Slashdot Mirror

Programmed in the sense of "programming your VCR," or "television programming," not programming as in writing computer software.

program
[proh-gram, -gruh m]
noun
1. a plan of action to accomplish a specified end:
a school lunch program.
2. a plan or schedule of activities, procedures, etc., to be followed.
...

http://www.dictionary.com/brow...

Perhaps this might help you.

Each specie

"Species" - singular and plural are identical, like "deer".

"Specie" refers to money.

Each specie

"Species" - singular and plural are identical, like "deer".

"Specie" refers to money.

> Pity TFS author hasn't learned the difference.

It's that way in the linked article. Sad, I know.

Protip: http://www.dictionary.com/

From dictionary.com

Noun

two of the same sort considered together; pair.

1) "by January" = "If it's January, then that timeframe has passed"

2) From dictionary.com:

Idioms
14.
a couple of, more than two, but not many, of; a small number of; a few: It will take a couple of days for the package to get there.
A dinner party, whether for a couple of old friends or eight new acquaintances, takes nearly the same amount of effort.

This seems to be running fast and loose with the requirements of experimentation. One really needs to prove a hypothesis otherwise the effort is somewhat incomplete.

No, that is not the scientific method. You cannot prove a hypothesis. You can only disprove the null hypothesis.

What? Let me expand on that. Let's use an old example. Galileo at one time hypothesized, based on observations and thought, that gravity should cause two objects of different masses to accelerate at the same rate and go the same distance in the same time. But clearly, dropping a feather and a bowling ball shows that this cannot be true. Ahhh, if the hypothesis was true, then there must be a reason why feathers take so long to fall. Hypothesis: air resistance. Let's design an experiment to prove this. Well, you can't actually prove that air resistance is the cause. You can only disprove the null hypothesis, which in this case is "air resistance has nothing to do with the result." That one is easy to disprove. Simply remove air from a long tube and drop the objects without air. Since the feather and bowling ball now reach the bottom at close to the same time, the null hypothesis has been disproven. Air resistance does have an effect, and we now have support for the original hypothesis. But not proof. "Close to" or "as close as we can measure" is not "the same time." If our original hypothesis is true, then there must be some other cause for the difference. For more recent, more complicated things, scientific lifetimes are spent in both hypothesizing about the remaining causes or improving measurement techniques to make the measurement error so small that "close" starts to approach "same". (And there are lots of things we learn as we start to account for what we thought was "measurement error" and really wasn't.)

More complicated systems create more interactions, and experiments must be more carefully designed. For example, not too long ago some radio astronomers were seeing signals that looked too regular to be random. They removed all known hypothesized causes other than true alien signals. Did this prove the hypothesis that they were alien signals? Sorry, no. They finally found the cause: the microwave oven in the snack area in the building next door.

But Musk is not anywhere close to the scientific process, either. His step 3 is: "3. Develop axioms based on the evidence, and try to assign a probability of truth to each one."

What? An axiom is defined as " a self-evident truth that requires no proof." Some dictionaries include "cannot be proven" as part of the definition, with the example "For every two points P and Q there is a unique line that contains both P and Q".

So, creating axioms from evidence is not science. Creating HYPOTHESES is science. Hypotheses are statements that require, even beg for, attempts to be disproven. Axioms are what are used to build universes, like the five axioms of Euclidean geometry. You cannot prove any of the five, they are the assumed truths. In fact, there are two other geometric systems (elliptic and hyperbolic) that are based on changing the axiom regarding parallel lines that Euclidean geometry assumes.

If Musk assumes the truth he seeks to prove, then he's failing at science.

I can't disprove God exists, but to make the assumption that the entity does exist for this reason is lazy and dishonest.

No, it is neither lazy nor dishonest. You're trying to apply scientific method to religion, which is like comparing apples and oranges. You cannot prove God exists, and you cannot prove He does not. This puts the question well outside the scope of the scientific method. The only dishonesty would be trying to apply the scientific method to a question that we know cannot be answered that way.

I would suggest to stop using "lies" if you don't know what the word lie actually means: http://www.dictionary.com/brow...

And perhaps you should read the articles you link. France is abandoning nuclear power less quickly than it had planned, they are still abandoning it, so I would say: you are lying ... what is your agenda? What have you to gain from it?

BTW: the article is wrong anyway, France does no longer produce 75% of its power by nuclear power, that are old numbers, decades old.

http://www.dictionary.com/brow...

You are an idiot:
http://www.dictionary.com/brow...
Hope that helps.

The word you are looking for is specist. But to expect that species evolving in completely different biospheres would look or act at all like humans is rather anthropocentric.

Actually, I'm in Iceland, but not like it matters. And no, "public" does not in any way, shape, or form mean "not a parking garage". The word "public" has a very specific meaning. Just like the word private does. They're antonyms.

You cannot equip a grass verge with an electric plug

Yes you most certainly can. It's actually easier to install charging stations in grass than concrete. You run a trenching tool down the grass, lay down conduit, fill in the trench, and install the posts. And hey, if you don't want the posts for aesthetic reasons? No problem.

Look, the fact that you're arguing that something "can't be done" where there are places that it already is abundantly done should clue you in to the fact that you're wrong.

Actually, I'm in Iceland, but not like it matters. And no, "public" does not in any way, shape, or form mean "not a parking garage". The word "public" has a very specific meaning. Just like the word private does. They're antonyms.

You cannot equip a grass verge with an electric plug

Yes you most certainly can. It's actually easier to install charging stations in grass than concrete. You run a trenching tool down the grass, lay down conduit, fill in the trench, and install the posts. And hey, if you don't want the posts for aesthetic reasons? No problem.

Look, the fact that you're arguing that something "can't be done" where there are places that it already is abundantly done should clue you in to the fact that you're wrong.

obnoxiousness
       

Wow! As you could guess by my name, English isn't my first language and you made me search for a definition to a word that I had never searched for before.

And guess the funniest part? The origin a the word is Latin according to:
http://www.dictionary.com/brow...

Thanks a lot, dear Slashdot user!

---
Nancy Guerrero
Director
Special Education
Santa Clara County Office of Education

so they have the process rather down packed

Just an aside, the phrase is down pat .

Ever since Schiller's said that word, it's nearly lost all meaning.

I'd say it's gained a meaning. In addition to "the quality of mind or spirit that enables a person to face difficulty, danger, pain, etc., without fear; bravery ...", the word now also signifies "defensiveness about one's flawed logic and poor aesthetic sense, arising from a grandiose persecution complex".

Define massive.

AKA:bigly

"The FCC seems dead set on killing net neutrality, but they have to answer to Congress, and Congress has to answer to us, their constituents," said Evan Greer...

Isn't that cute? Don't get me wrong, I love it that this is how the constitutional republic works in theory, but if you can't get 50% of the people to vote once every four years, a grass-roots uproar loud enough for the governors to listen to is unlikely on the order of hen's teeth in your omelet.

Do i need to post the definition of "resistant" for you?

You of course could have just done so instead of coyly asking, but I'll do you one better -- let's take a look at definitions of the much more germane "water-resistant": Resisting though not entirely preventing the penetration of water; Able to resist the penetration of water to some degree but not entirely. You get the picture.

This is not complicated. Either "sweat resistant" means something different than "sweat-proof" or they mean the same thing. You sound like you want them to mean the same thing (even though it's crystal-clear they don't), but you're not forthright enough just to say that.

If you have something new to say, please do and I'm happy to discuss, but otherwise I'm done putting the rattle back up on the high chair for this one.

An illegal alien is someone who enters the country illegally. Stop making up stories to make criminal acts appear non criminal because it fits a political agenda. By your logic, I can break into your house and it's not a crime unless I broke in before.

Since firefox have disregarded what was great about their browser, i.e. the extensions, they are effectively killing it.

Disregarded them by providing a better frame work and a whole 2 year period for developers to port over? Let me help you: http://www.dictionary.com/brow...

you know, words have meanings.

They only mean what they are commonly understood to mean

Yes, there may be some ambiguity, but that's why we can use dictionaries and such stuff to make sure everyone means the same.

A dictionary tries to describe that, it doesn't define it.

Which by definition means "to use Google"

Unless it doesn't. A reality already documented here. Indeed this dictionary ranks the proper noun as the most common, followed by the generic usage of the verb, with the google specific usage of the verb BELOW the generic usage of the verb.

http://www.dictionary.com/brow...

Again dictionaries just describe usage. So this dictionary is no more the authority than the other one, but it does back up my claim that clearly my usage is well recognized given that it is already appearing in some dictionaries. Its a recent evolution, so it would be surprising to see all dictionaries updated to agree.

Hopefully we'll stick to our principals

Stick to your principals? What?

Why.

This is like closing the barn door after the horses have run away. We've already been impacted by plenty of fragments from Mars, comets, etc. If there's life elsewhere, it's possible it started via panspermia Then again, that's a pretty big "if" - there's no evidence one way or the other that there's life elsewhere - just WAGs made by wags (definition # 11 - someone not to be taken seriously)..

one of the first things people would be able to do for the first time ever is pour over the source

Pour what over the source? Pour sauce over the source? Where would they source the sauce to pour over the source? I will have to pore over my sauce recipes to find one suitable for pouring over source.

Cite the OED and the point shall be conceded.

The dictionary doesn't cover grammar, but it is clearly in there as a word:
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/speeded

"verb (used with object), sped or speeded, speeding."

Then there's the usage:
http://grammarist.com/usage/sped-speeded/

Not to mention you seem to be under the mistaken belief that a words existence follows the dictionary, instead of the other way around.
Again, if you don't understand a topic...

There is an old saying "just know enough to be dangerous" and that is exactly what applies here. Learned enough to set up a dangerous, if fact very dangerous network but don't bother to learn more to secure it. This applies across all professions, which is why there are so many licensing boards, idiots learn enough to do the job badly and then go ahead and do it, just very badly. This often ties in with another saying, greed driven stupidity, where greed overcomes common sense and people don't bother to look any further than the imaginary dollar signs, also gold fever http://www.dictionary.com/brow....

The response of the postgresql folks was something like "how about we finish porting it from lisp, first?"

Hah!

Why do tech. people give things wacky names? Things that are rusty get thrown away. On the other hand, if they wanted a wacky name, why didn't they go all the way and call the Rust language "Feces"? Okay then, how about "Vomit"?

"Lisp" is a speech impediment.

"Gimp" is a person who limps or is lame.

But hey! Why voluntarily restrict technology names to only 1 alphabet? "LaTeX" LaTeX uses Greek letters, also, and requires two paragraphs in the Wikipedia article to explain the name.

Your problem is that not only do you not understand what you are talking about, you don't even have the humility to acknowledge that someone besides yourself might be right. How about you assume nothing and refute my assertions with facts proven in science (and no, theories pulled out of some random PhD's ass is not interchangeable with hard science) instead of assuming (incorrectly) that you know more than others.

If you were actually familiar with testing, you would know that there are all manner of methods for accelerating natural phenomena (temperature, agitation, chemical preparation with precursors or the most favorable composition, simulating hundreds of lightning strikes per minute, etc). If you had actually read up on the subject, you would know that myriad of different methods have been tried to accelerate the "mineral soup to life" chemical evolution concept, and all have failed comically.

The reality is that even the most basic form of life (the bacteria, viruses being alive is questionable) is more complicated (in terms of individual moving parts) than the most complicated machine man has built (the microprocessor or space shuttle, take your pick). Bacteria are not simple and have their own DNA, organelles, proteins, etc. They are microscopic biological machines that do the same things that we do: they replicate, work together, adapt, etc all on their own http://scienceblogs.com/oscill... The argument that a bacteria, the simplest form of life that we know of, formed randomly by chance is pure fiction. Back in my day (and still, apparently: http://www.dictionary.com/brow... ), abiogenesis was known as chemical evolution (minerals to more and more complex chemicals, proteins, DNA etc until it became alive). The problem is it is pure fiction.

The only 'cloud' I associate with Microsoft is the miasma they continually produce.

What are you talking about? CNN isn't threatening him. Not by any legal or moral standard

That's equivocating bullshit.

No, it is a flat-out denial. You do know what equivocation is, don't you?

If you wanted to call it bullshit, that'd be one thing, but you added a modifier that does not actually fit the situation.

The meaning of their statement is clear.

Yes, quite clearly, they reserve the right to change their actions if circumstances change. Their actions were conditional, and they weren't treating the information as confidential, but subject to being revealed.

Neither a threat, coercion, nor intimidation, no matter how MUCH you want it to be so.

No, that doesn't make "que" an English word.

Let's check that... Que... chiefly Californian for barbeque... Que... abbreviation for Quebec... Looks like an English word to me. http://www.dictionary.com/brow... [dictionary.com]

The OP was not talking about BBQs in French Canada though, was he?

No, that doesn't make "que" an English word.

Let's check that... Que... chiefly Californian for barbeque... Que... abbreviation for Quebec... Looks like an English word to me.

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/que

It means no such thing since like your sex life, it doesn't exist.

Not sure how my sexuality (or lack thereof) is relevant to this discussion.

No, they're firmly against being forced, literally at the point of a gun with threat of jail time and having their possessions taken away, to be generous. Liberals LOVE to be generous with other people's money, and even more so when they can make people criminals if they're not generous in exactly the way that obeys their ideology.

I'll take that over Conservatives, who want to make people criminals for being generous by giving out food and shelter to the homeless, providing medical care, and their sexual lives.

Asking for help from (and offering help to) like-minded people isn't even remotely the same as being forced on pain of imprisonment to do the same thing, after, of course, also being forced to pay for a huge body of government middle-men and their supporting infrastructure that do exactly nothing towards the actual expense (say, funding a surgery) being met.

Actually, in the US, very little of your expenses go towards funding the surgery. There's a reason why so many other countries spend less per capita, and yet achieve better results. It isn't the middle-men though, it's the skimming off the top, the landscapers, the interior decorators, and the golf courses. Oh yes, it's the RICH guys getting richer, not the government workers.

But I don't get any government-provided health care.

Actually, you do, lots and lots of it. Go out and say thanks.

I do, though, now have to pay several times more for government-required features on my health insurance, like ... mandated full maternity coverage for a couple that won't be having any babies.

Nope. You don't pay one bit more, in fact, you pay LESS, because the insurer actually recognizes SIGNIFICANT savings in expenses based on covering maternity care, rather than ignoring it.

And of course, absolutely zero actual health care in exchange for thousands of dollars in required payments, until over thirteen thousand more has been spent in cash, first. That's all in addition to taxes, of course.

Nope! The government isn't doing that. In fact, you're lying about it. Fortunately for you, you're not under oath, so nobody in government can do a thing about it. But we can call you a liar.

Still, you accidentally made a good point. Paying a ton of taxes should indeed entitle one to the services one buys with those taxes. What about the people who don't actually pay any taxes?

Indeed, infants should be put to work in tiny areas, after all, we spent lots and lots of money on the little parasites. Some of them cost over a million dollars in the first months of their life. And what do they do? Scream and poop.

And how do you define "adequate?"

Using a dictionary. What are you, a moron? I bet you don't even know the difference between "define" and "determine" either.

Should Grandma get a $50,000 knee replacement surgery and all of the surrounding care because it would make her a little more comfortable?

Knee replacement surgery can be done for under 12,000 in Germany. I suggest you stop overpaying, and eliminate the overhead and waste. You know those hospitals with extensive landscaping and water fountains, and interior decorating? Yeah, turns out your money is being spent on that, not actual medical care. That's right, funding your surgery pays for a lot of excess, not actual medical care.

That's not even supporting infrastructure. That's just a bunch of money being wasted. Ask Rick Scott, he knows.

OK. But wouldn't she also be more comfortable in a newer car that doesn't cramp her right leg so much?

Also, when did we become a species?

Since forever.

3. Logic.
One of the classes of things included with other classes in a genus.
The set of things within one of these classes.

Because, as you say, 'some people' can't seem to control themselves when it comes to smartphone usage (which also by the way is in part due to the enabling influence of wireless companies and other companies that profit from increasing smartphone usage), which also includes rampant usage of smartphones while people are operating a motor vehicle, we may end up with legislation of some sort or another. Then everyone will scream and cry and whine about it, much like the drone fanbois do, about how it's so unfair, when the fact of the matter is that too many people will have made their beds and now must lie in it, and everyone else who has been responsible with their smartphone all this time will be forced to pay the price for everyone elses' excesses and abuses.

LUDDITES don't use any equipment that has tabs or spaces ... or APPS.

No son, that is not what influence means: http://www.dictionary.com/brow...

Sit down at the goddamned table and figure out how the
hell HUMANITY is going to survive another 1000 years
without blowing each other the fuck up over this fucking
COMPETITION of yours.

The economy - of any country - is a competition for resources. Take the most homogeneous, socialist northernmost Scandinavian country - Norway or Sweden - and it's still a competition for resources. Take a heterogeneous country that's only relatively recently been hewn from the frontier, like the US and it is most assuredly a competition for resources. Even with disinterested technocrats (which is a fantasy construct, like unicorns - all humans have preferences and desires) allocating resources, people are still going to compete to accrue more resources.

And if within any country it is a competition, you may rest assured externally it is more so of a competition.

It doesn't need to be violent. There can be accepted rules of the game, like baseball or football. But, like, don't like it, doesn't matter. It is what it is.

2nd definition at http://www.dictionary.com/brow...

2. to appropriate (ideas, credit, words, etc.) without right or acknowledgment.

And what exactly led you to believe the claims that Zestimate is an appraisal? And besides, the header here says "Nobody believes the Zestimates", so what is the problem?

Oh, perhaps it could be THE FUCKING DEFINITION OF "APPRAISAL"!?!?!

2. an estimate of value, as for sale, assessment, or taxation; valuation.

Sheesh.

FWIW - Zillow explicitly says: "The Zestimate is just a starting point. Let us connect you with someone who can give you a professional evaluation." They also say that their Zestimate can be wrong if they don't have the right information and home owners that claim a properly on Zillow can edit the "Facts" about the property to update the information.

However, every realtor I've ever discussed says right out that Zillow shouldn't be trusted. IOW, if the person filing the suit is really in the real estate industry (as they claim) then they would know that it's common knowledge that Zillow values shouldn't be trusted and every buyer/seller is advised of that when working with an agent to buy/sell a home - thereby negating the entire claim before the court.

There is also very little evidence that a Zestimate does a proper appraisal - finding appropriately comparable homes and making the correct adjustments as a professional appraiser would do.

And what exactly led you to believe the claims that Zestimate is an appraisal? And besides, the header here says "Nobody believes the Zestimates", so what is the problem?

Oh, perhaps it could be THE FUCKING DEFINITION OF "APPRAISAL"!?!?!

2. an estimate of value, as for sale, assessment, or taxation; valuation.

Sheesh.

Correction: pour->pore.

See here.

hoards vs hordes

TMYK!

hoards vs hordes

TMYK!

What is interesting it the foolish choice of langauge, they are making a recommendation 'anything that serves to recommend a person or thing, or induce acceptance or favour.', http://www.dictionary.com/brow.... They are recommending a product or service based upon their reputation and no longer broadcaster of advertisements. They are taking on legal liability for the quality of that product or service, as Facebook has now publicly stated it is a recommendation. So Facebook, you recommended a product, I bought i based upon that recommendation and it turned out to be shit, so you will be hearing from my lawyer.

It even brings to mind that whole thing about targeted advertisements, they are targeting you with the promotion of a specific product, basically presenting it qualities as promoted as being real and truth and targeted at you specifically. So they have analysed the product, analysed you and matched that product to you, to get you to buy it, so what happens when it turns out to be shite, how are they not liable for that targeted manipulation and false claims presented with regard to that product. Keep in mind it was specifically targeted at you, not a random ad, but a targeted, as it turned out scam, that targeting makes them liable.

The advantage of open source it is very hard to sneak stuff in or leave bugs in there because every countries across the board can take a squiz http://www.dictionary.com/brow... at the code, unlike closed source. So when they find a bug, it is not like they can secure their own without the rest finding out, so in spy vs spy open source tends by the nature of it's design to be neutral territory (not that they would not hack it but secure it for one, secure it for all and blinding hoping the fully visible bugs wont be found is like sitting on a mine and hopping for the best).

What the fuck is the article even about. M$ is inside every single mug punter, nothing voluntary about it what so ever http://www.zdnet.com/article/w.... Yep, uh huh, people volunteer for the M$ probe, stick it in deeper, oh yeah, twist it about, on yeah, pump it harder. Volunteer to stick windows 10 on a box and M$ gives you no choice, routinely fucking over the semi, somewhat, sometimes pretend privacy settings.

Those insiders and inside nothing, M$ is inside them, schmucks. Insider http://www.dictionary.com/brow..., so what special inside information do they get, none what so ever, so M$ double speak, when they say you are an insider, they actually mean they are the insider "a person belonging to a limited circle of persons who understand the actual facts in a situation or share private knowledge", that's you private knowledge they are digging into.

If your opinion is based on a continued and intentional misunderstanding of a word, then that also makes you stupid. \You holding a misplaced opinion that Sarkeesian is sexist does not in fact make her sexist

Dictionary definition of sexist: relating to, involving, or fostering sexism, or attitudes and behavior toward someone based on the person's gender: a sexist remark