Slashdot Mirror

The one in which both companies are suppose to use names that have no meaning whatsoever to the general consumer. (Run Vista on your Viiv?)

I really hope English isn't your first language, because "vista" is a real word.

No, I got the same out of it.

I think they were going for the "vivere" root, life, involved in words like "vivacious" and "vitality", but given the computer connections "virus" does tend to come out too.

Trying to peice together syllables to indirectly invoke things is a dangerous game. (Doesn't seem to stop a lot of big companies, though.)

No, I got the same out of it.

I think they were going for the "vivere" root, life, involved in words like "vivacious" and "vitality", but given the computer connections "virus" does tend to come out too.

Trying to peice together syllables to indirectly invoke things is a dangerous game. (Doesn't seem to stop a lot of big companies, though.)

and just got it horribly, horribly wrong in his mind

5 a : a politically organized body of people usually occupying a definite territory; especially : one that is sovereign b : the political organization of such a body of people c : a government or politically organized society having a particular character...

>I never said faith was better.
Contradicted by this in your original post, "My faith does not need to subject itself to new "understandings" of science. The possibility of findings being discovered as faulty is pretty good.", implying science is greatly flawed and therefore faith is superior.

>But since there's a great war in science pitting theists against atheists.
There is not religious war in science, the only "war" is against dumbasses, who happen to be mostly evangelical christian creationists, instead of people trying to invent perpetual motion.

>If you feel the need to evangelize to me... - evangelize
1 : to preach the gospel to
2 : to convert to Christianity

>appriciate ->appreciate.

>But I would appriciate it if you would be objective...
And the next sentance is some petty attempt at my intelligence, from someone who probably doesn't know what QFT even stands for, much less what it's used for.

>...many variables are obscure or hidden or confusing.
A lot of programming languages contain obscure or confusing statements if you aren't familier with them, just like the gravitationl constant's units of m3 kg-1 s-2 are illogical by "common sense". As for hidden variables, are you talking about about what science hasn't discovered, or saying these hidden variables can't be discovered by science?

Re:relativity. SR deals with objects traveling > .1c, GR deals with gravitation. QFT is the current description of the weak force which governs radioactive decay. GPS satilites signals need to be corrected by GR.

>You haven't argued any of the points I made in the analogy...
Back those "points" up with some evidence that you know what you're talking about and I will.

As you persist on painting science as some hodgepoge group with your flawed analogies, here's a defn "Science is a procedure for converting observations into "understanding", or more precisely into general rules about what will be observed given certain conditions." There are dissenting voices, like a professor of geology that believes the grand canyon was created in a few days and the earth is 6000 years old, and scientists have fought hard to keep science from being perverted by including beliefs like that from being called science.

This post is evidence that your information is wrong, hence blatent falsehoods etc. Care to actually provide something of substance instead of ignorance and attempts at flames?

Shooting holes though your poorly thought our rhetoric with you have massive emotional investment in is not flaming. - from somebody's sig.

Glad to be of help.

Let's take this a step further.

Scientists in Australia's tropical north are collecting blood from crocodiles in the hope of developing a powerful antibiotic for humans, after tests showed that the reptile's immune system kills the HIV virus.

Since antibiotics are agents that kill bacteria rather than viruses, this paragraph is a non sequitur.

The definition of 'antibiotic' (taken from Stedman's Concise Medical Dictionary for the Health Professions, Illustrated 4th ed. ) is as follows:

1. relating to antibiosis.
2. prejudicial to life.
3. a soluble substance derived from a mold or bacterium that inhibits the growth of other microorganisms.
4. relating to such an action

Antibiosis is further defined (also from Stedman's) as

1. an association of two organisms which is detrimental to one of them, in contrast to probiosis.
2. production of an antibiotic by bacteria or other organisms inhibitory to other living things, especially among soil microbes

The problem with the statement from the above post is twofold:

1. Antibiotics, strictly speaking, kill living organisms, not just bacteria. Antibacterials are what specifically kill bacteria.
2. A non sequitur is "1. an inference that does not follow from the premises; specifically : a fallacy resulting from a simple conversion of a universal affirmative proposition or from the transposition of a condition and its consequent; and 2. a statement (as a response) that does not follow logically from anything previously said." The post above is not correct in the use of that term, since the quotation is the first sentence of the article. The statement may be inaccurate, strictly speaking, but it is not a non sequitur.

Let's keep going...

Similarly, the phrase

However, the crocodile's immune system may be too powerful for humans makes no sense scientifically. What part of the immune system are we talking about? "too powerful" in what sense?

I must admit that I could not find much of a problem with that individual line from the Reuters article. Think about graft-versus-host (GVH) disease. One might imagine a similar event taking place. I must admit that I am speculating here, but on the surface it seems plausible. It depends on which components the researchers intend to use. If it were simply crocodilian antibodies, then maybe the scenario I mentioned is less likely (GVH requires more components of the immune system than just antibodies), and the greater problem would be serum sickness but I don't know. If anyone has specific knowledge of crocodilian (or reptilian, in general) immune function, sharing such knowledge would be appreciated.

I am a little surprised that, with all the fault found with the article, no comment was made on what (in my opinion) is the most inaccurate and misleading statement of the entire article:

Britton said the crocodile immune system worked differently from the human system by directly attacking bacteria immediately an infection occurred in the body.

Maybe the crocodile's immune system works differently from the human's immune system, but it cannot be simply by virtue of having a mechanism for raising immediate countermeasures after a successful infection. In humans, among others, that job is carried out by th

Here you go... It's also good for other hard words.

" 10 : not costing or charging anything"

I regret to inform you, sir, that you are wrong. I would have used OED... unfortuantely, it is not a free resource.

>I'm afraid you are mistaken, discrimination means:
>Treatment or consideration based on class or category rather than individual merit; partiality or prejudice: racial discrimination; discrimination against foreigners, etc.

Merriam-Webster would disagree discrimination Pronunciation: dis-"kri-m&-'nA-sh&n Function: noun 1 a : the act of discriminating b : the process by which two stimuli differing in some aspect are responded to differently 2 : the quality or power of finely distinguishing 3 a : the act, practice, or an instance of discriminating categorically rather than individually b : prejudiced or prejudicial outlook, action, or treatment

discriminate
1628, from L. discriminare "to divide," from discrimen, derived n. from discernere (see discern). The adverse (usually racial) sense is first recorded 1866, Amer.Eng. Positive sense remains in discriminating (adj.) "possessing discernment" (1792).
"It especially annoys me when racists are accused of 'discrimination.' The ability to discriminate is a precious facility; by judging all members of one 'race' to be the same, the racist precisely shows himself incapable of discrimination." [Christopher Hitchens] from here

Just because you use a word to mean something in politically correct doublespeak doesn't mean jack, especially when the way in which you use it in a way contradictary to the original meaning. Words mean things.

What does it matter if it was a white dude or an Indian dude who named the team?

Technically, it shouldn't - it's offensive either way. But it's the same difference between a white person saying to a black person, "'Sup, nigga?" and a black person saying the same thing to another black person. It's about who is perceived to have power in the situation.

And if it's such a minor issue to worry about, why not just change the mascots of the sports teams? There is a lot of racial identity that's rolled up in those charicatures that is unfortunately demeaning to Native American people; we can't start taking care of a lot of our issues until we develop an amount of pride and a sense of self-respect, and when the over-arching culture paints Native people in that light, it's very difficult to get those things going.

What does it matter if it was a white dude or an Indian dude who named the team?

Technically, it shouldn't - it's offensive either way. But it's the same difference between a white person saying to a black person, "'Sup, nigga?" and a black person saying the same thing to another black person. It's about who is perceived to have power in the situation.

And if it's such a minor issue to worry about, why not just change the mascots of the sports teams? There is a lot of racial identity that's rolled up in those charicatures that is unfortunately demeaning to Native American people; we can't start taking care of a lot of our issues until we develop an amount of pride and a sense of self-respect, and when the over-arching culture paints Native people in that light, it's very difficult to get those things going.

...

3 : UNUSUAL -a very unique ball-point pen- -we were fairly unique, the sixty of us, in that there wasn't one good mixer in the bunch -- J. D. Salinger-

...

You completely missed a perfectly good joke. Look at this definition

I dunno, I've gotten semi-used to seeing it now, enough that I don't really think about it or slow down when I read it. Who knows? If everybody keeps using it, maybe it will someday become a legitimate plural for "box" and Brian Regan can feel all warm and gooey inside for adding a word to the English language!

everybody seems to use it without even knowing where it comes from

Isn't this true about almost every word that everybody uses?

I'm not trying to be a grammar pacifist or anything, but language does change over time, and it's not at all unusual for small groups to share an internal jargon. No one complains on Fark that "asshat" isn't a real word, it's just something that popped up and stuck.

I don't really like or hate "boxen," but if you want to get rid of it, you might as well try to get rid of stuff like "pwned," the "All your bases" joke, and even more mainstream things like "hacker," "bug," and emoticons. Personally, I'd rather get rid of the pronunciation of Linux as LIE-nucks once and for all.

I guess we've all got our pet peeves. A lady I work with writes e-mail as e'mail, and it bugs me so much that if that catches on, I think I'll just give up and kill myself. (For the record, e-mail is not a contraction, it is a hyphenated word, vaguely acronymical at best.)

your using "boxen" instead of "boxes" makes you look either like (1) you blindly follow a meme to computer-educated folks, and (2) an ill-educated person to everybody else?

How do you know he's not a Unix clustering professional?

At any rate, thanks for the etymology of the word. I didn't know that, and now it is kind of funny and makes sense.

I believe that he meant metonymy.
Please don't be a prick in order to get '+1 Funny'
-r.

altruism : unselfish regard for or devotion to the welfare of others. Your post is a clear example of redefining terms to fit an argument.

And I bet you have heard take used in this manner before. It is exactly the same sense as when someone says "I took the idea and ran with it" or "The opening scene of that movie was taken from a book by Asimov". If I had "taken" it dishonestly, someone could say "You stole that idea!" This is all perfectly reasonable English.

But you want another source, so check out the myriad of meanings listed at m-w.com. Definitions 6 and 11 lend themselves to this kind of discussion, the latter probably more relevant.

Whether something is material or immaterial is not relevant to my argument, by the way.

I think it is. The basis of your argument is that theft deprives someone of something by taking it. If it is immaterial (like ideas or digital patterns), then you do not necessarily deprive someone of it when you take it. The definitions show that steal and take does not require deprivation.

He said Condescension, not Condensation.

He said Condescension, not Condensation.

• If I want to run Windows on my iMac, I should be able to do that, right?
• If I want to run Linux on my x86 desktop, I should be able to do that, right?
• If I want to see Batman join the X-Men in next months issue, I should be able to do that, right?

Not homogenity, homogeneity.
If you're going to use "big words" try to spell them right.
BTW, I tend to agree with your comment.

They were fined $10 million and have agreed to obstain from the practice in the future.

They were fined $10 million and have agreed to obstain from the practice in the future.

I'm not the one slinging personal insults...I guess that's the refuge for people that don't like what they're seeing and can't just admit they're wrong.

M-W's opinion on the matter...

A few smaller dictionaries do have it printed your way, but they are the vast minority. I've never seen it "in the wild" spelled the way you think is correct...But hey, whatever fucks your fingers...Or something.

Nothing in the first several pages of a google search for "Daylight Saving Time" (or even "Daylight-Saving Time") mentions anything about "Daylight-Saving Time" as an alternate spelling.

Now, just go hunt up that "definition" for us and post that whenever you get the chance.

Sure, it is right here, I suggest you study it thoroughly. This second definition may also help you to better understand not only my comment, but many of those posted to slashdot every day.

The rest of your reply is just an elaborate attempt to ignore the point that the scientific method inherently deals with bias, when people choose to skip the application of the scientific method - be it those who agree or disagree with some particular finding - it is equally poor form.

My interpretation of the definitions indicates that "To" would be an example of kerning, not ligature.

From morrcom.com, "Kerning refers to improving the appearance of type by adjusting the spacing between selected pairs of letters. The most problematic pairs of letters are AV, AY, FA, AW, PA, and AT. Kerning becomes of greater importance as type size increases such as in headlines and poster copy which uses all caps."

From Webster, a ligature is a "printed or written character (as æ or [ff]) consisting of two or more letters or characters joined together."

Simon,

I think prose means the opposite of what you think it means.

-Peter

"The FCC is NOT a law-making entity."

No, but they do make regulations which have the "force of law."
You do not abide by the regulation, then you pay the consequences.

No legislation required.

"methinks is actually a valid English word, even though it's Shakesperean English, and even annoying English.. just so you know. :)
I myself like saying it, it sounds wrong but then you get to turf those who point that out by saying "But Shakespeare used it.". :P

Language is very commonly used as a Fad. This is also referred to in advertising as a 'catch-phrase'. If you are Paris Hilton, it is the new 'hot' phrase.
And finally, if you are microsoft, it is a 'feature'.

every single post above would have given up their points and turn in a scrabble game.

BEEM?
Beam

every single post above would have given up their points and turn in a scrabble game.

BEEM?
Beam

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Diction ary&va=frisson&x=0&y=0

From the review:

Unfortunately, that frission of so many different players working together rarely happens.

From http://www.m-w.com/:

The word you've entered isn't in the dictionary.

I've always taken "midwest" to roughly mean "middle of the western world;" it is roughly the center of the (north)western hemisphere.

Merriam Webster suggests that it can be applied to "Ohio & sometimes Kentucky" toward the east. That would certainly include Illinois.

Incidentally, it looks like Chicago is about 700 miles from the nearest Atlantic coastline, and not quite 150 miles east of the Mississippi. Reeeaaal East Coast, yo.

The PC abbreviation, especially capitalized

When not capitalized, "the pc abbreviation" means "parsec." When capitalized, according to Merriam-Webster, a far more reputable dictionary than Webopedia, PC stands for "personal computer." Now, even if we go to Webopedia's definition, to which you linked, we get "Short for personal computer or IBM PC." (The definition later concedes: "In recent years, the term PC has become more and more difficult to pin down." Why are you basing your entire argument on a definition that itself admits it isn't authoritative?) Anyhow, I've put in bold the word that you seem to be having the most difficulty with. If I were to ask you "Are you a Democrat or a Republican?" you certainly wouldn't believe my question to be whether you are both.

Try learning how to read before you speak authoritatively on a subject. You'll find yourself on the losing end of fewer semantics arguments that way.

There ain't no such word as zazz or zazzle. You are correct that it is their own made up nonsense word to which they are further trying to attach some pseudo folkloric history.

Sadly, while zazz is not a word, the word "ain't" is now officially in Webster's dictionary. It's a sad day for the English language. Ain't it?

Dissent will be impossible, you WILL see the content that is proscribed and no other

So we will only be able to watch proscribed content eh? We will all be forced to watch kiddie porn and snuff films? I agree, that sounds pretty bad.

Jedidiah.

The formal roots of gnarly?!

Yup. As in an alternate form of gnarled, which is probably a frequentive of gnar .

I'm still not a fan of the "kewl" spelling of "cool" though. Not only does it not simplify the word, but it imples an entirely different pronunciation, albeit one perhaps closer to the current argot.

The formal roots of gnarly?!

Yup. As in an alternate form of gnarled, which is probably a frequentive of gnar .

I'm still not a fan of the "kewl" spelling of "cool" though. Not only does it not simplify the word, but it imples an entirely different pronunciation, albeit one perhaps closer to the current argot.

Not to pick nits, but "detention centre", "prison" (Cambridge definition), "jail" (or "gaol"), and "penitentary" all have somewhat different meanings.

Not to pick nits, but "detention centre", "prison" (Cambridge definition), "jail" (or "gaol"), and "penitentary" all have somewhat different meanings.

Not to pick nits, but "detention centre", "prison" (Cambridge definition), "jail" (or "gaol"), and "penitentary" all have somewhat different meanings.

Presently: The word 'presently' means soon to come, in the near future, and so on. Many people confuse it with 'currently.' So "We are presently in Australia" should more properly be "We are currently in Australia." This misuse is often seen not only in everyday conversation but also in business correspondence. Again, its improper use indicates lazy thinking.

Same contributor, similarly stupid nitpicking. Again, looking at the dictionary definition we can see that there is a second definition which is "at the present time" or "now". The definition given also adds some detail that the second definition is sometimes disputed, but (to quote the explanation) "this sense has been in continuous use since the 15th century, it is not clear why it is objectionable". So goddamn, this guy is a word quibbler.

Side-note: I believe it's "lazy thinking" to take such a condescending tone. Ha!

Linguistically, there's sort of a reason for this. Let me point you to the definition of the word "artificial" from http://www.m-w.com/

Main Entry: artificial
Pronunciation: "är-t&-'fi-sh&l
Function: adjective
1 : humanly contrived often on a natural model : MAN-MADE
2 a : having existence in legal, economic, or political theory b : caused or produced by a human and especially social or political agency
3 obsolete : ARTFUL, CUNNING
4 a : lacking in natural or spontaneous quality b : IMITATION, SHAM
5 : based on differential morphological characters not necessarily indicative of natural relationships

Specifically, note definitions 1 and 4. Something that is artificial tends to be something man-made. In addition, it lacks a natural or spontaneous part to it. Thus, if things that are man made are, by definition, not natural, then it cannot be the case that a human caused fire is not a natural fire.

http://www.m-w.com/info/favorite.htm

It's number 4! You are just a jealous lingweenie!

: P

terrorist

terrorist