Slashdot Mirror

"usage: Recent criticism of the use of myriad as a noun, both in the plural form myriads and in the phrase a myriad of, seems to reflect a mistaken belief that the word was originally and is still properly only an adjective. As the entries here show, however, the noun is in fact the older form, dating to the 16th century. The noun myriad has appeared in the works of such writers as Milton (plural myriads) and Thoreau (a myriad of), and it continues to occur frequently in reputable English. There is no reason to avoid it."

http://m-w.com/dictionary/myriad (Definition of myriad from the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary)

A problem with information on 'the Internets' is that there are chances that the quality of the sources are not always properly assessed.

CC.

According to marriam-webster, the noun is actually the older form of the word. See the usage note at http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/myriad

Main Entry: venerable
Pronunciation: 've-n&r(-&)-b&l, 'ven-r&-b&l
Function: adjective
1 : deserving to be venerated -- used as a title for an Anglican archdeacon or for a Roman Catholic who has been accorded the lowest of three degrees of recognition for sanctity
2 : made sacred especially by religious or historical association
3 a : calling forth respect through age, character, and attainments <a venerable jazz musician>; broadly : conveying an impression of aged goodness and benevolence <encouraged by the venerable doctor's head-nodding> b : impressive by reason of age <under venerable pines>
synonym see OLD
- venerability /"ve-n&-r&-'bi-l&-tE, "ven-r&-/ noun
- venerableness /'ve-n&r(-&)-b&l-n&s, 'ven-r&-/ noun
- venerably /-blE/ adverb

You were doing alright for a bit but cunt is from the german(sic) for prostitute

Dampen means exactly what he was trying to say. The infinitive of the verb he used is "to dampen". dampen

I'm sorry, but law is completely correct, and calling it Moore's law complies with definition (1A!) from websters:
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/law
1 a (1) : a binding custom or practice of a community

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/netdict?symmetrical

base word: http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/netdict?symmetry

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/netdict?symmetrical

base word: http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/netdict?symmetry

This is only at +2 Funny?!? Moderators: Look up the word "caldera"!

Actually, the link between 'heresy' and 'hearsay' is interesting to speculate on...

Heresy: Etymology: Middle English heresie, from Anglo-French, from Late Latin haeresis, from Late Greek hairesis, from Greek, action of taking, choice, sect, from hairein to take (source)

Hearsay: "hearsay is 1532 from phrase to hear say" (source); hear: Etymology: Middle English heren, from Old English hIeran; akin to Old High German hOren to hear, and probably to Latin cavEre to be on guard, Greek akouein to hear (source); say: Etymology: Middle English, from Old English secgan; akin to Old High German sagEn to say, Lithuanian sakyti, Greek ennepein to speak, tell (source).

Alas, no fun at all.

Actually, the link between 'heresy' and 'hearsay' is interesting to speculate on...

Heresy: Etymology: Middle English heresie, from Anglo-French, from Late Latin haeresis, from Late Greek hairesis, from Greek, action of taking, choice, sect, from hairein to take (source)

Hearsay: "hearsay is 1532 from phrase to hear say" (source); hear: Etymology: Middle English heren, from Old English hIeran; akin to Old High German hOren to hear, and probably to Latin cavEre to be on guard, Greek akouein to hear (source); say: Etymology: Middle English, from Old English secgan; akin to Old High German sagEn to say, Lithuanian sakyti, Greek ennepein to speak, tell (source).

Alas, no fun at all.

Actually, the link between 'heresy' and 'hearsay' is interesting to speculate on...

Heresy: Etymology: Middle English heresie, from Anglo-French, from Late Latin haeresis, from Late Greek hairesis, from Greek, action of taking, choice, sect, from hairein to take (source)

Hearsay: "hearsay is 1532 from phrase to hear say" (source); hear: Etymology: Middle English heren, from Old English hIeran; akin to Old High German hOren to hear, and probably to Latin cavEre to be on guard, Greek akouein to hear (source); say: Etymology: Middle English, from Old English secgan; akin to Old High German sagEn to say, Lithuanian sakyti, Greek ennepein to speak, tell (source).

Alas, no fun at all.

So negative, in fact, that the word has been removed from dictionaries and other reference works.

Of course that's a stretch, and it is not within the context or scope of the word "sponsor".

According to Merriam-Webster, a sponsor is...

1. one who presents a candidate for baptism or confirmation and undertakes responsibility for the person's religious education or spiritual welfare
2. one who assumes responsibility for some other person or thing
3. a person or an organization that pays for or plans and carries out a project or activity; especially : one that pays the cost of a radio or television program usually in return for advertising time during its course

A sponsor is definitely responsible for the presence of an ad, so it is absolutely a sponsored ad and the second definiteion applies. It is slightly less direct to use the third definition since the money is being paid specifically on ad placement and not an ambiguous sponsorship with considerations, nevertheless it is financing Google's operation in return for advertising so the definition could be used. In either case, it is not innacurate to consider paid listings to be "sponsored".

Of course, neither scenario is the same as making a purchase at a supermarket. The buyer is not taking sole responsibility for the supermarket's presence and the buyer is not asking the supermarket to advertise the buyer or the buyer's products. You cannot simply use any scenario where money changes hands as an example of sponsorship.

I don't discount the power or effect of this trope (1b.). I aspire to reach the discerning reader and hope to elevate discussions such that the merit of an argument is the criterion by which it should be judged. I acknowledge your point that (too) many people have lost the power of critical thinking. I thus pointed out such an example. There is another in the comment preceding yours in this thread. It just seems to me that a steady rise in meaningless intensity will ensure we are stuck on the treadmill of hype, and the search for new superlatives or imperatives does not help advance the discourse. Short-form need only be concise, its persuasiveness preferably appealing to the intellect, not the subconscious. I hope you aren't right, and afraid you might be...

(just noticed the reference to Mozilla in my Merriam-Webster link - if it breaks in your browser, sorry)

While I do understand the desire to see the night sky better, I'm not sure that this is "pollution" per se. Pollution (at least as defined by Merriam-Webster) implies contamination - light does not contaminate.

Uhm, let's see... Merriam-Webster's definition of light pollution:

Function: noun
: artificial skylight (as from city lights) that interferes especially with astronomical observations

If some "facts" are not to be trusted or not true, they're just that: "facts", not facts.
Granted, Wikipedia (Oxford English Dictionary) tells that the meanings allegation or stipulation have a long history in English. It does not mean that it's really the case in contemporary every-day language.

And actually the Wikipedia (OED) example quote is: "the author's facts are not trustworthy". It would sound silly to say "author's facts are not facts" because it does not emphasize the point which is that the "facts" are not trustworthy. They might not be true.

And all this is even without taking the context into account. Here we are talking about scientific (or technical) facts, and in that context you can not talk about "true facts" or "non-true facts" because there is no such thing as a non-true fact. Fact is a fact is a fact. Fact is something that exists, has existed or something that has "the quality of being actual" (i.e. it is true). Even your own sources tell that this is the case in our context.

http://www.google.com/search?q=define%3A%20fact
http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=fact
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/fact

Here, I think you might find the definition of this word to be useful to you.

The troll I could ignore, this I could not. Some understood the essence of my thoughts, you not. I feel the issue is your use of the word antithetical. According to the dictionary it defines "being in direct and unequivocal opposition".

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

huh? There is no absolutes here. Science and Faith can co-exist. One attempts to describe the world around us and our relationship with it. The other attempts to understand how we exist in relationship to a power greater then ourselves. Faith is not about parlor tricks, it is about acceptance, awareness, appreciation, and grace regarding both the physical realm and those who dwell in it. Science should not even attempt to try and "explain" that process jsut as Faith should try to define what constitutes Science.

It is not hard for me to say "I believe in a God, I believe in Gods creation as I live in it, I believe in science as it continues to describe, unlock, and expand our knowledge of this creation. There may come a day when we unlock the last door and God will through it saying "what took your so long, lacking faith?"

Faith, and the mind that accepts it is open enough to accept Science as well. Your statement reflects a closed mind and surely we have to many of those these days. As a Challenge, read the Tao te Ching. An amazing book and one the not only demonstrates how we can co-exist with each other, but how we exist within the world, even as we comprehend there is more then what we see.

I suggest you compliment the technology there with a pair of night-vision goggles or something.

"My, that is some *lovely* technology! Please have this free pair of night-vision goggles!"

I believe you mean complementary. :-)

the proper time to do that would be consumate with normal upgrade cycles.

I reread that, and even double-checked "insidious" at Merriam-Webster's site to make sure I wasn't missing an alternate meaning. M-W lists it as follows:

1 a : awaiting a chance to entrap : TREACHEROUS b : harmful but enticing : SEDUCTIVE {insidious drugs}
2 a : having a gradual and cumulative effect : SUBTLE {the insidious pressures of modern life}
b of a disease : developing so gradually as to be well established before becoming apparent

Which of these definitions {if any} best demonstrate the qualities of a "Libertarian", by your reckoning, and why?

I understand "should of" and "less/fewer", but I don't understand what's wrong with the word "drapes". It's in the dictionary and not marked as "slang".

Maybe the non-american should read a dictionary.

beyond the boundaries of one's country. No implication of overseas.

Of course, you might not be an American, and it is rather public knowledge that you will skew information to try and bring us down to your level.

I do not think it means what you think it means

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

Rock can be a mineral...
So is salt, coal, and sand...

No they don't

Ok, I admit, I had to look this one up:

Usufruct is the legal right to derive profit or benefit from the property of others. It comes from the latin roots for "use" and "fruits," in the sense that you are using the fruits of someone else's labor.

Wikipedia
Merriam-Webster's Dictionary
a legal Dictionary

In the case of Hansen's second email, he is, I think, using it to describe how captains of industry are benefitting from the global warming nay-sayers' spin on this correction. He also uses it in the sense that successive generations have a right and claim to the enjoy the Earth, so we'd better take care of it, even as we benefit from it.

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

1) the phenomenon of combustion manifested in light, flame, and heat ...
2) fuel in a state of combustion...
3) a destructive burning...

Now how many of you have arced electrical wires?

I have done so many times

Wow item #1. (flash of light, heat from the arch, and flame in the form of the arch)
Wow item #2. (fuel did burn, the wires insulation had to be at least singed from the arch)
Wow item #3. (the wires burned in half)

Guess what... By definition there was a fire.

Now did the fire spread from the electrical system to other combustibles?
Most likely not.

So the F.D. Says Fire
Verizon says no fire

I would have to say a very small electrical fire that resulted in the need for the FD to open the wall and ensure there was no smoldering embers.

tomato or tomato
PR Person = Professional Rambling Person

G3s... weren't those the "original" iMacs? If 10.4 works on those, I think I need to raid my mother's basement... :-p

(btw, you probably meant threw (past tense of throw), not through )

G3s... weren't those the "original" iMacs? If 10.4 works on those, I think I need to raid my mother's basement... :-p

(btw, you probably meant threw (past tense of throw), not through )

My usage conforms completely to the usage in my office.

• 3. (intransitive) (of a computer program) to terminate extraordinarily
• d of a computer system, component, or program : to suffer a sudden major failure usually with attendant loss of data
• 12. Computers. to shut down because of a malfunction of hardware or software.
• 6 Computing fail suddenly.
• 3. computer breakdown: a sudden complete failure of a computer system, device, or program, usually with an accompanying loss of data

I think you mean resuscitate.

Merriam-Webster says:

Main Entry: explicate
Pronunciation: 'ek-spl&-"kAt
Function: transitive verb
1 : to give a detailed explanation of
2 : to develop the implications of : analyze logically

Something tells me there's been too much build-up for the joke to be funny now.

It is not implied. The OP made no mention of capacity being a deciding factor.

Just count all his postings! He's really prominent!

Just a friendly fyi, regarding "malingering". I do not think it means what you think it does.

Oh man! Merriam-Webster losing credibility with me faster than the Wall Street Journal!
See also "Ginormous"
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/ginormous

Nice rant, AC, but maybe you want to pick up a dictionary next time you feel like playing Word Nazi.

In other words, it's up to you to document that "doncha" is not current usage, if you are to claim it's not a word.

1. revealing or marked by a smug, ingratiating, or false earnestness
2. of low sleazy taste or quality

those aren't the current "pre-eminent form of leisure entertainment" - compare the number of hours Americans spend on those activities to the number of hours they spend sitting in front of the TV

According to Merriam-Webster, preeminent means "having paramount rank, dignity, or importance" -- not "most popular".

Is "hours spent sitting in front of the TV" really considered to have more "rank, dignity, or importance" than sex?

I admit I'm not up on pop-culture these days, but I do live in the USA, and I don't think I've ever heard somebody claim that "hours spent sitting in front of the TV" had "dignity". Maybe in the midwest?

We call that an "analogy."

Wow, I thought that might be a misquote, but the article is full of nonsense like that.
Men also have a universal preference for women with a low waist-to-hip ratio.
preference for blue eyes seems both universal and undeniable wow, we have a qualifier - "seems" - but "universal and undeniable"? give me a break.
It's obviously a silly article, we can speculate just as well as they can. :)

How about because it is rare, and being rare makes something more exotic and valuable?
How about because blond body (and face) hair looks hairless? And lack of body hair (and mustaches) is something we've been sexually selecting for in females for a long time now because it indicates youthfulness. (I guess this fits a bit with the speculation in the article about blondes turning less blond as they age, hence it is a youth characteristic.)
How about because some hair turns more blond in the sun, so it indicates an active, healthy lifestyle?
and what about the even more politically incorrect question? Why are so many black and white mixed race couples a black guy and a blonde girl? ;)

(Incidentally, "spelled blond when used of a boy or man and often blonde when used of a girl or woman" -- http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/blonde)

I'm aware of Huxley's views:

"Science and Christian Tradition,"

It really is unreasonable to ask any rejector of the demonology to say more with respect to those other matters, than that the statements regarding them may be true, or may be false; and that the ultimate decision, if it is to be favourable, must depend on the production of testimony of a very different character from that of the writers of the four gospels. Until such evidence is brought forward, that refusal of assent, with willingness to re-open the question, on cause shown, which is what I mean by Agnosticism, is, for me the only course open.

This does essentially agree with your explanation of Huxley's view. However, his having invented the term does not make his view authoritative. Agnosticism is a formal, philosophical term which means what I had written previously. It is essentially universally agreed to have this definition, in spite of its distinction from Huxley's. "Real definition" is an interesting term; I suppose it depends what you mean by that. Philosophical dictionaries almost universally do not contain the definition you speak of, and respected dictionaries such as merriam-webster prefer the one I've mentioned. The hypothetical opinion of one man who invented the term is not really relevant--the etymology of a word is interesting, but it doesn't determine the definition.

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary
http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com/Dictionary.h tml
http://www.askoxford.com/results/?view=dict&freese arch=agnosticism&branch=13842570&textsearchtype=ex act http://www.catholic-forum.com/saints/ncd00225.htm

If you go to the library and use any dictionary of philosophy, you'll find that it uses the term the way I've defined it.
Dan

You predict? Or you imply?

The "pendant" tag indicates that the poster is an unredeemable idiot, who also thinks himself a pedant.

2a : to contradict or oppose by formal legal argument, plea, or countervailing proof
b : to expose the falsity of : REFUTE

It's not like we need to hear his rebuttal to the rebuttal. He already said what he wanted, and if he excluded himself from further discussions, it's his choice. Now it's enough for someone to show that, for example, a certain hangar, where the egg was supposedly held, was not constructed until much later. A construction contract with a date and a map of the site would suffice. Or it can be shown that certain people referred to in the affidavit were provably not there (the Army is good at keeping job records.)

Yeah, I could see why they wouldn't want a venerable drive or 'a line' (I assume you mean line of code; they especially wouldn't want that)...