Slashdot Mirror

Why is it that grammar nazis bother me worse than trolls?

Look.

jiggle Pronunciation Key (jgl)
v. jiggled, jiggling, jiggles

Two syllables.

You might want to look up the definition of "ameliorate". It doesn't mean what you think it does. Dictionary

(President Bush's niece was among those students whose privacy was violated).

Maybe she can get C's at Yale too...

Then again, if she knows how to spell Nepotism, she could get something better...

(Sorry! The urge to post a reply was just too overwhelming!)

--

Employing incompetence: $35/h
Fixing the resulting mistakes: $1000's
Employing me: Priceless

I so wish people would learn to spell precedent.
Quit bitching about corporatisation (Australian spelling, and correct) and learn to spell. HAND

Um...which of those words isn't English? Please feel free to visit http://www.dictionary.com to verify the authenticity of all of them.

Thank you.

Try spelling it right! Dictionary.com definitely DOES have that word!

http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=vehiculate

http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=vehiculate

http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=vehiculate

If you look it up at dictionary.com, the word doesn't even exist in the english language!

I love when people try to sound smart, but make total fools of themselves. (*knock on wood* I'm probably doing it right now.)

vehiculate To convey by means of a vehicle; to ride in a vehicle.

Zilla
\Zil"la\, n. (Bot.) A low, thorny, suffrutescent, crucifeous plant (Zilla myagroides) found in the deserts of Egypt. Its leaves are boiled in water, and eaten, by the Arabs.

Personally, I think India is just trying to "curry" favour with the more developed nations.

--

Employing incompetence: $35/h
Fixing the resulting mistakes: $1000's
Employing me: Priceless

Here is Dictionary.com's definition of zilla.

Also, consider that Microsoft didn't win againts Lindows and that's a much closer match since it even pertains to the same kind of item or good e.g. an Operating System

You're such a sad sad troll, Knox.

http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=zilla
A low, thorny, suffrutescent, crucifeous plant (Zilla myagroides) found in the deserts of Egypt. Its leaves are boiled in water, and eaten, by the Arabs

http://www.kar.nic.in/bellary/
Bellary Zilla Panchayat is a three - tier Panchayat raj system with elected bodies at the Grama, Taluka and District levels constituted as per the 73rd amendment to the constitution for greater participation of the people and more effective implementation of rural development programs (and to function as units of local self government). The Zilla Panchayats were constituted as per the provisions of The Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act, 1993.

Google will give you the rest of the story.

But Zilla is a dictionary word.

You'd think they'd get the hint after Microsoft unsuccesifully sued Lindows, claiming that they owned anything ending in "indows". If M$ can't do it, how is another company going to?

Go!Zilla, nomo zilla, :Zilla Clothing, My Zilla, Budgie-ZILLA, ZILLA sports, TrafficZilla, WebZilla, and even a thorny plant named Zilla

So they have lots of legal battles if they want. (Watch them claim that the thorny Zilla plant stole their ideas of a thorny reptile...)

frob.

Every Xvale and Xville will sue each other claiming they were the first with the suffix... York will take New York to court for infringing on it's originally suffix...
And ING Investments will charge a royalty to everyone using "ing" at the end of a word (shit, I guess I owe them for 3 payments already!).

The plaintiffs should just claim their referencing the plant or the disease!

The editors are just a bunch of lazy-ass motherfuckers.

The problem lies in their PKI implimentation...

...rediculous...

Ah... must be Monday morning on Slashdot... :)

(I kid! I kid because I love!)

Surprisingly, the editor is quite correct.

it's Pronunciation Key (ts)

1. Contraction of it is.
2. Contraction of it has. See Usage Note at its.

Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

Russell
A man's name
A town's name.

Rustle
v. rustled, rustling, rustles
v. intr.
To move with soft fluttering or crackling sounds.
To move or act energetically or with speed.
To forage food.
To steal livestock, especially cattle.
v. tr.
To cause to rustle.
To obtain by rustling: rustled up some food in the kitchen.
To steal (livestock, especially cattle).

Russle
No entry found for russle.

Russell
A man's name
A town's name.

Rustle
v. rustled, rustling, rustles
v. intr.
To move with soft fluttering or crackling sounds.
To move or act energetically or with speed.
To forage food.
To steal livestock, especially cattle.
v. tr.
To cause to rustle.
To obtain by rustling: rustled up some food in the kitchen.
To steal (livestock, especially cattle).

Russle
No entry found for russle.

Russell
A man's name
A town's name.

Rustle
v. rustled, rustling, rustles
v. intr.
To move with soft fluttering or crackling sounds.
To move or act energetically or with speed.
To forage food.
To steal livestock, especially cattle.
v. tr.
To cause to rustle.
To obtain by rustling: rustled up some food in the kitchen.
To steal (livestock, especially cattle).

Russle
No entry found for russle.

Texas. The state that brought us Dumbya.

(Posted AC because this is offtopic. And probably flamebait too.)

James Bond was the author of the book "Birds of the West Indies"

I guess that explains Goldeneye, doesn't it?

"fails to curtain song swapping "

Like, kill them? It's curtains for them?

Or is it possible that you meant curtail, and are just way to fucking lazy to look up a word of which I know damn well you weren't 100% sure.

DICTIONARY.COM - it makes you look not so stupid.
Come on you fucks. If it's going on the first page, lets try not to make us all look like fucking grade-school dropouts.

"So far I've kept nice and cosy"

http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=cosy

Remember, "variant of" means only stupid people say it that way...

Um, no, I meant "alternately", meaning Serving or used in place of another; substitute: an alternate plan.".

Nemeses.

Here is definition 1. from dictionary.com

culture Pronunciation Key (klchr) n.

a) The totality of socially transmitted behavior patterns, arts, beliefs, institutions, and all other products of human work and thought.
b) These patterns, traits, and products considered as the expression of a particular period, class, community, or population: Edwardian culture; Japanese culture; the culture of poverty.
c) These patterns, traits, and products considered with respect to a particular category, such as a field, subject, or mode of expression: religious culture in the Middle Ages; musical culture; oral culture.
d) The predominating attitudes and behavior that characterize the functioning of a group or organization.

Again to suggest that America has no culture would be to suggest that nobody lives in the US or they have no patterns of behavior.

Helpful link for moderators...

3. The ability to perceive, enjoy, or express what is amusing, comical, incongruous, or absurd.

I'm kind of one of those people that believe that human evolution has stopped. One key component to evolution is "selective pressure" so that poor genes kill you off before you breed (or breed a lot). In modern human society we protect the weak so that almost everyone gets a chance to breed. If you watch Jerry Springer you'll start to wonder if only the crap is breeding while the rest of us are too busy. 50 years ago Down Syndrome, a pretty significant genetic anomaly, killed people while they were children. Today people with down syndrome are living long lives. Other genetic disorders are getting the same help from our technological evolution. I'm not trying to get all Hitler-ish on society because I'd be on the elimination list for genetic problems, but until we start a massive selective breeding program (which isn't going to happen) or allow technology to advance without excessive laws based on superstitions, our genome is going to be filled with cruft.

An acquaintance of my family was told by a genetic councilor that if she and her husband had children there was an extremely high probability of the child having spina bifida, but they decided that this expert whom they sought out was full of crap and had a kid anyway. "Surprize!" the kid has it and is severly disabled and will always need lots of medical care and will never be able to have a job due to mental and physical disabilities that border on a vegatative state. Thus two people that could have given an adopted child a good life, will not be able to care for or afford another child because of the one they decided to have despite the risks. We can't stop people from breeding haphazardly so we need to be able to fix inherited "mistakes" before or after birth and we're not going to be able to do that if we put legislation in the way of every new potential advancement because we might be "playing god." Face it we've been playing god for 1000s of years. We "invented" dogs, horses, cows, corn, and tons of other species via selective breeding and recently via direct genetic manipulations (ie Spider-goats and insulin producing bacteria).

So although I think that this reseach and its findings are amazing, I don't think that it will do much to further evolve the human species since we've all but removed ourselves from any selective pressures.

- One American that's pissed about the poor Math and Science educational requirements and ever decreasing separation of church and state.

Excuse me, but how exactly can something be close to infinity?

That depends on what kind of infinity we are talking about. Many models of infinity can be considered asymptotic.

Well, I don't know about that.

It might be inconsistent, though.

I can't believe slashdot doesn't even spell check their headlines.

Yeah, this is worth losing some karma over. It's about time for you to integrate ispell into slashdot, CmdrTaco!

Sorry, no, I don't have the skills to do that. However, I don't run a popular website.

I send you this in order to have your advice...

the correct expression is "per se," which means "intrinsically."

it doesn't fit anywhere in your sentence; it doesn't belong. in the future, please don't use words you don't understand; it wastes my time and it makes you look like an idiot.

have a nice day.

The paper is very, very clear and I am very, very glad that I don't run Windows. =)

While "Shatter" is a great name, it would have been a great inside joke if he called it "Defenestrate". =)

Contrarian

in fact, it is the IGNORancE of HIV that has caused it to spread. Frighteningly, people on the African continent are now consuming 80,000 tons of bushmeat (read MONKEYS) per year. HIV (2 strains) came from SIV (S= Simean) of which there are at least 30 known strains. It is only a matter of time before it gets worse.

in fact, it is the IGNORancE of HIV that has caused it to spread. Frighteningly, people on the African continent are now consuming 80,000 tons of bushmeat (read MONKEYS) per year. HIV (2 strains) came from SIV (S= Simean) of which there are at least 30 known strains. It is only a matter of time before it gets worse.

The goverment needs to make some decisions on this matter, and not just retarded stuff like the DCMA. They need to listen to the people, not just the Record companies's lobbyists.

>A crime victim using a firearm in self-defense is over 2/3 less likely to be harmed than one using another weapon.

A december 1999 study by the justice policy institute shows that America's prisons are overflowing with criminals. There are now more criminals behind bars in the USA than there are in most of the EU (if not all). Out of every 4 people you pass on the street, one of them has been to prison. Out of every 3 black people you pass on the street, one will be in jail shortly.

You talk of a country that needs to defend itself with firearms. People outside of your country see a justice system that is out of control, and we know that arming your entire country will not solve the problem. If it hasn't curbed the problem yet, why should be believe you?

What you need is a justice system that works for you. If you feel vigilante justice by the barrel of a gun is perfect for your country, why not take a look at how well that is working for other countries. Ask a friend from a third world country who would have punished him for a a serious crime.

You'll notice it isn't the police, or the justice system.

Its the people.

Vigilante justice by the barrel of a gun is the system that works for third world countries. I can guarantee you that the USA will never join the top 5 best countries to live in as long as people believe that justice should be metered out on the spot with a firearm in the potential victims hands.

>because if I or someone I know commits suicide, it is because said person made a conscious, considered decision to do so, and I respect that decision

Bullshit. Have you ever talked to someone that was saved from their suicide death? Have you ever asked them if they were in a proper state of mind to make that decision?

I think the answer is a resounding no.

>and indeed, I've found people in Texas, one of the more heavily armed of the states, to be far more trusting of their neighbors than residents of California, which has among the strongest gun control

Are people more trusting, or are they infact worried that a show of distrust and, as follows, disrespect might be met with hot lead?

What you speak of is infact the opposite of what your founding fathers wanted for this country. They wanted a peaceful country, where guns were to be used as a defence against invasion by an unlawful government. People in your country have twisted their meaning from a defence against the King of England invading, to a defence against a robber on the street.

For shame that people in your own country haven't read the true meaning written into the very lifeblood of your own country.

Allow me to quote the constitutional right being twisted by the very members of your own country:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

You, a single entity, are not a militia.

This is a militia (thanks, dictionary.com):

1. An army composed of ordinary citizens rather than professional soldiers.
2. A military force that is not part of a regular army and is subject to call for service in an emergency.
3. The whole body of physically fit civilians eligible by law for military service.

First off, the founding fathers of your country wanted you to keep guns available to you in the event an emergency happened. Clearly, a militia, which would be a citizens army, does not respond to individual crimes.

Second off, a militia is clearly not a single entity.

So why do you all have guns and want to use them to defend your individual selves? Do none of you read the foundations that made your country which everyone appears to hold so dearly?

>Those who would gain a little safety by giving up their rights -- and so depriving their children and grandchildren of those same rights -- I cannot forgive them, and much less can I become one.

As I have proved above, Benjamin Franklin didn't want it to be this way. Sorry, no dice. Benjamin Franklin was clearly speaking about 1st Amendment rights, and should be turning over in his grave like a roast on a spit right now.

>Further, allowing concealed handguns demonstrably reduces crime.

A lie which I have previously demonstrated to be a falsehood. And I provided links to my sources as well.

>Hence, using the US and Israel as data points

The US has no known nation actively attacking it. Show me where the American gaza strip is. If you think its in New York, tell me if its happened since.

Didn't think so.

Canada is the closest cousin to the US as far as law, attitude, wars, and culture goes, and it is the most valid comparison one can make. If you think the US is anything like Israel, why don't you go over there and announce you're a Palestinian?

At least in the US if you announce you are black or jewish (the people who seem to be on the most recently hated list for the US) you won't get killed (except by a handgun wielding maniac). And if you do, your government will do everything in its power to protect you, unlike Israel.

A Red Herring, if I do say to myself.

>Likewise, screaming and running away from a rapist is far more dangerous than using a firearm in defense.

Using a firearm in self defence is more likely to result in your death rather than your rape. The majority of American firearm owners are untrained and would more likely miss or graze the attacker than kill them. And if they aren't dead, guess who will be?

Oh, and last but not least, my numbers are coming from an unbiased source. A book with the title "Epidemic of Violence or Pandemic of Propaganda" sounds more like propaganda itself than an unbiased source. Did the writer of this book compile these numbers himself, or did he provide sources of government checked and verified information? Or at least sources of third party, uninvolved information?

Likely not.

The only first world country with such a lax set of gun control laws is also the country that you are most likely to end up in jail in. And it isn't even in the top 5 best countries to live in to boot. Yet your gun controlling cousins are. Explain to me the problem so serious that even your guns can't solve it.

The attitude that guns make America a safe, good place to live in isn't shared by the other 95% of the world, sorry. In fact, a now (sadly) outdated quote repeated on the Simpsons stating that a gun is more likely to kill a family member than a robber goes to show there's a lot of people living in your own country that disagree with you.

But, know what? I don't care all that much. I feel safe in my low crime country. I have walked in our largest cities without arms in the middle of the night, and the only people attacking me are people with their paper begging cups.

But, after a trip to Atlanta, the murder capital of the USA (at the time I was so informed by the news -- if it wasn't #1, I sure as hell wouldn't want to go where #1 is), I suppose I would feel like I have to carry a gun. And, as usual, control through violence sparks more violence, and so the cycle goes. Some cities on spin cycle, and some are on rinse.

I'll keep my city on rinse, thank you very much. And I'll keep my freedoms and essential liberties by being able to go where I want, and do what I want, and think what I want, as long as I don't kill anyone. And, if I really have a need to fire a handgun (and God only knows why) I'll be a police officer or a soldier. So, in effect, you lose no rights, except for the right to be a loose cannon. The majority of the world echoes back that this is a good thing, not a bad thing.

And if you're an American passerby reading this thread, I'm quite sorry for dragging your country through the mud. There's many, many, many great reasons to be an American, probably more than there are to be a Canadian, but a lack of crime through arming the populace simply isn't one of them.

Here's a clue for you too.

I don't know about User Friendly. You know, if I look here, you get the feeling that a web comic should be funny, maybe just once, ever.

User Friendly ain't it, dude. Never been funny. But it IS gayer than a submarine full of interior decorators.

The words "confirm" and "require" are very strong, indeed.

Require is strong, yes, but perhaps you should consult the definition of confirm. It is an acceptable word to use, since it can also mean the same as to reinforce or support, which is basically what evidence does. Because of confirm's other meanings however, a word such as reinforce or support may have been clearer to those who don't understand how evidence works, and thus wouldn't think to use the other meaning of confirm.

In your earlier message, BTW, you did what you accused me of doing, essentially putting words in my mouth: "I'll still say you are dumb as a post if you think Slashdot represents an unbiased and balanced news site". I didn't say that. What I said is that Slashdot exists on a spectrum of bias and balance, and is by no means the worst. I also explained why that's the case. So your statement was really irrelevant to this discussion.


How is a conditional statement based upon a supposition putting words into your mouth.. let's go back to the comprehension thing a bit shall we?

In fact, reporting gets less and less spin-free the more important to society the topic is. The SETI article was too uncontroversial to really demonstrate the point, although as I showed, it was certainly not free from bias. Try a piece about an important political decision to see much more egregious spin and bias, in even the most revered mainstream media.


Sorry - how did you really show that it was not free from bias? Your argument that I enjoyed the article because I like SETI was debunked by the fact I think SETI is a waste of money. It's about SETI researchers, and was an interview with them. All the spin, as you put it, is put in by the interview -- the SETI researchers themselves, not ABC.

The reason is that you haven't actually thought about it, in the sense of analyzing your premises and their consequences. You've simply accepted pleasant myths that others have managed to get inside your head. As a nice demonstration of this, you even manage to acknowledge the economic biases of news organizations while at the same time denying that journalists put spin on stories. This is classic rationalization, something that you have to do to maintain a belief in your worldview as consistent.

Uh, once again, I never said that news sites and journalists were not unbiased. It's really amusing though, you are so convinced that you know me and my thoughts that you like to spout these "facts" with your own bias. Ironic, isn't it? Unfortunately for your argument, I have thought about this and discussed in depth with people much more apt at debate than yourself these very things. I'll break it down to you one more time. Everything, without a doubt, is biased. Simply because everything written, authored, and viewed is based off perceptions. However, knowing this and allowing that level of grayness to seep in between biased and unbiased reporting you can then say that which falls into the factual reporting is unbiased, and that which falls into hyped, opinionated, uninformed, or sensationalized falls into the biased category. You really should stop saying things like, "belief in [my] worldview as consistent" because it makes you sound like a 14 year old trying to use big words, and is ultimately plain ass stupid to say, because you have no clue whatsoever what my worldview is. Nor do you have any idea if I believe there is such a thing as consistence in a worldview. Just for your information, I don't. Since nothing anyone can know is actually black and white true/false (Read below) nothing can be consistent.

Just as an exercise, try imagining that you're wrong and reconstructing the argument in a different way (not necessarily mine). If you can't do that, you know you've got a problem: you're locked into a single perspective. If your answer to that is "yes, because it's the right perspective", then there's probably not much hope for you.

What's the other side? There is no such thing as unbiased reporting? Define unbiased. Unbiased to the point where it reports facts and only facts? Who determines what is a fact? There are three sides to every story; Yours, Mine, and the Truth. Take that into your amatuer philosophical views and try to understand that nothing is black and white and everything is flawed because it's perceived by flawed devices (ie, you and me)

I'm not even sure what side of the argument you are on. You have failed to make any clear point other than demonstrating the well known fact of life that everyone has biases. In regards to journalism it's finding those stories where the journalist leaves them at the door, which does happen. For all you know ABC may hate SETI, but is running the story to gain tech publicity to challenge CNN. No biases there, just economic struggle.
As for my "preconceived idea of what Slashdot is" why don't you go look up what that word means, and then look at my history. I've been around /. before user accounts. Now you tell me what part of that is preconceived. I come here the same reason why people buy Weekly World News. Most the shit is stupid, but it's entertaining. This isn't a news site. If it was, they'd employ journalists, right?

Now, if you think you can disect my psyche a bit more I'd really enjoy to see it. So far you are batting a straight 0. Try to actually get to know the person you are trying to criticize and delve into -- you've jumped into way too many dangerous assumptions. You know nothing about me, yet you assert many claims about my sentiments in life -- purely because I claim that Slashdot falls into the bias side of "reporting" where as many news sites don't. I'll tell you what, go find a news site that reports blatantly assumed headlines from a story just because it follows with their majority mindset. Make sure it's on the front page, or it doesn't count. If you can do that, you've found a news site that is just as bad as Slashdot. For everyone you find, I'll find one that doesn't.

----

Enter VeriSign, a corporate giant, and ICANN, a nonprofit service that thinks it is a private -- and profitable -- corporation.

VeriSign (shouting offstage): Hey government, ICANN is taking our business!
ICANN: But you are just trying to racketeer and price gouge.
VeriSign: That's not the point. You are racketeering and we want more of the pie. Er, you are outside your jurisdiction on those matters, and are avoiding the issue.
ICANN: But we filter our money through IANA and other profitable corporations, I mean, nonprofit public benefit groups.

Two small groups, Nominet and DENIC, enter stage right.

Nominet and DENIC: But what about us? We want to work closely with VeriSign because then we can get all the names that aren't taken with .com, .net, and .org. If VeriSign can price gouge, we should be able to also.
VeriSign: You guys all wanna step into another room and we can discuss this rationally?

all step into dimly-light back room, talking. Also in the room is a demonic figure in red, with horns, a tail, and a pitchfork. All of them laugh, join hands, and become a New Entity.

New Entity: We have reached an agreement. We are now VeriSign-Nominet-ICANN-DENIC, or VeriSNIDE for short. Our new registration fee is $15000 per domain, or highest bid. Because we are Internet based, we will no longer report to any government or public entity. We will do all business from our fleet of personal yachts around the world. Please see our Lawyers and Accountants on the way out.

exit stage left.

----

Okay, so it won't be a blockbuster play, but it sure seems like the entire corporate world is following this model.

frob.

Yeah, I hate it when plot gets in the way of a good story...

Yeah, I hate it when plot gets in the way of a good story...

From dictionary.com a pun is "play on words, sometimes on different senses of the same word and sometimes on the similar sense or sound of different words."

The "pun" here is presumably on the word "heard". However, it's two identical uses of the word. Maybe a bad joke, but not a pun.