Slashdot Mirror

There is another word that you should know.

three time's a charm: perjury

In fact, the term "halo effect" was coined in this context to describe people who became Apple fans because of buying iPhones, making them more likely to buy Apple computers.

There's a problem with how you define one or more of the following:
fact
halo effect
was
coined

Do you, by any chance, work for Apple? (If not, keep in mind that you might be very positively received as an Apple job applicant.)

let me dict.org that for you!

It's in my copy of The New Hackers Dictionary, which is the print copy of the Jargon File, published in 1991, claiming that it comes from vaxen (the plural of vax, which is marginally more sensible because vaxes sounds silly and there was no established plural of vax). You can find that definition online. It has nothing to do with some random comic, it's something that was briefly in vogue in the '80s and then became a sign of a poser trying to fit in with the UNIX community in the '90s, and finally of a random idiot in the '00s.

Grammarian.

Surprisingly, because it slowed down impulse shopping, and by the time we've found the game on the site, our urge to "buy the game if the screenshots or video looks good" is gone.

Also, as it was pointed out on the forums (can't link to the post for now -- behind the corp wall of fire) that this being broken under these particular configurations may speed up Impulse shopping, which could finally make Stardock a threat to Steam, since Impulse already had that "It just f'n works." thing going on. None of this "Open a browser to look, with purchasing client open at the same time" stuff -- See a thumbnail, click for screenshot, close lightbox when done, and if you want it, add it to the damn cart.

But that's just my opinion on that.

"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

The word 'insidious' has rather negative connotations, but I don't understand (from Winer's post) how WordPress may have done this with malintent. Does he have something against open standards? Does he think that WordPress has it in for Identica or others?

http://dict.org/bin/Dict?Strategy=*&Form=Dict1&Database=*&Query=bloated

now versus

http://google.com/dictionary?langpair=en|en&q=bloated

http://dict.org/bin/Dict?Strategy=*&Form=Dict1&Database=*&Query=bloated

now versus

http://google.com/dictionary?langpair=en|en&q=bloated

DARPA letting the penultimate contract for what is intended to be a jet-mounted laser cannon

OK, so did they also let the ultimate contract, or do they now award to the second-best bidder?

DARPA letting the penultimate contract for what is intended to be a jet-mounted laser cannon

OK, so did they also let the ultimate contract, or do they now award to the second-best bidder?

GPS accuracy is effected by builings, mountains, etc.

You're claiming that GPS would be inaccurate in the desert, and I really doubt that.

Now the real question is, can these bacterias be formed on Mars?

bacterium (singular), bacteria (plural)

It's not quite as bad as most crackpots. I looked it up on Wikipedia and it looks like his big mistake is writing a blog about it. That's the difference between a controversial (or perhaps flat out incorrect) theory and a crackpot theory; the blog about it. His paper has sparked much debate over it's validity which makes it a valuable contribution. Even if it's incorrect, it has enough merit to provoke criticism, not dismissal.

You're allowed to be wrong in science; being wrong is still more useful than saying nothing. Just don't blog about it.

Erm... It's a crackpot hypothesis, not a crackpot theory. If I understand correctly, there are no experimental results that support his idea.

It's not quite as bad as most crackpots. I looked it up on Wikipedia and it looks like his big mistake is writing a blog about it. That's the difference between a controversial (or perhaps flat out incorrect) theory and a crackpot theory; the blog about it. His paper has sparked much debate over it's validity which makes it a valuable contribution. Even if it's incorrect, it has enough merit to provoke criticism, not dismissal.

You're allowed to be wrong in science; being wrong is still more useful than saying nothing. Just don't blog about it.

Erm... It's a crackpot hypothesis, not a crackpot theory. If I understand correctly, there are no experimental results that support his idea.

My dad recalled that one year - and he knew the student quite well - had probably gone as far as to detail the amount of fuel (and type of) to be used, some basic designs of the shuttle, accounting for the Van Allen Radiation belts, etc etc - all with the calculus equations/work to go with.

So they used to accept units of time as students? I wonder how long a year takes to write an essay. BTW, "etc etc" is redundant; one etc will do.

good enough, adj.: 1. Apple, Inc. 2. Various words people have used to describe Apple, Inc.

Even the most unnatural, mutated, inedible freak of a plant is organic, because it is made of friggin carbon. That's the definition of organic.

Others have probably already answered this but I'll reply anyway. There's more than one definition of organic. Even the US Department of Agriculture has it's own.

Falcon

You've hit on one of my pet peeves man. Hell, DIAMONDS are oraganic, and so is pencil lead. They way these people use the term incorrectly drives me nuts.

Strictly speaking, there are very significant variations of what "organic" means, even among various scientific contexts. For example, "organic" generally means something significantly different in the context of biology than in the context of chemistry.

So, while on one hand I agree that it feel as if the "organic" food label misleadingly seems to imply that other food is somehow "inorganic", on the other hand I realize that from the USDA's perspective, "organic" certification reflects the adherence to a fairly well defined set of food production, handling, and processing practices.

Actually "infeasible" is a valid word: http://www.dict.org/bin/Dict?Form=Dict2&Database=*&Query=infeasible , it's the same as "unfeasible". Moreover, "in-" is the typical prefix for words of latin origin, so it would be more likely to exist than "unpossible".

Can you site a reference otherwise?

What kind of site are you looking for? Flat, hilly, trees maybe? What about a stream? Any preference on the lot shape? Also, what's your budget?

2) Pigs fly and spread pig flue

I didn't realize that pigs had chimneys.

My guess: pulling tens of terawatts of energy out of the atmosphere will effect the climate.

We already have a climate, so I don't think these could create one.

My father, god rest his sole, was a lead designer on boeing flight systems and instrumental on it's philosophy.

His left or right sole? And "it's" = "it is", BTW.

Investing in cultural naval gazing more like.

What's wrong with watching ships in the water?

Interestingly, the vehicles are adorned with [...] a "golden record", which is technology long since obsolete here on earth [...]

Oh really?

"The crew...will spend the next 105 days living in a minimally furnished facility erected in a hanger..."

Does that remind anyone else of their first semester in college?

Yeah, my college had to make-do teaching in a closet full of suits as well.

(BTW, let me introduce you to copy-and-paste, a real time- and typo- saver)

This entire mysterious woman contamination could have been caught before it ever effected one crime scene [...]

How could this contamination have caused a crime scene?!?

Dictionaries plot to educate about the meanings of words.

A stenographer's work must be easily readable. Maybe you were thinking of steganography?

And you might try going to the dictionary.

But "couldn't care less" is a boolean phrase: if (caring == CareScale.MINIMUM) - one that is easily understood purely from the meaning of its words. There is no reason to not give it a second of thought and say exactly what you mean when using the phrase.

English isn't a programming language. I can just as easily translate "I couldn't care less" into "I can't care less" if "could" refers to my present level of caring. On the other hand, "could" may also refer to any capable level of caring. This later translation seems to be the one you have interpreted.

Definition of "could":

Was, should be, or would be, able, capable, or susceptible. Used as an auxiliary, in the past tense or in the conditional present. [1913 Webster]

Obviously, I can't care less. ;)

-metric

I could see they were screwed from the gitgo, but these guys have it sussed.

Do you mean "get-go"?

Yes, i know a lot of fairly competent people that have been effected by the marketing strategy of the BSA and RIAA

I think you mean "incompetent people that have been effected by..." or "competent people that have been affected by..."

Yes, i know a lot of fairly competent people that have been effected by the marketing strategy of the BSA and RIAA

I think you mean "incompetent people that have been effected by..." or "competent people that have been affected by..."

Obviously your brain knew the information before you heard it!

But seriously, this is just another stupid study. Obviously over-thinking is worse, the same way as thinking too much; it's all in the definition of those words.

Obviously your brain knew the information before you heard it!

But seriously, this is just another stupid study. Obviously over-thinking is worse, the same way as thinking too much; it's all in the definition of those words.

here:
1. The employment of means to accomplish some desired end; the adaptation of things in the natural world to the uses of life; the application of knowledge or power to practical purposes. [1913 Webster]

Any more questions?

But what about a means of making a round flat doughed food with cheese, tomato sauce, and pepperoni? I mean... Someone employed the means to accomplish a pizza FIRST. Does that mean they *own* the idea?

How about the means of feeding oneself? Lets go find the oldest person alive and give them the benefit of being the only living person who has 'employed means of consumption to accomplish appetite satisfaction'. Then we all owe him/her a dollar every time we want to eat. :rolleyes:

Attention people! This is what happens when you base your life and culture around money. Frivolous lawsuits prevail over justice, ethics are set aside for financial priority, and progress (in all aspects) is limited by selfish greed.

I'm not preaching communism, I'm preaching community. Once your needs are met, try doing things for others without the goal of money or returns. Many cultures have survived and prevailed under these concepts, usually much more peacefully and socially considerate as well.

*Food for thought*

here:
1. The employment of means to accomplish some desired end; the adaptation of things in the natural world to the uses of life; the application of knowledge or power to practical purposes. [1913 Webster]

Any more questions?

It would be interesting to find the cutoff point where a problem should be further divided and when it is discreet enough.

If it gets too discreet, it's called a bug.

http://www.dict.org/bin/Dict?Form=Dict2&Database=gcide&Query=Misspelt

Technology is changing the game so fast that monitoring a 30% rule seems mute because it's tough to measure now

If I may pick a nit (as an anonymous poster has done)....

Perhaps it is mute because it doesn't make noise. On the other hand, it may be moot because, as you say, it's tough to measure now.

In any case, you are quite right that it will be interesting to see the effect of IPTV as it develops, though it's not likely to threaten the markets controlled by fear of the Death Star (which appears, in its domain, to offer far lesser service for a far greater price than Verizon does in its areas).

Technology is changing the game so fast that monitoring a 30% rule seems mute because it's tough to measure now

If I may pick a nit (as an anonymous poster has done)....

Perhaps it is mute because it doesn't make noise. On the other hand, it may be moot because, as you say, it's tough to measure now.

In any case, you are quite right that it will be interesting to see the effect of IPTV as it develops, though it's not likely to threaten the markets controlled by fear of the Death Star (which appears, in its domain, to offer far lesser service for a far greater price than Verizon does in its areas).

"Dear god, the mind damage from Fortran don't just effect your logic skills, they effect your language centers as well! You can't even remember the difference between "fond" and "hell on earth"."

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

effect vs. affect

"Dear god, the mind damage from Fortran don't just effect your logic skills, they effect your language centers as well! You can't even remember the difference between "fond" and "hell on earth"."

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

effect vs. affect

According to TFA, the Apple II "offered a system monitoring utility that allowed users to dissemble code on the spot". Does that mean it printed out 6502 code as Z80 assembly or something? Mine didn't have that-- must have only been in the early revs.

Seriously, why can't they find someone who actually knows what they're talking about to write these retrospectives? Surely we haven't all died yet?

What could be more appropriate than "FUCK!" when you hit your finger with a hammer, lock your car keys inside the car with the motor running or drop your laptop while walking up a flight of stairs?

How about "Ouch!" Or perhaps, "Help! I hurt my finger!" Either is more specifically relevant to the context you mention than "FUCK!"

I understand your point, but there are situations where expletives are definitely "appropriate".

There may be contexts in which various words are appropriate, but an expletive is rarely necessary for communication.

Actually, the plural of staff (a la "magical sticks") would be "staves".
Just sayin'