Slashdot Mirror

well i doubt that 4 or l8 will ever be included in websters, but i would wager TTYL will be there by the end of 2010, also yo is already included and is in fact middle english. http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary/yo

...they wouldn't give me the resources and the free reign to do something useful.

the whole idea of "Homeland Security Departments" was hatched by liberals

Explain.

How is a step towards a police state a "liberal" idea, exactly?

They aren't calling for a ban. They think the game is a bad thing and want to discourage parents from allowing their children to play.

Ban means "to prohibit especially by legal means" (Merriam-Webster).

They're exercising a free speech right, not trying to infringe on others'.

No No No- None of this inventing words crap. We're going to have another edu-tainment for kids or something silly like that.

Why not just adapt what people consider to be a game. We all know what games are, but they just have a general negative ora about them. A game can be many things and people need to realize it's more than playing Street Fighter in the arcade, or tetris on a GameBoy, or those handheld games that play a single game on the unit using crappy LCDs. Games have evolved and are considered anything interactive and entertaining.

So as opposed to making up a new word, why not just let the word 'game' adjust in people's minds. The definition is right for all of those ( http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/game ) "activity engaged in for diversion or amusement".

A game is something different to different people. A club to an adult may be a strip club. A restaurant to a rich person probably doesn't include Boston Market. The word is correct, but is interpreted differently depending on the market (in this case mostly age/maturity level).

-M

"Main Entry: layoff
Pronunciation: 'lA-"of
Function: noun
1 : a period of inactivity or idleness
2 : the act of laying off an employee or a workforce; also : SHUTDOWN "

Frankly, I speak English, and this half-arsed corporatisation of American colloquia needs to stop. It's not attractive, and it makes British ears very unhappy.

Not for nothing, but this verbization* of words by damn British colloquia hurts my sensitive American ears.

At least I know that countrymen is one word.

Perhaps you are not so superior to those you feel the need to denigrate.

I don't think of Africa in the way you ascribed me, why do you generally assume others do?

http://www.wordreference.com/definition/leverage

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=leverage

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Diction ary&va=leverage

I'd like to point out something here... EVERYONE here *assumed* that "Aryan" meant "Aryan Nation".

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/aryan

Aryans are a group of people, a race. By making this assumption, you put an entire race of people in the same 'bucket' as a small group of people who believe their race is superior (the Aryan Nation doesn't have the lockhold on this). How is that any different than someone seeing something referencing homosexuality and assuming they're talking about predatory homosexuals whose intent is to 'convert' people or to help them find their 'inner gay'?

Tyranny? What tyranny are you talking about? As a form of government, all power must be concentrated on a single individual. It isn't in the U.S. You want to have a look at tyranny? Try Cuba or North Korea.

Tyranny in the sense of "oppressive power" exerted by the government? Where do you see that in the U.S., really? You can speak out against the government without fear of retribution from the government. You don't get to make threats, you don't get to put people in danger, but you do get to voice your opinion. You can even talk to a member of Al Qaeda if you like, but you shouldn't expect the call to be private. If you really want to see "oppressive power" exerted by the government (i.e. a police state), have a look at Iran.

Or did you mean tyranny in the form of "a rigorous condition imposed by some outside agency or force?" If you compare the rule of law in the U.S. to a system of anarchy, then yes, the American government may be a bit tyrranical. But how about some real comparisons to, say, China? This particular sense of the word is relative, and relative to the rest of the nations in the world, the U.S. government comes off pretty well.

You may not have intended to use a word with such force. There is real tyrrany in this world, but you will be hard-pressed to find it in any real sense here in the U.S., with the possible exception of the corporate world. If you really did mean to apply that word to the U.S., then I must take exception to such hyperbole. It diminishes the language. Granted, that's just my opinion.

I tried looking up Quickified. It couldn't find anything, but it suggested quizzical which seems appropiate.

P.S. Stop making so many good MMO's. My time and money are unfortunately finite values.

Let me introduce you to a new word: who.

Let me also introduce you to a new concept: commas.

Let me introduce you to a new word: who.

Let me also introduce you to a new concept: commas.

If Kerry looks better than Bush on Wikipedia, it likely isn't due to "propaganda".


Propaganda. noun.

1 capitalized : a congregation of the Roman curia having jurisdiction over missionary territories and related institutions
2 : the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person
3 : ideas, facts, or allegations spread deliberately to further one's cause or to damage an opposing cause; also : a public action having such an effect


Seems to me like it pretty clearly is propaganda. That doesn't necessarily make it false, but it was clearly put there by people who wanted to further their cause and damage an opponent's cause. Whether or not you agree with them has no bearing on whether or not its propaganda.

I see now. Since the government isn't supposed to engage in entrapment, private companies will. And since private companies are now becoming increasingly indistinguishable from governments... I guess we're all fucked.

Are you so anxious to hate private businesses, and to think it's cool if people try to make $20 off of their stolen source code, that you're willing to pretend this jerk didn't advertise for the sale of the source code on his own web site? He wasn't "entrapped," he was advertising stolen stuff. Plus, he's obviously a complete moron.

As for private companies looking after their own welfare... why do you supposed that retailers are forced to have security guards? Retails stores, especially the ones selling expensive, eBay-friendly stuff, are hit constantly by shoplifters and scam artists. But most local taxpayers would scream bloody murder if they had to pay for enough police officers to have one on hand in every department store in every mall, 7 days a week. So, private security is a big and (unfortunately) completely necessary line of work.

You also seem to be forgetting about corporate/international espionage. Companies working on competitive products - especially those performing very expensive research - have to be continually vigilant against both inside and outside theft of their trade secrets, materials, financial plans, marketing campaigns, etc. If they don't use private security to help them deal with that, their only choice is to just put up with the consequences of seeing, say, a factory in China starting up production on something that the ripped-off research company just spent millions of dollars figuring out how to make, or they could... ask the government to provide trade security for every company? What would you say then, that the taxpayers are being forced to serve the coporations, blah blah blah? Exactly. So, when a company with a lot at stake has their own security people urgently tracking down people that are ripping them off (even some complete idiot advertising astoundingly sensitive stolen O/S source code for sale on his web site, and willing to take $20 for it), you can hardly bitch. Unless your position is that it's cool to steal sensitive information and sell it, in which case, let's start with yours: I can probably make $20 with your SSN and some other personal details. And that's too small to bother the police with, so I'm home free since you clearly don't think it's ethical for you to personally track down someone who rips you off.

Oh, and try one of those fancy new high-tech online dictionaries. You can immediately, and without fear of prosecution, learn what entrapment actually means.

Perhaps you should consider the meaning of this word:

joke

Concering the federal level, it would probably be best to make it non-partisan.

One of the (lesser) definitions Websters has for politics is the total complex of relations between people living in society and involved not only speaking of things from one's own point-of-view (to ensure that your point-of-view is considered) but also allowing (demanding?) that others speak from their own point-of-view (to ensure you haven't missed something important).

Today, when we talk about politics we're almost always discussing it in it's partisan meaning; the art or science concerned with winning and holding control over a government.

It's important to note that the former definition of politics is tied closely with democracy but that the latter definition is applicable to any form of government.

I'd view this as a sign that we, culturally, are distancing ourselves from democracy and instead employing a kind of common hubris wherein we believe that we are right and therefore our opponents must be wrong.

Unilateralism serves us well, but only so long as we are the ones in power. Shortsighted and dangerous, I'd call it.

We have seen these turns before in history, in the rise of authoritarian and sometimes totalitarian governments, and always to disasterous effect.

It almost seems as if we humans are incapable of understanding that sometimes we, ourselves, are not perfect, not omnipotent, and capable of seeing the correct long-term path only with the aid of others perspectives.

Perhaps we need self-doubt more than we might be willing to admit?

a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action

Now, just as Google becomes choked with spamblogs and linkfarms and results bought and paid for by SEOs, I am once again ceding competitiveness in the most important part of Internet media.

If you are a shareholder, and this bothers you, please remember you bought stock in a company WHOSE NAME MEANS FUCKING IDIOT.

Thank you, and have a nice day.

Lazy: 1 a : disinclined to activity or exertion : not energetic or vigorous--http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/lazy

EXAMPLE

>It's almost as bad as that non-sensical word: irregardless.

That same dictionary you linked has this to say about that word (it's my favourite word, I love to use it to infuriate english teachers -- it's the one time I can tell *them* to look up something in a dictionary and that they should get themselves educated):

The most frequently repeated remark about it [irregardless] is that "there is no such word." There is such a word, however. It is still used primarily in speech, although it can be found from time to time in edited prose.

So, I say, irregardlessly, you're just plain wrong.

You are right about champing at the bit, however. But if you're going to correct someone's use of words, you should try to ensure your entire post is correct!

chomping at the bit

Champing! Champing at the bit! God, that drives me insane when people say "chomping". Not only is "chomping" wrong, it's also sounds stupid.

Champing

It's almost as bad as that non-sensical word: irregardless.

OP AC was me.

A lier is one who lies.

Heres a merriam Webster reference. Towards the bottom the have an audio pronounciation for you as well.

"5a) usually disparaging : a poor usually Southern white"

Not saying it's not true, but when I "look it up" at places like Merriam-Webster, I see a lot about "government" and nothing about "corporate".

Main Entry: libertine
Pronunciation: 'li-b&r-"tEn
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English libertyn freedman, from Latin libertinus, from libertinus, adjective, of a freedman, from libertus freedman, from liber
1 usually disparaging : a freethinker especially in religious matters
2 : a person who is unrestrained by convention or morality; specifically : one leading a dissolute life - libertine adjective

Presumably, things would go this way:

(Sulu walks onto the bridge.)

Kirk: Sulu! Oh my god. It's ancient Sulu from the future! Gods, man! Sulu, what happened. WHAT HAPPENED?!?!? (grabbing upper arms and shaking him)

Sulu: Captain, I bring you a warning. You're gonna die a stupid death. On the positive side, it'll be climbing around on Wile-e-Coyote-style rock formations in California just like you always loved doing, like with the Gorn and that Plato guy and your old girlfriend or whoever the hell that ghosty chick was.

(Kirk looks as Spock. Spock raises an eyebrow.)

Sulu: Did you know you have a son? By the way, the Klingon's moon Praxis is going to explode in about 20 years. You might want to subtly encourage them via clandestine CIA manipulation to dump even more antimatter waste and neutronium. Perhaps it can take out their entire starsystem.

Kirk: You're kidding!

Sulu: I wish I were! (Suddenly looks woozy.)

Kirk: (catches him as he starts to fall.) Kirk to sickbay. Medical emergency on the bridge!

Sulu: Also...

Kirk: Also, what?

Sulu: Also...you must, you must destroy the Crusher family line. Just hand out some condoms to the ones currently alive should be sufficient. You need to...you need to....agk!

Kirk: Need to what? To WHAT? (shakes him gently again)

(McCoy runs in and waves the medical tricorder saltshaker thingie over him.) His career is dead, Jim.

Hmm...that's funny I was always pretty sure that word existed long before the "blogosphere"...and look even Mirriam Webster lists it: http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/meme

explain how the undoing of a terrible act can be noble.

www.m-w.com
1 a : possessing outstanding qualities : ILLUSTRIOUS b : FAMOUS, NOTABLE (noble deeds)
3 a : possessing very high or excellent qualities or properties (noble wine) b : very good or excellent
5 : possessing, characterized by, or arising from superiority of mind or character or of ideals or morals : LOFTY (a noble ambition)

(I skipped definitions 2 and 4 because I didn't think you wanted to hear about nobility or noble gases)

Seems to me that reversing a terrible act would be a *good* thing, kinda like in definition 3b there.

Rain on your wedding day is not ironic. It is just bad luck.

Discriminating against chinese in WOW is not racist

Wow (not the abbreviation, the exclamation), what an (oxy)moron. You obviously have no clue want the word racism means. Let me throw out a few definitions from the wiktionary:

• The belief that capability or behavior can be racially defined.
• Aggression or discriminatory behavior towards members of a certain race or races.
• Aggression or discriminatory behavior based upon differences in ethnicity.
• Opportunity inequality resulting from preferential treatment towards others of a similar cultural background.

I'm sure a few others probably fit, also. Don't like the community definition? Let me give you Webster's (italics are mine):

1. a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority [or inferiority] of a particular race
2. racial prejudice or discrimination

Your statements definitely fit both of those definitions. I hate to say it, but 1) you're wrong, and 2) you're a racist. I always find it funny how many people are racist and don't even know it. But then, that's one of the worst kinds of racism: the kind that hides behind the old "But I'm justified!" excuse. It is also sad how those people's justfication breaks down when you look at their hideously racist characterizations such as:

the fact is that a bunch of people whose only unifying characteristic is bad chinglish steal.

God, you really are pathetic. Definitely one of the worst excuses for an American that I've ever seen. It's people like you that make people like me ashamed when we're in the company of foreigners. I'm just glad that generally speaking, they aren't as narrowminded as you are, and realize that we're not all such tiny-brained little bigots.

I apologize on behalf of my (sometimes twisted and shameful) country to all Asians out there who might have read this. I assure you that most of my fellow countrymen and countrywomen actually like playing online with you, and we do not regard you as this idiot does.

The word you were searching for is "codec". The plural form is "codecs". A codex is something completely different.

Speaking of the UK/OZ/NZ "maths", I have an Aussie client who refers to any mathematics I do (for him) as "sums" (doesn't matter if it's addition or what). Granted, he's not a mathematician (neither am, i'm a programmer and rely on mathworld to remind me of all the math I didn't pay attention to in school while busy oogling over girls I couldn't get with), but he is quite a shrewd businessman.

Speaking of school and math... I was in highschool less than 10 years ago, and we were allowed to use graphing/programmable calculators for our math classes (including tests). I consistantly failed math tests. Not because I would get the answers wrong, quite the contrary -- I would get all the answers right. Using the programming capabilities of my calculator, I would write small applications to essentially do my homework and complete tests with speed. The teachers failed me due to the fact that I didn't show my work. Then treated me like a wise guy when I started to print out the application code prior to tests and hand it in along with the completed tests. Oddly, it turns out... I do math and programming every day in the "real world", so it's too bad that they didn't embrace the method I had for completing my tasks. (Later on I found out that, other kids would use the programming cabilities of their calculators just to make crib sheets for science courses... so I really think it was a good way to apply my calculator in class in the long run, and it was overlooked by my teachers).

Also... Another point is, if you're a street smart person who maybe doesn't directly use mathematics... You DO rely on others for your mathematics needs at some point. If it's just the cash register at 7/11 or if you hire a team of programmers, somehow, somewhere you DO rely on math and it's a part of your everyday life. I believe mathematics were developed by mankind out of sheer necessity and to describe things in everyday life ("How many units of grain will we need for the winter given a population of X people?", "How far is it from point A to point B?", etc etc) and you are doing some amount of math in your head throughout the day.

Lastly... Turns out that the word "sums" is being used properly by my client according to merriam-webster, check out Sums, defintition 5b

Slashdot ate my first submission attempt:

Technically, a century is a period of 100 years, not necessarily starting at a year numbered xx00 in the Christian calendar, so he could have meant 'earlier in the last 100 years', which is interestingly enough probably what he was trying to express.

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/century

"Irregardless" is a horrible word to use in any discussion whre you want to be taken seriously. This is probably one of the most common "bad words that intelligent people throw into a conversation, and few people questions it's misuse" that you will find.

References: World Wide Words

Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary

American Heritage Dictionary

Get It Write

And don't feel like I am calling you an idiot. My father spent YEARS giving me crap about this. lol

Do you even know what volatile means?

Tell you what, why don't you take a look at this:

The key gasoline characteristic for good driveability is volatility -- the gasoline's tendency to vaporize.

Maybe you should go tell Chevron that Gasoline isn't volatile. They've only made tens of billions of dollars on their understanding of gasoline, perhaps your new information would allow them to make more.

That's unclear based on the dictionary definition of burn:
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/burn
(see the verb definitions).

I would tend to agree with the definition that burn means the oxygen reaction, but I included the bit about chemical explosives because I thought that would be the clearer version.

The actual definition of literally, though, does allow for the OP's usage:

http://www.answers.com/literally&r=67
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/literally

But actually, it doesn't:

http://www.answers.com/literally&r=67
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/literally

Now that i've let everyone give me a hard time:

http://www.answers.com/literally&r=67
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/literally

That's clever reasoning, but the dictionary disagrees with you:

atheist: one who believes that there is no deity

agnostic: one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/atheist
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/agnostic

That's clever reasoning, but the dictionary disagrees with you:

atheist: one who believes that there is no deity

agnostic: one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/atheist
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/agnostic

administrate

Pronunciation: -"strAt
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): -trated; -trating
Etymology: Latin administratus, past participle of administrare
: ADMINISTER

kthxbye

Read the fucking dictionary yourself you moron. It has two meanings, and the parent's usage has been used by such writers as Jane Austen, Mark Twain and James Joyce. If you are going to be a pendantic prick, at least be right.

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/literally should set you straight.

See http://www.slate.com/id/2129105/ for more info.

FWIW:
apologia - a defense especially of one's opinions, position, or actions

Yes, it's the admin's job to enable you to do yours. Within reason.

Wrong. It's the admin's job to get me the tools I need to do my job within the bounds of security. No other factor is valid grounds for turning down privledges.

However, since they are the admins, and you're the "incoming", then it's good practice to understand why things are done the way they are, before deciding that the reason you're not getting your way is because the admins are power-mad BOFH's.

It sounds like you're trying to cast me as the newbie. That's wrong. I'm an expert at what I do (development) and know the issues involved with administration; although I'm not an expert at it (if I did it for a living, I would be). It's not hard to tell when some admin is trying to blow smoke up my ass, and I don't care if he's doing it because he's lazy, because he's stupid, because he is actually a power-mad BOFH, or some combination thereof.

Note that extreme preoccupation isn't on that list. Admins have to prioritize their work the same way other folks do.

In spite of what Dilbert has so cleverly shown, it is not out of the realm of possibility (and commonplace) for there to be procedures in place for a reason. Furthermore, environments are so varied that what might be a "sure, we can do that" at one company, would be a "no way in hell, and here's why" at another.

Nobody is suggesting circumventing intelligent procedures. The whole reason I started posting in this story is because the sense of almost every post in it is laughably misaligned with the real world (leading me to believe that it's mostly admins posting in it (all the developers who aren't on vacation are too busy working)). The admin's job is to fulfill the needs of developers. If he _ever_ answers ``no way in hell,'' then he's not doing his job and needs to be traded in for a better model. Again, this is only in response to requests for the proper resources. Requests for the one and only root password to the main production server don't count, although I'm not surprised you can't make the distinction. You seem to be dead set on defending the admins above the developers, when it's really a symbiotic relationship. The only qualifier is that without the job needing to be done and developers needing secure computers to do it (and not having time to admin the computers themselves), there'd be no need for administrators.

when it comes to admins that don't jump the very second you command it.

But that's his job, adjusting for common sense, of course. (Since you sound like bleating, stupid admins I've dealt with before, here's the definition: common sense. You need to click on the different colored words, and it'll take you to a page with the definition.)

Basically sounds to me like you're a developer-brat with a chip on his/her shoulder

That's your opinion. Keep doin' that. Hopefully you'll run into a BOFH who actually has management support and get shown the door. Sadly, that'll probably have little effect on your personality problems, but I'd pay to see it, nonetheless.

Around here, our admins have developer support. When a developer is having to doing the admin's job as well as his own, or worse, counteract bad actions on the part of the admin, then it's time to show that admin the door.

As for my personality, it makes my company money. I have good relationships with people around me (admins included, because we've got some damned good ones who know their shit). I just have little suffering for fools and even less tolerance for broken policies that hold the opinions of fools in high esteem.

It's dangerous to have the decisions made by any position be set in stone because of what can happen when a fool holds that position. Wow, have issues much?

No, because our admins are terrific.

Sigh.
I'll say it again, since even when you spend a lot of time linking back to this here thread you can't seem to understand any of it: I saw a documentary on the decision process for the design of the next generation of fighter planes that had numerous of the interviewed people invoke the "looks weird" nature of one of the designs as a reasonable grounds to reject it.

Was that clear enough?

They also had a number of other people, and some of the same, talk about miscelaneous other points, such as the navy, marines and airforce all wanting different things... the navy being really fond of twin engines was one of them. This was a documentary, ya know, an hour long show with a bunch of interviews, and a voiceover narration, and graphics... I'm sure you've heaqrd of them. It can, in the course of a whole hour, have more than one signle thing put forward. The "looks weird" notion was a recurring theme, as I meant by "I was watching a documentary on the race to build the next generation fighter jet, and time and time again, the main argument in favor of the X22 was that the other design looked weird."
See, when I use the word "main" I meant here "expressing the chief predication in a complex sentence"
Some dumbasses interpret "main" to mean "one and only, unique, sole and lonesome point", apparently. That's too bad, it's not hard to get to a dictionary, they really should try it some day.

And for some reason, someone assumed I was talking about another contestant agains the F22, since there was more than one (as inconceivable as that might seem to some of you). See, sometimes the real world has more than two factors in it at one time, I know this complexity can be taxing, but do try to cope.
Anyway, he was wrong about the X23, I wasn't talking about that plane with the funky "hex" wings when I said the design looked weird, I meant the stout "big mouth" plane. Said plane was rejected for a more conventional-looking design.

Apparently, some people think I made up the fact that interviewed engineers and military personnel were cited in a televised documentary as saying that the unconvewntional look of a military plane design was a factor taken into consideration when it was rejected. I didn't make that up, no matter how much some people claim that people like that wold never say such a thing... I don't care that they assume that such individuals would never say something like that. Their assumption are in confict with the observed facts.

or here or here or here or here or here or here or here or here or here.

Its fairly widespread use in speech called it to the attention of usage commentators as early as 1927. The most frequently repeated remark about it is that "there is no such word." There is such a word, however.