Slashdot Mirror

Maybe you meant essenkial for KDE. Or perhaps, essential.

I thought that too, but I went to Merriam Webster's online dictionary and apparently verge is just the edge of something, doesn't matter whether it's fore or aft. It does sound funny using it like that in the article though.

The suffix '-bility' does not come from the word 'ability'; it comes from the Latin suffix '-bilis'... the "i" comes from the vowel at the end of the verb to which the suffix is being attached. The word 'able' may ultimately derive from the same root, but that doesn't mean all words ending '-bility' must have an 'a'!

(See this if you don't believe me :-)

Because you are mistaken about the nature of computer languages. Machine code (which you refer to as binary) is not a language.

• First Generation Language
• Second Generation Language
• Third Generation Language
• Fourth Generation Language

Incidently, my dad started with computers before first level languages; back when they still *shudder* had to move the wires.

Currently not. But that is likely to change at the next national election. The CDU/CSI is likely to win in two years

You mean they're likely to win a lot of seats. Still they will hardly be able to form a government on their own, forcing them to form a coalition with a smaller parliamentary fraction. If the percentages are sufficient, they will team up with the liberals (FDP). They could form a "great coalition" with the SPD, but this is unlikely if the SPD continues to draw the wrath of the populace. A third combination could be CDU/CSU + the Greens. However, it would already be hard to reconcile the CDU with the Greens. The CSU is so strongly opposed to them that they likely will not want to participate in such a coalition.

Just consider that Michael Glos from the CSU has called the Greens a bunch of ticks, which happens to be the same word that German neonazis use for anti-fascists (punks).

and I doubt very much that the CDU has any more sense when it comes to OSS.

The CSU is extremely hostile to OSS and Linux in particular, and chumming up with Microsoft in a disgusting way. However, this hostility is not shared by the CDU, which doesn't currently bother about the "OS wars". Still, when in doubt, they will value industry (aka big corporation) interests higher than OSS interests any time, since in conservative school of thought, when a corporation makes huge profits, it's good for the economy (what else?). But then, Schröder's "Neue Mitte" (New Center - of the political spectrum) is no better.

;if you could spell pseudo, i might think you knew what you were talking about.

;mod -42 off topic.

;TreeHead

You should check THIS out.

arrrrgh it's alumin-i-um, check you periodic table and try to find aluminum. I dare you.

Not over here it ain't, my kiwi(?) chum. Check for yourself in the good ole American Webster's dictionary.

But since this is a story about a case mod based on a British sci-fi show, perhaps he should have said alumin-i-um instead.

According to the audio sample at Merriam-Webster, it's something like "HIY-genz" -- long i, hard g.

Acclimatize is in the dictionary (or at least several I could find on quick notice):

• Merriam-Webster
• Dictionary.com
• Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary
• American Heritage Dictionary

Let the juvenile "nigritude" comments begin.

Start using the word around the office, along with "niggardly" and then you will indeed be living in interesting times...

Only a government can censor a person, a private company does not have this ability.

Merriam-Webster says you are incorrect.

...with the Columbian cartels to get extra funding, ...

Columbian: relating to the United States or Christopher Colombus.
Colombian: relative to Colombia, a republic in northwestern South America.

...with the Columbian cartels to get extra funding, ...

Columbian: relating to the United States or Christopher Colombus.
Colombian: relative to Colombia, a republic in northwestern South America.

And this is to say what? That corporate human resources "professionals" know anything about software development? I suppose the next thing they'll believe is that programmers who learned to program in school know anything about programming.

...is Oligarchy

For myself, I live out in the Styx, the middle of nowhere.

Please see definition 7.

Yes there is. Here's another example, since some people don't like Merriam-Webster's offerings. I would've linked the Oxford English Dictionary, but it's subscription only, by the look of things.

Merriam-Webster Dictionary recognizes both symbols as the pound sign, as does dictionary.com. Oxford even addressed the question and recognized the fact that is it called the "pound sign" in the United States, though it confuses the British. In conclusion, # has many names, one of which is "pound sign" in American English.

I haven't yet seen anyone comment on AdTI's namesake. Alexis de Tocqueville was the 19th century French author of Democracy in America , an influential examination of American government, politics, and society. Highly educated, he deeply valued truth, knowledge, and freedom.

A hypocrite, according to Webster, is someone who "puts on a false appearance of virtue." Kenneth Brown, by naming his organization after Alexis de Tocqueville, does exactly that: he's trying to pass off his loathesome tripe as scholarly research. It's obvious to anyone who cares to look beneath the surface that AdTI is a sham, but it's still a crime against that which de Tocqueville loved that Brown insists on dragging the name Alexis de Tocqueville through the mud.

I've already touched on the personal responsibility mantra elsewhere. I'll limit myself to one of your assertions: Fast food is not addictive.

This depends entirely on your definition of addiction. Webster has both a narrow and a broad definition of addiction. The first one is pretty narrowly tailored towards drugs, but I think the latter applies nicely to fast food.

We are genetically predisposed to prefer high fat, high sugar foods. This was a perfect survival strategy back when calories were scarce. But now they're everywhere. It's gotten to where food is so abundant in America that the high-calorie crap is far cheaper than the foods that are actually good for you. In such an environment, our innate desires actually work to undermine our own health.

The entire fast food industry takes advantage of this internal drive. Despite a few attempts at offering healthy choices, they generally make the big bucks by competing to make the biggest, most fattening, cheapest meals, and then advertising them to consumers as highly desirable.

That's just the direction the profit motive is taking the industry, and I don't see any non-government solution for forcing "personal responsibility" on our corporate masters.

Uh, it seems to be (although that's not necessarily the 3rd unabriged Webster).

Hey, it's not our fault the language is so inconsistent. :)

How does the word "burglary" fit in, anyway?

Why is "V" Paste, anyway?

V is paste most likely because long ago (circa 20th century) the written proofreader's symbol on your English report that means "insert the text I've written here into this spot" looks like an upside-down V. See here.

I find it quite remarkable that all three of the commands could be grouped together on the keyboard even though the qwerty keyboard was created what, 100 years before the first PCs? Kind of interesting how that worked out.

See No. 35

This stems from the "reign of terror" after the French revolution. That didn't mean scaring the population with external threats, it mean scaring the people with: "We'll kill you if you get out of line."

terror
reign of terror

What bugs me is when people accuse the military of "terrorism" when conducting a war. That follows from the old They called me a "terrorist", so I'll call them a "terrorist" back, na na na, na na! preschool logic. In war, it's called war crimes. Like the fire-bombing of Dresden.

This stems from the "reign of terror" after the French revolution. That didn't mean scaring the population with external threats, it mean scaring the people with: "We'll kill you if you get out of line."

terror
reign of terror

What bugs me is when people accuse the military of "terrorism" when conducting a war. That follows from the old They called me a "terrorist", so I'll call them a "terrorist" back, na na na, na na! preschool logic. In war, it's called war crimes. Like the fire-bombing of Dresden.

The plural of "virus" isn't "virii." There is no such word. The plural of "virus" is "viruses."

Here's a good explanation from cdknow.com, quoted here in its entirety because the people who most need to read this won't click on a link.

The correct English plural of virus is viruses. Please consult any good dictionary before making up words.

For the purists, in Latin, there is a rarely-used plural form:

virus, viri (neuter)

(Forms: almost always restricted to nominative and accusative singular; generally singular in Lucretius, ablative singular in Lucretius)

The point of this is that even in Latin the form "viri" is rarely used. The singular form is used in most every instance. (This is from the Oxford Latin Dictionary.)

So, when considering the Latin: "virii" is incorrect and "viri" was almost never used.

Despite the fact there was little use for the plural form, there is another reason why "viri" was rarely used. The most common Latin word for "man" is "vir" with "viri" being its plural in the form used as the subject of a sentence. Thus, since "men" as the subject of a sentence would be used far more often than "venoms" (virus means venom) the "viri" word was most commonly seen as the plural of "man."

Bottom line: Don't try to make up words using a false Latin plural form. Since the word virus in its English form is now used then the English plural (viruses) should be used.

More plural-of-virus resources:

perl.com, the canonical and exhaustive source
Jonathan de Boyne Pollard's Frequently Given Answer
Merriam-Webster's "Word for the Wise," January 20, 2000.

Broil is a horrible word, brings up images of boiling meat and then just serving it.

Which, of course, produces a meal just as flavorful as your average British meal!

Point of fact-- broil goes back to Middle English, which, as far as I know, was never spoken in America.

The plural of "virus" isn't "virii." There is no such word. The plural of "virus" is "viruses."

Here's a good explanation from cdknow.com, quoted here in its entirety because the people who most need to read this won't click on a link.

The correct English plural of virus is viruses. Please consult any good dictionary before making up words.

For the purists, in Latin, there is a rarely-used plural form:

virus, viri (neuter)

(Forms: almost always restricted to nominative and accusative singular; generally singular in Lucretius, ablative singular in Lucretius)

The point of this is that even in Latin the form "viri" is rarely used. The singular form is used in most every instance. (This is from the Oxford Latin Dictionary.)

So, when considering the Latin: "virii" is incorrect and "viri" was almost never used.

Despite the fact there was little use for the plural form, there is another reason why "viri" was rarely used. The most common Latin word for "man" is "vir" with "viri" being its plural in the form used as the subject of a sentence. Thus, since "men" as the subject of a sentence would be used far more often than "venoms" (virus means venom) the "viri" word was most commonly seen as the plural of "man."

Bottom line: Don't try to make up words using a false Latin plural form. Since the word virus in its English form is now used then the English plural (viruses) should be used.

More plural-of-virus resources:

perl.com, the canonical and exhaustive source
Jonathan de Boyne Pollard's Frequently Given Answer
Merriam-Webster's "Word for the Wise," January 20, 2000.

The plural of "virus" isn't "virii." There is no such word. The plural of "virus" is "viruses."

Here's a good explanation from cdknow.com [cknow.com], quoted here in its entirety because the people who most need to read this won't click on a link.

The correct English plural of virus is viruses. Please consult any good dictionary before making up words.

For the purists, in Latin, there is a rarely-used plural form:

virus, viri (neuter)

(Forms: almost always restricted to nominative and accusative singular; generally singular in Lucretius, ablative singular in Lucretius)

The point of this is that even in Latin the form "viri" is rarely used. The singular form is used in most every instance. (This is from the Oxford Latin Dictionary.)

So, when considering the Latin: "virii" is incorrect and "viri" was almost never used.

Despite the fact there was little use for the plural form, there is another reason why "viri" was rarely used. The most common Latin word for "man" is "vir" with "viri" being its plural in the form used as the subject of a sentence. Thus, since "men" as the subject of a sentence would be used far more often than "venoms" (virus means venom) the "viri" word was most commonly seen as the plural of "man."

Bottom line: Don't try to make up words using a false Latin plural form. Since the word virus in its English form is now used then the English plural (viruses) should be used.

More plural-of-virus resources:

perl.com [perl.com], the canonical and exhaustive source
Jonathan de Boyne Pollard's Frequently Given Answer [tesco.net]
Merriam-Webster's "Word for the Wise [m-w.com]," January 20, 2000.

The plural of "virus" isn't "virii." There is no such word. The plural of "virus" is "viruses."

Here's a good explanation from cdknow.com, quoted here in its entirety because the people who most need to read this won't click on a link.

The correct English plural of virus is viruses. Please consult any good dictionary before making up words.

For the purists, in Latin, there is a rarely-used plural form:

virus, viri (neuter)

(Forms: almost always restricted to nominative and accusative singular; generally singular in Lucretius, ablative singular in Lucretius)

The point of this is that even in Latin the form "viri" is rarely used. The singular form is used in most every instance. (This is from the Oxford Latin Dictionary.)

So, when considering the Latin: "virii" is incorrect and "viri" was almost never used.

Despite the fact there was little use for the plural form, there is another reason why "viri" was rarely used. The most common Latin word for "man" is "vir" with "viri" being its plural in the form used as the subject of a sentence. Thus, since "men" as the subject of a sentence would be used far more often than "venoms" (virus means venom) the "viri" word was most commonly seen as the plural of "man."

Bottom line: Don't try to make up words using a false Latin plural form. Since the word virus in its English form is now used then the English plural (viruses) should be used.

More plural-of-virus resources:

perl.com, the canonical and exhaustive source
Jonathan de Boyne Pollard's Frequently Given Answer
Merriam-Webster's "Word for the Wise," January 20, 2000.

I don't understand...those things I listed are precisely what those who previously were called "evolutionists" taught. Besides, I haven't made up the term darwinism. You may also find the definition of neo-darwinism informative.

Yes, I will, but I'd much rather hear what argument from the book you find most convincing.

That assumes I found one particular argument more convincing than another. I have found many of the arguments in that book powerful, along with other books and articles I have read. There is no "best of breed" in my mind. Others may have favourites.

Given that 'darwinism' is something you have defined on your own, I'll have to say "I don't know, are there any problems? and what is darwinism anyway?"

Well, perhaps you can see above that it isn't a term I coined.

As they said, the theory of evolution is *not* "change in allele frequencies in a population over time", that's the definition of evolution and an observed fact.

I rarely notice responses by AC's, since I rely on email to inform me of a response. Everyone has their own view on what the scientific theory of evolution is. One says this, another says that. I simply gave you what I am mostly pointed to. So often people say to me, "give us a scientific theory of creationism". I say, give me a scientific one of evolution, and I will give one back that is of the same kind. I've never had to answer this challenge. They claim that creationism is not falsifiable, but the general theory of evolution that involves common ancestry includes many elements that are not falsifiable. One cannot falsify, for example, the claim that birds evolved from reptiles. There is simply no piece of evidence we could conceivably find that would test or falsify that claim.

Please explain! Every person? Why?

A generalisation. Why are you being so pedantic? The answer seems inescapably obvious:
If we are the result of blind mutations, and our greatness was measured by our ability to rape, steal, murder, cooperate, teamwork, etc - then there is no right or wrong. I have no responsibility or accountability for my actions other than what is artificially placed by those weaker or stronger than me.

If we are the result of a creative Intelligence in a short time, then ultimately murder, rape, theft, etc, are evil things, and we will be held responsible and accountable.

How many people do not care about the questions that define the meaning of their existence? You may say most people - but how many of those believe there is a God? Everyone wants to know their life. I simply do not believe you if you tell me that the question of our origins will retain objective thinking. Our origins is a philosophical question with enormous ramifications for every aspect of our life and culture. Scientists may try to be objective - but in _this_ instance, the question has much more at stake than a study into the breeding cycles of elephants. Scientists are humans too, with their own biases, emotions, and desires.

As the AC said, if you can show evidence of a creature with no common ancestor with all other life on Earth, then the statement "all life on earth shares a common ancestor" is false.

You can't prove a negative. Can you prove to me that there isn't an invisible, untouchable leprechaun in my garden? All I can point to is lack of evidence supporting the claim, and that this answer is improbable. I cannot provide you with proof that it never happened.

Unfortunately Gould passed away last year. Why are you worried about the hypothetical reaction of Dawkins on the matter? Does the opinion of an authority outweigh the facts?

What's your point? I have no idea what you are talking about here, or wh

Oooh, so close. What you're describing would be more analogous to "Metaformat qua format." A metaformat does not need to be a format; it can be a specification, an idea, or a shoe as long as it deals with those fundamentals required for making formats.

Mmm... metaformat qua shoe...

This is slashdot, you should at least include a link to the definition of "condom".

I hate having my thoughts irratiated.

From Merriam-Webster:

boycott: to engage in a concerted refusal to have dealings with (as a person, store, or organization) usually to express disapproval or to force acceptance of certain conditions.

Doesn't say a think about "refuse to use" and exactly describes getting music through non-RIAA sources. I think you are confusing refusing to deal with the RIAA with refusing to use music. They aren't the same thing.

Hardcore java is when you bomb the Microsoft headquarters for inventing C#.

Invent: to produce (as something useful) for the first time through the use of the imagination or of ingenious thinking and experiment

While many /.ers would jump on the first bit, I was thinking more along the lines of C# being MS's clone of Java. Don't get me wrong, I like them both. I would never pay for C#, but if my boss gives it to me and tells me to use it, I'll count my blessings that it wasn't VB.

Let's see ...

1000 Songs at ~15 songs per CD at ~$17 per CD => $1,133 in CD's would need to be purchased (plus tax).
3000 Songs at ~15 songs per CD at ~$17 per CD => $3,400 in CD's would need to be purchased (plus tax).

That, plus your court costs associated with fighting the charge.

The lawsuits are a reported ~$3000 each so I guess it depends on how many songs you are sharing. Word of the day is Extort

What the heck are they teaching in those empire schools these days?

Informative post - burned all my mod points so I'll just have to contribute.

Actually "pithy mottos" are epigrams.

Here are some epigrams I have to hand:
When the cats fall asleep, the mouse rejoices and leaps from his hole. (When the cat's away the mice will play)
Dum felis dormit, mus gaudet et exsilit antro
What a woman says to her fond lover sohuld be written on air or the swift water.
Mulier cupido quod dicit amanti, in vento et rapida scribere oportet aqua -Catullus
There's nothing more contemptible than a bald man who pretends to have hair.
Calvo turpius est nihil compto -Martial
If fame comes after death, I'm in no hurry for it.
Si post fata venit gloria non propero -Martial
There is nothing so absurd as not to have been said by a philosopher.
Nihil tam absurdum, quod non dictum sit ab aliquo. -Cicero
There is nothing more friendly than a friend in need.
Nihil homini amico est opportuno amicius -Plautus
Nothing is sillier than a silly laugh.
Risu inepto res ineptior nulla est -Catullus
A bad vase doesn't break
Malum vas non frangitur
You can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make him drink.
From: Stultitia est venatum ducere invitas canes -Plautus
There is no smoke without fire.
Semper flamma fumo proxima -Plautus
'to swim against the tide'
contra terrentem brachhia dirigere -Juvenal
All that lives comes from the egg.
omne vivum ex ovo
'every cloud has a silver lining'
inter vepres rosae nascuntur
To err is human.
Errare humanum est -Cicero
A rolling stone gathers no moss. -Pubilius Syrus
Lovers remember everything.
Meminerunt omnia amantes -Ovid
Now or never
Nunc aut nunquam
Forwarned, forearmed.
Praemonitus praemunitus
Time flies.
Tempus fugit
No sooner said than done.
Dictum factum
The part of life we live is really short.
Exigua pars est vitae quam nos vivimus -Seneca
Let nothing but good be said of the dead
De mortuis nil nis bonum
While I breathe, I hope
Dum spiro, spero
Hard work conquers all things
Labor omnia vincit
Justice for all
Justitia omnibus
Nothing without providence
Nil sine numini
Through hardship to the stars
Per ardua ad astra
The people rule
Regnat populus
The voice of the people is the voice of God
Vox populi, vox dei
And of course NASA's take on:
Fortune Favours the Brave
Audentes fortuna juvat

If you're interested, you could do worse than swotting up on Quintilian, Livy, all the above mentioned et al.

Maybe you should try using a real dictionary like Webster (Mirriam-Webster) Definition for documentary:of, relating to, or employing documentation in literature or art; Dictionary.com often gives back crap results.

Maybe you should try using a real dictionary like Webster (Mirriam-Webster) Definition for documentary:of, relating to, or employing documentation in literature or art; Dictionary.com often gives back crap results.

According to Merriam-Webster online (here), jargon is "the technical terminology or characteristic idiom of a special activity or group." I think "computer term" qualifies as jargon.

Actually, there's a lot of ways. Here's a simple one.

Got out of a fight one time by expressing concern for the bully and asking if he felt OK. When he asked "Why?" I said, "Hey, I'm no doctor, but you seem to have all the symptoms of someone who is anencephalic."

He walked away holding his stomach.

A search on "Google" at Merriam-Webster Online
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Diction ary&va=google&x=0&y=0
yields no definitions, but only suggestions for possible correct spellings:

1. goggle
2. guggle
3. googol
4. gaggle
5. Gogol
6. goggled
7. gulag
8. goggle-eye
9. guggled
10. goggler

Merriam-Webster Online also offers alternate forms/spellings with word definitions. Such was not the case with "googol". "Google" was not offered as an alternative spelling of "googol".

Merriam-Webster Online also offers a thesaurus service. Searching on "googol" yields no results. Searching on "google" yields about 10.....none of them "googol".

Given all of this I think there is an excellent chance that "googol" and "google" are 2 distinct words.

IMHO, unless some enterprising person digs deeper to find a contradictory reference I would say this person has no case and her lawyer is too lazy to open a dictionary.

Steve

Googol

I believe that she may have a case. Not to say that you are wrong but this is the "American Way", these days. I'd probably do the same and I'm sure that many here would.

The fact of the matter is that public companies are evil(tm) and deserve every bit of this. Is the company running out of money? Why do they need to go public?

Greed is the only reason that they are going public. Nothing more. They deserve every bit of what they get.

Quoth Kenneth Brown:

To this day, we have a serious attribution problem in software development because people have chosen to scrupulously borrow or imitate Unix.

Gotta love how he makes the scrupulousness of the FOSS community sound like a bad thing.

He defrauded only 1 person the scammer.

Is what he did right or wrong? That would be up to a judge to decide. Not you.

Also to defraud those people they would have had to have lost something. They *ALL* got money in exchange for this event. They probably would not claim any sort of defraudment. Misrepresentation maybe but not defraudment. The only person who could claim being defrauded would be the scammer. He is the one who did not get the powerbook. Yet he still hasn't come up with the money either. And by all intents never intended to come up with the money.

EBay was not defrauded as they got the 'posting fees'. FedEx was not defrauded as they got the 'shipping' fees, and he paid for the extra everything. The UK was not defrauded as they got extra money. The ONLY person defrauded was the scammer.

Also give the fact that he intended to defraud this dude out of a powerbook. Do you think he will have any sort of legal claim to the powerbook? Do you even think he will go to the police? I doubt it. If he doesn't go to the police for this I would say he is quite satisfied with what he gets.

This also proves my theory of it is EASY to be a criminal. But most people are honest. Its the smart criminals (of which thankfully there are few) that we really need to worry about.

I believe you might benefit from looking at this link