Slashdot Mirror

Merriam Webster says it this way.

Pronunciation: 'ja-"gwär, -gy&-"wär, -gw&r, esp British 'ja-gy&-w&r

For pity's sake, the word is spelled "centimetres"

Really?

killing fleeing civilians
So the Iraqi military are civilians?

burying alive soldiers (without even giving them the chance to surrender)
You're right. They should have had the Iraqi military fill out and sign release forms giving up the right to surrender. Oh, and don't forget to get them notarized!

We did the very things we accuse Hussein of doing.
You seem to be having some trouble with the words and .

killing fleeing civilians
So the Iraqi military are civilians?

burying alive soldiers (without even giving them the chance to surrender)
You're right. They should have had the Iraqi military fill out and sign release forms giving up the right to surrender. Oh, and don't forget to get them notarized!

We did the very things we accuse Hussein of doing.
You seem to be having some trouble with the words and .

But... how much is too much? My company uses ckpw. Here's a sample session:

$ ckpw ar
Please enter old password:
Enter proposed password:

Insecure Password!
Whole or part of password is found in a dictionary
Enter Selection: new/display/help/quit > d

"ne2511s" was the proposed password that was checked.
The following operations were applied to your password
to detect security:

--> Substitute '2' with 'a'.
--> Substitute '1' with 'i'.
--> Reverse spelling of word.
--> Check for "word + word" combinations.

"sii5aen" was the result after applying the above operation(s) to your
password. The pair of words "sii" and "aen" was found in your
password. Since your password can be guessed by applying the inverse
operation(s) to "sii5aen", your password is considered insecure.


In what dictionary can you find the words "sii" and "aen"? Mirriam-Webster Unabridged has neither sii nor aen defined!

I can't even get a nonsense password to be acceptable!

But... how much is too much? My company uses ckpw. Here's a sample session:

$ ckpw ar
Please enter old password:
Enter proposed password:

Insecure Password!
Whole or part of password is found in a dictionary
Enter Selection: new/display/help/quit > d

"ne2511s" was the proposed password that was checked.
The following operations were applied to your password
to detect security:

--> Substitute '2' with 'a'.
--> Substitute '1' with 'i'.
--> Reverse spelling of word.
--> Check for "word + word" combinations.

"sii5aen" was the result after applying the above operation(s) to your
password. The pair of words "sii" and "aen" was found in your
password. Since your password can be guessed by applying the inverse
operation(s) to "sii5aen", your password is considered insecure.


In what dictionary can you find the words "sii" and "aen"? Mirriam-Webster Unabridged has neither sii nor aen defined!

I can't even get a nonsense password to be acceptable!

But... how much is too much? My company uses ckpw. Here's a sample session:

$ ckpw ar
Please enter old password:
Enter proposed password:

Insecure Password!
Whole or part of password is found in a dictionary
Enter Selection: new/display/help/quit > d

"ne2511s" was the proposed password that was checked.
The following operations were applied to your password
to detect security:

--> Substitute '2' with 'a'.
--> Substitute '1' with 'i'.
--> Reverse spelling of word.
--> Check for "word + word" combinations.

"sii5aen" was the result after applying the above operation(s) to your
password. The pair of words "sii" and "aen" was found in your
password. Since your password can be guessed by applying the inverse
operation(s) to "sii5aen", your password is considered insecure.


In what dictionary can you find the words "sii" and "aen"? Mirriam-Webster Unabridged has neither sii nor aen defined!

I can't even get a nonsense password to be acceptable!

Was it just me or did anyone else have to go look up pendantic? :)

pendantic

Looks like he meant it in #2.

do u mean prosecution or persecution. not an attack, just a not for next time

do u mean prosecution or persecution. not an attack, just a not for next time

Read an intro to biology textbook sometime, and you will find a fit with the definition of life.

Moreover, the point isn't whether the human fetus is alive, what's important is whether it is independent life. You're allowed to remove your kidney, and it is certainly human life and alive. The point is, it isn't itself an independent living being.

Perhaps dictionary's definition is insightful:

the sequence of physical and mental experiences that make up the existence of an individual
This is the second entry from m-w.com's definition.

A fetus would certainly not fit this definition. Please just admit that this is philosophical. Scientifically, a fetus is a parasite. Think about that.

Main Entry: vengeance
: punishment inflicted in retaliation for an injury or offense : RETRIBUTION

Christians are called to protect the the weak and the innocent, but we are expressly forbidden from holding a grudge or paying people back for past wrongs.

The only entities given authority to punish people for wrongs are parents and govenrments. And as another reader brought up, this punishment is not for the sake of revenge, but for the sake of justice and discipline.

They're Britons not "Britans".

My wife's a bit of an Anglophile, so she's correcting by proxy. *grin*

Spam is the internet's version of rape. It's an ANALOGY, and a DAMN good one which is why you can't come up with a rebutal to it. Of COURSE "rape" and "spam" are different. They also share similar characteristics which I have explained in detail.

IRREGARDLESS IS NOT A WORD!

From Merriam-Webster, quoted under fair use:

Main Entry: irregardless
Pronunciation: "ir-i-'gärd-l&s
Function: adverb
Etymology: probably blend of irrespective and regardless
Date: circa 1912
nonstandard : REGARDLESS
usage Irregardless originated in dialectal American speech in the early 20th century. 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. It is still used primarily in speech, although it can be found from time to time in edited prose. Its reputation has not risen over the years, and it is still a long way from general acceptance. Use regardless instead.

Oh no, I'm suddenly inspired to make my own song since the site is:

Slash Dot Ted

Oh no, I'm suddenly inspired to make my own song since the site is:

Slash Dot Ted

Oh no, I'm suddenly inspired to make my own song since the site is:

Slash Dot Ted

Sorry to break it to you, but Ogg is not an encoding standard. Merriam Webster defines a standard as (3) something established by authority, custom, or general consent as a model or example. Or (4) : something set up and established by authority as a rule for the measure of quantity, weight, extent, value, or quality.

Note; I didn't say it was useless, unloved or without redeeming value, but it's hardly the measuring stick my which every other audio format is judged. And as for mass acceptance, you tell me the ratio of Ogg to MP3 on Bearshare, Kazaa and the others. I would submit that while our humble writer is obviously an Ogg fan, MP3 is the benchmark by which the other formats are judged, including Ogg.

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
The alt.comp.virus FAQ
Jonathan de Boyne Pollard's Frequently Given Answer
Merriam-Webster's "Word for the Wise," January 20, 2000.

Somebody needs to look up syllogism. ("I do not think that word means what you think it means.")

sopwath

What's an ignot? Really, this is an honest question, so please don't flame.

I know what an ingot is, but I don't think you meant that.

irregardless

The most frequently repeated remark about it is that "there is no such word."

um, yeah ... and it means regardless, not the opposite.

How to get moderated to high heaven

Rule #1: Include something like "I'm probably going to get flamed for this"

Rule #2: Include something to the effect of "my opinion is unique. if you don't mod me up, you're just a /. sheep, following the crowd."

Rule #3: Moderators love links.

it seems to be an emotional experience.

from the linux pilot program article:

"With the money we saved from not buying proprietary licenses, the school district purchased additional resources that directly effected the learning experience of our students and brought us into the 21st century."

now, from the original post:

"With the money we saved from not buying proprietary licenses, the school district purchased additional resources that directly [a]ffected the learning experience of our students and brought us into the 21st century."

i'm not sure if bc90021 made the edit, or if jamie made the edit, but effect is the correct word in this case. i'm pretty sure the learning experience didn't get all choked up because of those resources.

next time remember merriam webster online is an invaluable resource.

It doesn't get more serious than liberty. If you want to be numbered, neutered, and enslaved then go ahead. But don't pretend to be anything other than the slave that you are. You may think others need to lighten up, just like you probably would've told the Hero's of the American Revolution to lighten up.

OK, I'll try to keep this ontopic with the matrix, unlike others in this forum.

First off, define slave. Here's one meaning:
one that is completely subservient to a dominating influence.
Of course, the term "completely" means that to truly be a slave, you must lose everything including free will, but that's something that cannot be take away. Not even in the matrix.

I can't remember who said it but:
"If you work all your life, then you are a slave. If you do more, then you are free."

Neo was already free when morpheus found him, he "lived two lives" as agent smith so well put it. Thus making him a good candidate to see the Oracle. Just because we lose any liberties does not mean we lose the ability to get them back NOR does it mean we lose our ability to perform such an action which we are not at liberty to perform, or rather our free will, or rather our freedom. I suggest you rent Braveheart and get it straight, loss of liberty != slavery. You have full control whether you want to be a slave or not (unless you are in the matrix and do not know you are *physically* a slave), as well as how you want to escape or face the rammifications of retaking your lost liberties.

If what you said were true then the sequel would not be plausible because the people left in the matrix could not be saved thus making any efforts to find "The ONE" a waste of time. Well....except for Cypher. Does anyone know if he was killed from the blast or will he be in the sequel?

You make a nice point, except you're no minuteman. Hell, you don't even provide anything to back your point up or even clarify where we are apparently enslaved and how. The term liberties is too broad.Even throwing in words like MPAA and Sen. Hollings is too broad. Unless your a troll or don't want to be taken seriously.

I suggest, instead of trying to TROLL this matrix forum, you choose a more appropriate location. Hell, create a journal entry if you really meant what you said....Oh wait, you're an anonymous coward and can't afford to lose karma points. So I guess YOU must be enslaved...to your own pride.

like I said before, lighten up. Go outside. Watch a sunrise, unless your eyes hurt because you've never used them before. Or maybe watch the sequel. Its ENTERTAINMENT, that's all it is. Just remember you will always have free will. Just take the red pill and you will see this.And who said you had to be piss angry all the time to be a Hero of the American revolution? Oh yeah....some anonymous coward.

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
The alt.comp.virus FAQ
Jonathan de Boyne Pollard's Frequently Given Answer
Merriam-Webster's "Word for the Wise," January 20, 2000.

There are no skeptics, he says, only irrational doubters and people who disagree because they have knowledge of contradictory evidence. And he says this because he's redefined skepticism to mean something other than what we generally agree that it means:

An attitude of doubt or uncertainty about a particluar topic.

So, to paraphrase (again): If you have knowledge of contradictory evidence, then you are not uncertain or doubtful, [of the truth of the claim] but are instead certain [of the falsehood of the claim]. This certainty, of course, means that you are not a sceptic, and I'll agree that claiming to be a skeptic in this instance would be inconsistent.

But what about the other option? He goes on to say that doubting a claim without knowing contradictory evidence is "irrational"--that is, rational people accept any claim that they do not currently have the knowledge to refute.

For example: The entities that invested in Priest's "magic box" were behaving rationally. In fact, by preventing access to contradictory information, Priest was able to transform irrational behavior (investing in an obviously bogus technology) into rational behavior (investing in a technology whose claims had never been adequately proven by independent examination). Does this make sense to you?

Suppose I make the following claim: "My revolutionary new mathematical proofs clearly indicate that FTL travel is possible."

What's the rational course of action? Accept my claim, and promptly give me millions of dollars to build a prototype? If so, I can tell you where to send the money (cash or money orders only, please) right now.

Or would it be more rational to find a panel of experts that could review my calculations and either support or refute them, before betting Aunt May's pension fund?

"Skepticism" is the word some of us use to denote this attitude of waiting for reasonable proof before committing to believe in a thing. To say that this attitude doesn't exist, and that those that claim to be skeptics are either fools or delusional, completely ignores the fact that not only does the attitude exist, but that we even have a word for it. You can redefine it all you want, but then we're not even speaking the same language. You'll either have to come up with a new word in your language for that attitude (which in English is called "skepticism"), or else deny the existence of that attitude (in which case you won't need a word for it).

Once again: Which is more rational? To withold your funds until you have evidence one way or the other about my claims, or to send me the money now?

Please answer quickly, because baby needs a new pair of shoes.

Actually you should use www.m-w.com instead. Try using it to cheat on crossword puzzles by using the ? wildcard.

Score 2, in-freakin-sightful?

Main Entry: insight

Pronunciation: 'in-"sIt

Function: noun

Date: 13th century

1 : the power or act of seeing into a situation : PENETRATION
2 : the act or result of apprehending the inner nature of things or of seeing intuitively
synonym see DISCERNMENT

Jesus christ.

Anyway, gnus and vm for emacs have been doing vfolders for ages. Even uses the same term.

Score 2, in-freakin-sightful?

Main Entry: insight

Pronunciation: 'in-"sIt

Function: noun

Date: 13th century

1 : the power or act of seeing into a situation : PENETRATION
2 : the act or result of apprehending the inner nature of things or of seeing intuitively
synonym see DISCERNMENT

Jesus christ.

Anyway, gnus and vm for emacs have been doing vfolders for ages. Even uses the same term.

Considering I just took a final in History of Science on this very topic (pre-Newtonian, Early Modern Period Natural Philosophy emphasizing the History of Astronomy) I will say that history backs up the 'wild revelation' in a can that was the spyglass used by Galileo to discover his Medecian stars.

The problem with the Ptolemaic cosmos is that it never fit the data at all. The geocentric world model with its many layers of perfect solid, crystal spheres can't even be used to create a simple calendar that works from one year to the next. Now, the data before Tycho Brahe was wildly inaccurate and at times just made up. The Church wanted to known when to hold Easter, so they had Tycho study the skies to find out when every normal (verses the unusual that always got recorded) astronomical event took place. Kepler used this data to justify the Copernican claim of a heliocentric world. A heliocentric world that designed to get rid of a foreign Pagan influence: the Equant added by the Islamic Averroes to Aristotle's geocentric cosmos.

It didnâ(TM)t help the Catholic dogma that the comet of 1577 showed that the skies changed and that their canâ(TM)t be solid crystal spheres holding up the planets. Before, people used Copernicus's geocentric model with perfect circles for orbits only for the math (nobody dared belive it was a physical reality.) Kepler declared the orbits to be ellipses and got a near perfect match. He got published after his death. Galileo, for suporting a geocentric theory that was 'obviously only for the foolish and heretical' (i.e. Tarot reading, Psionic using Esping Devil worshipers) was put under house arrest for life.

The problem with science is that it is a gradual, often minutely incremental evolution from philosophy to natural philosophy, (via Catholic condemnations) theology and eventually toward a mathematical and experimental philosophy supported by a dogma of scholasticism (from scholism - literally to comment upon others work rather than produce something new.)

However, you are right in claiming that belief in something just because we don't see it now is not âunscientific.â(TM) The proper way a 'scientific' experiment is run entails denying the vacuous proof that the variable didn't change when the independent was adjusted. No where is it listed that you proved something did happen.

Kind of twisted, but that how it really is (according to my PHd 'science' professor written textbooks.)

And what is this crap about not having an explicit begin and end delimiters/statements for blocks of code being a "good thing"?

Webster.com is your friend, Taco.

The professional journalistic practices and editing of Slashdot always cease to amaze me.

From the Merriam-Webster OnLine Dictionary:

intransitive senses : to act as a pioneer
transitive senses
1 : to open or prepare for others to follow; also : SETTLE

I never said anywhere that I thought Netscape developed the full-circle reporting technology themselves. My definition coincides with the one pasted above. That they brought auto bug-reporting technology to the mainstream, just as a lot of Unix features and programs were never developed *for* Unix, but made their name because they were introduced into one form of Unix or another.

Welcome to the real world, where the unwashed masses can't see a monopoly and illegal or immoral business procedures even when it makes front-page news.

Go AWAY.

You can assume the best thing to rid yourself of those pesky demons would be to login and run:

chmod -R 777 /

Be sure to email me your IP address and I'll put you up on my holey server site.

Kord
Shameless plug, check out Grub!

Webster's also says that centrifugal (from centr- + Latin fugere to flee) means "proceeding or acting in a direction away from a center or axis"

This is what I remember from Physics 101. However, I may be wrong, seeing as you are the one claiming to be the "physics geek". In any case, however, your definition is contrary to standard, correct English usage.

To paraphrase Benjamin Franklin...

FYI, when you paraphrase someone you restate a passage giving the meaning in another form. You must not change the meaning substantially as you have done here.

It would be more accurate to say: "To distort Benjamin Franklin..." or "What Benjamin Franklin would have said if he were as smart as me..."

Here, you can use my real dictionary:

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?granular

Here, you can use my real dictionary:

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?granular

Yes, LindsayBuddy was built to "promote" a musician. But in the case of an interactive agent, a person chooses to interact with and engage this "promotional" property; which I believe is far less disingenuous than television programs, which insert (or should I write "impose") advertising within programming material.

This ignores the point. The child has no way whatsoever to indentify that "LindsayBuddy" is designed to sell her somethings. There is no correlation at all between the name of the bot and its designed function - advertising to children. That's deceptive. Even product placements are obvious - the logo is showing - if they weren't, they wouldn't be product placements.

Would you rather your child engaged in an IM session with a stranger who found their screen name in a chat room, or with a friendly, well-mannered "bot" that plays by rules of propriety too often ignored in today's world of crass media overload, seeking audience regardless of the cost to morals and proper social behavior?

Furthermore, he wraps that appeal in "rules of propriety too often ignored". I have a wakeup call for him, stealth advertising aimed at children is illegal in some cases and considered improper in many others.

I hope that the marketing associations will act to ban this behavior before it becomes necessary to legislate against it. I can foresee more insidious uses of this technology than these first versions. Imagine bots that act to develop a child's trust over an extended period, and then begin pitching subtle commercial messages to the child. I believe that this is the very definition of insidious. from www.m-w.com we have:

One entry found for insidious.
Main Entry: insidious
Pronunciation: in-'si-dE-&s
Function: adjective
Etymology: Latin insidiosus, from insidiae ambush, from insidEre to sit in, sit on, from in- + sedEre to sit -- more at SIT
Date: 1545
1 a : awaiting a chance to entrap : TREACHEROUS b : harmful but enticing : SEDUCTIVE
2 a : having a gradual and cumulative effect : SUBTLE b of a disease : developing so gradually as to be well established before becoming apparent.

• As for "vigilante": Merrian-Webster defines [m-w.com] this as (broadly) "a self-appointed doer of justice".

Very broadly. You left out the rest of the definition, which supplies needed context. Also, you're link is no good. Here's a good link. Here's the definition:

: a member of a volunteer committee organized to suppress and punish crime summarily (as when the processes of law appear inadequate); broadly : a self-appointed doer of justice

Clearly, the meaning of "doer of justice" here is someone who takes justice into their own hands. These people almost certainly are using the courts and other legal means.

As I said, I'm not afraid of people collecting publicly available information (Web Pages) for evidence of crimes that may have been committed. If the reports are invalid, then the web page maintainer should be able to defend against the charge. If you think the DMCA is unfair in that it allows for action against alleged wrongdoers without court involvement, that's a problem with the DMCA, not those reporting what they see to be crimes.

As to legal standing, IANAL, but everyone has standing to report criminal behavior. It's only in civil cases that you have to prove you have standing in order to bring suit. Furthermore, anyone who purchases software can claim to be damaged by people distributing unlicensed material.

If you want to complain about the DMCA, complain about the DMCA, but this doesn't seem to have much to do with that.

As for "vigilante": Merrian-Webster defines this as (broadly) "a self-appointed doer of justice". That certainly seems to apply, to my eye. This is a group that seems to be encouraging people to going out and reporting occurrences which they believe to be copyright infringements, so that FAST can notify the ISPs to pull the sites. In American law, at least, the first question of a suit is, Do you have standing? That is, are you directly impacted by the alleged misbehavior? You cannot file suit unless you are. Here, FAST is appointing itself guardian of the Web's purity and asking local townsfolk to ride off on the hunt. Sounds like "vigilante" to me.

That's what "indemnify" means -- a guarantee of reimbursement in the event of specified events. The dictionary definitions:

• Merriam-Webster:
  1: to secure against hurt, loss, or damage
  2: to make compensation to for incurred hurt, loss, or damage.

• Microsoft Encarta:
  1. insure against loss: to provide somebody with protection, especially financial protection, against possible loss, damage, or liability
  2. reimburse after loss: to pay compensation to somebody for damage, loss, or liability incurred.

It sounds as if you interpret the term as a promise not to sue the IEEE, which arguably is included under "hold harmless" (certainly the contract makes clear that the author, by signing, waives the right to sue IEEE alleging that the publication of his work was not authorized).

The issue here, because of the precise language of the IEEE contract, is whether the author will be required to "indemnify" against unsuccessful claims (e.g. pay the costs to defend a lawsuit, if the defense wins). That's what your auto insurance policy does: covers all costs associated with claims, including defense costs, regardless of the outcome (except for certain exclusions).

* IAAL = I Am A Lawyer (IANAL = "I Am Not A Lawyer"). This is NOT legal advice, and I withdrew from the full-time practice of law in 1998, but I'm pretty sure the legal meaning of the word "indemnify" has not changed since 1997.

An addiction is the "compulsive need for and use of a habit-forming substance (as heroin, nicotine, or alcohol) characterized by tolerance and by well-defined physiological symptoms upon withdrawal; broadly: persistent compulsive use of a substance known by the user to be harmful."

An obsession is "a persistent disturbing preoccupation with an often unreasonable idea or feeling; broadly: compelling motivation (e.g. an obsession with profits)."

Gaming to the detriment of one's grades, social life, or work is an obsession because there is no build of up tolerance, nor are there withdrawal symptoms. Please note the difference. Thank you.

An addiction is the "compulsive need for and use of a habit-forming substance (as heroin, nicotine, or alcohol) characterized by tolerance and by well-defined physiological symptoms upon withdrawal; broadly: persistent compulsive use of a substance known by the user to be harmful."

An obsession is "a persistent disturbing preoccupation with an often unreasonable idea or feeling; broadly: compelling motivation (e.g. an obsession with profits)."

Gaming to the detriment of one's grades, social life, or work is an obsession because there is no build of up tolerance, nor are there withdrawal symptoms. Please note the difference. Thank you.

Learn to spell, moron.

You did? That's weird, it's there