Slashdot Mirror

(Score:-1, Flamebait)

Much as I find the New York Times' registration scheme and their editorial bias annoying, I doubt they'd print a headline with a misspelling like "Ferrel"

They are both equally valid variants. Look it up on dictionary.com: http://www.dictionary.com/cgi-bin/dict.pl?term=jud gement

A toolkit that's put out in this form as an advertising gimmick by a software company?

Actually, my spy network tells me that Sharp paid TrollTech to develop QPE.

toolkit that's more expensive than an MSDN

They will apparently be lowering the price.

They should have gone with X11/FLTK

Mmm... ugly, non-portable, AND obscure. A winning combo. QT can at least be used on Windows, Mac, Linux, Solaris, etc. :)

I do wonder if they (or someone else) will ship Wince for this thing at some point. Not that I want Wince.

Some posts have entirely too many links in them...

Some posts have entirely too many links in them...

Some posts have entirely too many links in them...

Some posts have entirely too many links in them...

Some posts have entirely too many links in them...

Some posts have entirely too many links in them...

Some posts have entirely too many links in them...

Some posts have entirely too many links in them...

Some posts have entirely too many links in them...

Ever heard of a dictionary?

1. Of, relating to, or having a sexual orientation to persons of the same sex.
2. Showing or characterized by cheerfulness and lighthearted excitement; merry.
3. Bright or lively, especially in color: a gay, sunny room.
4. Given to social pleasures.
5. Dissolute; licentious.


Now, which definition of gay do you use? Hmm? It is neither 1) homosexual, 2)overly happy, 3)"bright or lively" (it's rather dark and crude), 4) a party watch, or 5) immoral.

I hate to be a PC nag here, but there is a reason that many gay youth commit suicide. While it seams trivial to use gay in a derogatory fashion, it creates non-trivial psychological damage to homosexual youths, especially in the social climate we have here in the states.

In the future, please watch your language. Would it be funny if I said, "Damn, what a nigger of a watch?"

You're right gay is not the correct word. I mean no disrespect in saying this, but if he had said "how queer" that would have been more appropriate since one of the meanings of queer deals with the odd or unconventional. As we all know the word gay has several meanings, one of which is happiness another meaning deals with sexual orientation. On the other hand, one meaning of queer has to do with the unconventional. Another meaning of queer is geared towards those of the same sex. Therefore, many people cross the use of the slang term gay as a synonym for the "unconventional" since it is a synonym for sexual orientation. Obviously, this is incorrect because the watch can not be happy and cannot choose its fate as you have. However, we are free to label the watch as queer since it is very odd and very unconventional :)

JOhn

You're right gay is not the correct word. I mean no disrespect in saying this, but if he had said "how queer" that would have been more appropriate since one of the meanings of queer deals with the odd or unconventional. As we all know the word gay has several meanings, one of which is happiness another meaning deals with sexual orientation. On the other hand, one meaning of queer has to do with the unconventional. Another meaning of queer is geared towards those of the same sex. Therefore, many people cross the use of the slang term gay as a synonym for the "unconventional" since it is a synonym for sexual orientation. Obviously, this is incorrect because the watch can not be happy and cannot choose its fate as you have. However, we are free to label the watch as queer since it is very odd and very unconventional :)

JOhn

Please, learn the proper English plural of the word 'virus.'

There's no need to be making up words in hopes of sounding smarter. You only end up looking silly.

You could
defin[a]tely use a dictionary.

Apparently the mass-consortium of knowledge has been lost on your spelling.

dumbass

he meant voilà not viola

Heh... I thought he made that word up, but it appears to be in the dictionary. (popup ad warning)

>wallah!!...

You're kidding, right? You walk around saying "wallah!!..."? Ever notice those people covering their mouths trying not to snicker behind your back when you do that?

It's a French word. It means something. Using a phonetic approximation makes you sound/look like an ape.

It's in the dictionary, look it up and don't try to use big words if you don't know what they really are or what they mean.

voilà (vwä-lä`)

interj. Used to call attention to or express satisfaction with a thing shown or accomplished: Mix the ingredients, chill, andvoilà!a light, tasty dessert.

[French : voi, second person sing. imperative of voir, to see (from Old French. See voyeur) + là, there (from Old
French la, lai, probably from Latin

i never liked the big bang theory. it stinks of creationism. ... i'm no cosmologist. but the big bang stinks of creationism to me ...

So, let me get this straight. You are rejecting a reasonable theory which fits the observed behaviours simply because it conflicts with your religious (or anti-religious) beliefs?

Isn't that what people accuse religious folks of daily?

You aren't being logically consistant. You rail against anything with any hint of taint from our human experience, but at the same moment your rejection is based in how you feel about the existing theories. Stinks of creationism is a very visceral reaction to what you insist should be a completely rational debate.

Face it. You have a philosophy guiding your argument as well. That philosophy is Nihilism and your post stinks of it.

1.Divided into a specified number of parts: fivefold.
2.Multiplied by a specified number: fiftyfold.

Their source is the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language. So 10-fold doesn't really seem redundant to me. Now granted, they aren't the final judge when it comes to the english language, however, I would tend to believe them over an AC.

Here is a little quote for wet your appetite

technically, you don't wet your appetite, you whet it.

just fyi, no big deal.

I wonder what other admin's call their servers that work 24/7, pulling in the orders and dealing with attacks by virii, worms, and other pests?

I wonder what other admin's call their servers that work 24/7, pulling in the orders and dealing with attacks by virii, worms, and other pests?

There ARE NO ****ING WIERDING MODULES IN THE BOOK!!!!!

You are correct, but only inadvertently. Because you spelled Weirding incorrectly, you have caused your statement to be correct. There were, in fact, Weirding modules in the book.

I'm not sure which is worse, your ALL CAPS shouting, the profanity, the misspelling, or the factual inaccuracy. Either way, it's all good, there's no reason to be fighting over details.

Dune is a great book and a delightful "Universe", no matter what kind of module is used. (-:

Dictionary.com:

boxen /bok'sn/ pl.n. [very common; by analogy with VAXen] Fanciful plural of box often encountered in the phrase `Unix boxen', used to describe commodity {Unix} hardware. The connotation is that any two Unix boxen are interchangeable.

Check for yourself:

Dictionary.com

Note: I find the word annoying dont get me wrong, but it looks like it has slid its way into the english language..

Zeno

Look it up yourself, if you don't believe me.

Besides, if I wanted to contribute to entropy through my language, this like write would I. Yoda I am not.

And why must you disparage Eris? Someone had to put all that chaos there!

Really. Firstly, once on wheels, can the driver be considered a "pedestrian?" Secondly, what about bicycles, scooters, and the like. I'm sure there is some incredible technology going on there, but the arrogance seems much more powerful.


pedestrian noun

A person traveling on foot; a walker.

The English mirror is Slashdotted, but Dictionary.com also has a good translation. You can view it here.

Now if we could only get textboox in digital form...

You call that a spam filter?

Yes. One definition of a filter is:
"A program or routine that blocks access to data that meet a particular criterion."

1. Hotmail uses a anti-spam routine.
   
2. That routine blocks access to data (spam) ...
   
3. that meets a particular criterion (if sender does not exist in address book, filter it)
   

That'll kill a lot of legitimate mail (non-spam, just from anybody you don't happen to have in your address book).

You're right. But considering how easy it is to add someone to your address book, that's not a problem. (Click the "Add to Address Book" button by the person's name.) You only have to do it once.

Plus faked sender addresses aren't caught that way.

Nobody I know sends mail to me with a faked sender address. But if they do, see above point.

Well, I wanted to side with the "popular" and "common" being related guy, but Dictionary.com doesn't have much to support that in my reading. Maybe someone else sees something there I missed: (Dictionary.com definitions page for popular)

Dachshunds were bred to hunt badgers, actually, a much more fearsome foe than a mere rabbit.

I know this because a bed-and-breakfast my wife and I once stayed at had a dachshund puppy that got into everything and loved to go into dark, tight places (like handbags). I took to speaking for it (I often speak for animals and babies), saying, "Is there a badger in here? Maybe there's a badger in HERE!"

As for the Chihuahua, I can't find a good reference on what they were bred for or even where they came from. Weren't they were bred to hunt Gorditas...?

See irony

or Misspelling

But you're right. It wouldn't be the same without 'em.

See irony

or Misspelling

But you're right. It wouldn't be the same without 'em.

Yeah yeah, verbal this fella ;)

P.S. Okay, sad sad admission time - the original text said orally, and I changed it to verbally to avoid the thirteen year old trolls. See what it got me? ;)

Um. Obsolete means "No longer in use".

Of course you realize that won could never mean: "To receive as a prize or reward for performance."

Thanks for being so clever...

Please, use the proper English plural of the word 'virus.'

There's no need to be making up words in hopes of sounding smarter. You only end up looking silly....

Please, learn the proper English plural of the word 'virus.'

There's no need to be making up words in hopes of sounding smarter. You only end up looking silly.

if you acually read the page the definition is for know (no s). Dictionary.com finds the correct word, not always what you typed in (i use it to check my spelling from time to time, hehe).

here is the definition that can be found for "knows". read the page carefully.

any native english speaker would be able to pick this mistake up with out having to check it by the way...

Do your research before you start making fun of someone. "knows" is a word and he used it correctly.

He meant Gallic.

It would help to learn the proper English plural of the word 'virus.'

There's no need to be making up words in hopes of sounding smarter. You only end up looking silly.

Please, please please learn the proper English plural of the word 'virus.'

There's no need to be making up words in hopes of sounding smarter. You only end up looking silly...

Please, learn the proper English plural of the word 'virus.'

There's no need to be making up words in hopes of sounding smarter. You only end up looking silly.

Hippy

The whole universe was not put here so that we could carefully destroy planets one at a time.

Let's clarify: The universe does not exist for a reason. It simply exists.

We also have no intrinsic relationship with the universe, other than the fact that we are in it: it was here long before us and will mostly likely be here long after we're gone.

(I say "mostly likely" because I'm confident but not positive that we -- humanity -- are never going away either, but people call me arrogant about this)

The universe was not "put here" by anyone or for anyone. And even if it were, there is no way to know who did it or to what end. So stop being a dumass with your extra-terrestrial environmental alarmism.

Now, let's get one defintion straight. In a non-judgmental (non-"workers-of-the-world-unite") definition, exploit means, simply: To employ to the greatest possible advantage

I think that's exactly what we should do with the universe, go up there exploit the resources to our greatest advantage, bring stuff back here to improve the human lot, and repeat. That's what we do: we manipulate our enviroment to make our live's better That's why we have a gamecube and don't live in caves. We do everything we can to make our lives better.

We often disagree on what "better" is -- and that's why we have Amish people who like things the way they were 200 years ago. That's fine. Go build a barn. But stay the fuck out of the way of the rest of us.

We're not perfect. We screw things up. But, all in all, each generation is better off than the one before it. We live longer, we're healthier, we work less, etc. That's what we do.

The universe is an infinitely big place. Remember, the Milky Way Galaxy could blink out of existence and the universe wouldn't bat an eye. We are not cosmic park rangers.

So please pull your head out of your ass and get with the program: We have a lot of work to do.

It'll probably be a centuries before we get out of this rinky-dink solar system. We've got to get busy putting people on the moon, on mars, on io, on europa, on venus. We've got asteroids to turn into space stations.

And don't be a pussy about limited resources. Eventually, our sun will go red giant and fry all the inner planets to a crisp. That means all these precious resources have a built-in shelf-life already, no matter what we do.

By then, we had better be somewhere else. If we have to suck all the gas out of Jupiter to give us the juice to do that, then so be it.

Once we get off this puny planet, that's the scale of things. Hell, that's the beginning of the scales of things. The universe is infinite!

Note: I could go on. I can be anti-corporate also. I didn't say *how* we should do this, only that we *should* -- now. And that business interests in and of themselves are not evil.

Jurassic Park totally ignored this whole point, which, to me, made the whole premise rather lame

Actually, Jurassic Park didn't ignore that at all. They mentioned that the dinosaurs' DNA had to be genetically spliced with the DNA of a specific frog that offered the chance to fill in the needed pieces of DNA that were missing in the dinosaurs, but also posed little threat of creating a pygmy dinosaur-frog hybrid, as if the two animals had been cross bred. One of the major plot points of the book and the movie was the presence of certain frog traits in the resulting dinosaurs, specifically the frog's ability to change its gender for breeding on the fly, allowing some of the dinosaurs to become male, mate with the dinosaurs that remained female (they were all intended to be female), and create fertile eggs.

And for similar people that will say, "But it's impossible to do that!", please note that Jurassic Park is a piece of science FICTION, not science FACT, and thus has the benefit of future technology and scientific discoveries that do not exist in real life. Personally, I think saying that Jurassic Park "ignored that point" (that "point" being the impossibility of the entire thing using current technology and scientific discoveries) is a nitpick to begin with, because it basically labels all science fiction stories "lame" because they don't use currently existing technology.

I suggest you look up both Science Fiction and more specifically the FICTION part of the term that you are having problems with.