sacred [well, really secular] oaths, then we will get the court systems we deserve.

Perhaps it wouldn't hurt to broaden your understanding English usage, and, in particular, to learn the distinction between restrictive and non-restrictive relative clauses http://www.bartleby.com/64/C001/062.html. You would then realize he implied that leveraging one's monopoly to trap consumers into using one's tools is a bad thing in general (but, admittedly, this attitude is even more shameful if these products are flawed).

"Microsoft leverages their monopoly to trap you into using MSFT tools, [...] *WHICH* are in some way or shape flawed compared to alternatives."
!=
"Microsoft leverages their monopoly to trap you into using MSFT tools *THAT* are in some way or shape flawed compared to alternatives."

Long run is a misleading guide to current affairs. In the long run we are all dead.

I don't need to defend this position extensively, it is a done deal in the atheist community. I'm just letting you, and others who are similarly confused, know what the actual situation is. You can check it out -- actually do some research -- and learn something, or you can continue on in ignorance. Your call.

The wiki article has been closed because it is filled with misinformation? How about some dictionary definitions then:

• Merriam-Webster:atheist; one who believes that there is no deity.
• Cambridge International Dictionary of English: atheist; someone who believes that God or gods do not exist. Compare agnostic: someone who does not know, or believes that it is impossible to know, whether a god exists: Although he was raised a Catholic, he was an agnostic for most of his adult life.
• American Heritage: atheist; One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.

That was but three definitions I provided that use the root or stem "believe" in the definition of "atheist", here's a list of definitions from 16 other dictionaries. Now where's your research? No, you don't need to provide it, but if you want to correct or convince me I am wrong then I need to see it.

From dictionary.com, 'museum' from Greek through Latin and means 'shrine to the Muses'.

Muses are [godesses].

And then to the creationist's handbook:
http://www.bartleby.com/108/02/20.html

Building a temple to godesses seems to me like a gross violation of rule number 1 (verses 3-6)

I'm not trying to argue that there are dinosaurs in the bible, but I encourage you to name any animal that you can think of that matches the description in the linked passages.

http://www.bartleby.com/108/18/40.html

It's always the 'tail like a cedar' that disqualifies most guesses.

Please take a look at the passage and try to figure out what it is describing.

http://www.bartleby.com/108/18/40.html

Many a days in Pre-Calculus I spent correcting the teacher when she did a problem wrong, or going up to the board and solving the problem when she got so tired of my correcting her all the time.

True story: when I was a sophomore in HS, our history unit for the year was ancient history. When we got to Alexander the Great, my teacher announced that he was from a country called "Macedon". Which was true, except she pronounced it "MACK-edon".

I tried several times to convince her that it was actually pronounced "MASS-edon", to no avail. So we got to spend a month discussing the exploits of the MACK-edonians.

just another proud product of the public schools