Slashdot Mirror

Main Entry: (2) cost ...
transitive verb ...
3) past costed : to estimate or set the cost of -- often used with out

Actually, I think the grandparent is referring to this: ^

...and that would be caret.

Exactly! People need to stop misusing the word Pedophile. A Minor can be defined in many different ways and in fact most of the states in the US disagree on the age at which one can give consent. At 18 you don't magically become wise yet in the State of California for instance if a 17 year old has sex with another 17 year old they are both considered guilty of Statutory Rape. Even given this ridiculous scenario where the law says they are guilty, you still cannot call either party a pedophile. But, (now stick with me) even if an 80 year old and a 17 year old got together and had sexual relations the 80 year old still could not be called a pedophile. I think some people are really confused at this point. Popular Culture has brainwashed them. The point is in order to use the word Pedophile you have to go on a case by case basis of whether the minor has passed menarche or not.

So is irregardless

From the same dictionary that lists y'all and you-all. It might be in the dictionary, but that doesn't mean you won't seem like an uneducated hick if you use it.

So is irregardless

From the same dictionary that lists y'all and you-all. It might be in the dictionary, but that doesn't mean you won't seem like an uneducated hick if you use it.

So is irregardless

From the same dictionary that lists y'all and you-all. It might be in the dictionary, but that doesn't mean you won't seem like an uneducated hick if you use it.

Well, except that irregardless is a word. In fact, it has been in use since at least the 1920's. It may not be a very good word. But your claim it is not a word is incorrect.

From Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary:

Irregardless[']s 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.

Irrespective and regardless are words.

So is irregardless: 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.

Is fucking in the dictionary?

http://m-w.com/dictionary/fucking

Saddam rose to power by killing anybody he suspected of showing the slightest disloyalty.

I'm no historian, but didn't he rise to power with the help of western allies? Wikipedia says the U.S. Feral Government's CIA was quite instrumental in getting the Ba'ath party in power. He even asked for permission before invading Kuwait, and was told that the U.S. government had nothing to do with the Iraq/Kuwait border dispute.

Saddam & the CIA stopped being buddies when he didn't do what they wanted anymore. Saddam was only able to stay in power for so long because he's a psychopath. Nice guys are easy for covert operatives to take out.

Poor Saddam's biggest mistake was trying to stand up to the U.S. Leviathan (definition #2).

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

Average can be the mean, mode or median, from definition 1a:
a single value (as a mean, mode, or median) that summarizes or represents the general significance of a set of unequal values
And probably an even better definition is 2b:
a level (as of intelligence) typical of a group, class, or series

-dave

The definition of dictator is a : a person granted absolute emergency power; b : one holding complete autocratic control; c : one ruling absolutely and often oppressively.

While you could argue whether Bush, technically, meets the definition, there is plenty of evidence that he is trying to evade Congressional oversight, elimination of habeas corpus for detainees and immunity for torture, the use of signing statements to effectively nullify legislation, NSA spying on U.S. citizens and so forth that are clearly moves in that direction.

Further, he is definitely claiming power and using it based on a framework of emergency that goes by the label of the "war on terror". He, and especially people under him like Cheney, believe that that the President, as Commander-in-Chief, has the authority to disregard virtually all previously known legal boundaries. That's pretty close to an understanding that believes itself to have absolute emergency power, i.e., a dictatorship - given certain conditions (which in this case are vague).

Whatever his official title, his function appears to be dealing with PR. Job titles are designed to sound important, I'm not an MS initiate so I don't know what his job "really" is. Not that it's important, anyway. My point is that his statement has little import and will probably be repudiated, or just forgotten.

(whatever a "flack" is; perhaps you meant "hack"?).

flack : one who provides publicity; especially : PRESS AGENT.

Biannual actually means TWICE A YEAR so the poster was right. Semi-annual is also correct.

I had the same conversation with someone a while ago and lost (assuming that it meant "every two years"). So now I remember what it means.

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

reptileqc

Er no [part II]. That's your inability to understand cooking. Frenching is cutting things so that they are in a lengthy pieces, but in a rough cut fashion, as parent correctly noted. Julienne is cutting them much thinner than Frenching.

The parent is also correct that it is an archaic term. I had to look in something ancient like a dictionary to prove it to you:

http://m-w.com/dictionary/frenching

PS, If you've ever had frites in Belgium you will understand why folks are so pedantic about getting this right. You'll never go back to a McD's fry after tasting the real thing. And the Belgians also put mayo on their frites. Personal preference, but I like 'em plain.

Now let's return back to the humo[u]r.

Yeah obviously. http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/pron

With respect to doctors, a similar situation has been put in place. We have basically outlawed all Chevy doctors who focus on the less expensive minor health problems (which is, in fact, all that most people have) and are forced instead to use Mercedes doctors who charge Mercedes prices even for ailments that can be fixed by people with significantly less training.

-Uncertainty and Its Exigencies: The Critical Role of Insurance in the Free Market

The terms were defined as such to resolve ambiguity back in the 19th century to better describe intersexed, homosexual, and transsexual people.

Way to "revise" history. The usage of the word gender to describe someone's personality as opposed to their biological sex was invented in the middle of the 20th century. It is technical jargon used by social scientists and psychologists. I'm really tired of seeing people "corrected" when they use gender as a synonym for sex. When the the Merriam-Webster Dictionary lists "sex" as a definition, it's good enough for me. Stop trying to impose what you were told in your Humanities electives on the rest of us.

Censorship only happens when the government censors something.

Nope, censorship happens when anyone censors. It just happens to be perfectly legal for anyone not the government to do it. Surely you have heard late night hosts make a comment along the lines "That will never make it past our censors"? They aren't referring to the government, they are referring to network employees, often operating under guidelines set by the network above and beyond FCC regulations.

The standard usage of the word "anecdote" refers to biographical information (of or pertaining to a person's life). Such as "I work in Atlanta. There are only three native Georgian's in my company of 50 employees. You see this everywhere."

My example, on the otherhand was not from my own life.

I brought up a company publically stating that their research has shown that the education in southern states is not high enough to have a competent workforce.

If you want more statistics...

If you want to use anecdotal evidence, there are plenty of rednecks in Illinois too. But I do not use anecdotal evidence, the truth is much more useful.

In the summer of 2005 Toyota passed up building a new plant to produce RAV4s in the south; passing up huge financial incentives to build in various southern U.S. locations (which are trying to build up their economy). Why did they do this? Because the educational level in the Southern United States was so low that trainers for Japanese plants in Alabama had to use pictorials to teach illiterate workers how to use high-tech equipment. Toyota passed up over $150 million more in incentives (to build a $800 million manufacturing plant) to have a workforce that could actually read.

2: of a high grade or quality

No. My point is that property rights are not an artificial construct. Copyright law is a construct to protect property rights. And the right to privacy ("you have no business having a copy of my poetry") and the right of freedom of association ("I have the right to give copies of my poems to my friends without it meaning any random person on the street now has the right to read them")

And for somebody who seems to champion many flexible definitions (i.e. 'the public good' as served by copyright law) it seems odd that you're now trying to establish a rigid defintion of 'the only true democracy that can exist.' There are obviously people smarter than average who 'know better' than 'the people themselves do.' This isn't an elitist notion, any more than it's 'elitist' to defer to the judgement of a medical doctor in the operating room of a hospital.

1 a : government by the people; especially : rule of the majority b : a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections

No. My point is that property rights are not an artificial construct. Copyright law is a construct to protect property rights. And the right to privacy ("you have no business having a copy of my poetry") and the right of freedom of association ("I have the right to give copies of my poems to my friends without it meaning any random person on the street now has the right to read them")

And for somebody who seems to champion many flexible definitions (i.e. 'the public good' as served by copyright law) it seems odd that you're now trying to establish a rigid defintion of 'the only true democracy that can exist.' There are obviously people smarter than average who 'know better' than 'the people themselves do.' This isn't an elitist notion, any more than it's 'elitist' to defer to the judgement of a medical doctor in the operating room of a hospital.

1 a : government by the people; especially : rule of the majority b : a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections

No. My point is that property rights are not an artificial construct. Copyright law is a construct to protect property rights. And the right to privacy ("you have no business having a copy of my poetry") and the right of freedom of association ("I have the right to give copies of my poems to my friends without it meaning any random person on the street now has the right to read them")

And for somebody who seems to champion many flexible definitions (i.e. 'the public good' as served by copyright law) it seems odd that you're now trying to establish a rigid defintion of 'the only true democracy that can exist.' There are obviously people smarter than average who 'know better' than 'the people themselves do.' This isn't an elitist notion, any more than it's 'elitist' to defer to the judgement of a medical doctor in the operating room of a hospital.

1 a : government by the people; especially : rule of the majority b : a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections

Even of you'd used the word you meant, it'd still have been the wrong word.

No, it would've been the right word. Merriam-Webster's definition 2.

Google Gadgets has a Wikipedia search gadget and a dictionary gadget.

In Firefox I bookmarked http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%25s , gave it keyword 'w', and just enter "{Ctrl-L}w anime" to jump to a Wikipedia article. The %s gets replaced by the rest of what you type in the location field.

Here are some more:

1 a : resembling in every relevant respect b : conforming in every respect -- used with as
2 a : being one without addition, change, or discontinuance : IDENTICAL b : being the one under discussion or already referred to

1 a : resembling in every relevant respect b : conforming in every respect -- used with as
2 a : being one without addition, change, or discontinuance : IDENTICAL b : being the one under discussion or already referred to

1 a : resembling in every relevant respect b : conforming in every respect -- used with as
2 a : being one without addition, change, or discontinuance : IDENTICAL b : being the one under discussion or already referred to

the attribute inherent in and communicated by one of two or more alternative sequences or arrangements of something (as nucleotides in DNA or binary digits in a computer program) that produce specific effects."

• Information is not a story, a song, or a movie. For those too ignorant to understand, use a bloody dictionary : http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/information. Even a non fiction book is not information. It may -CONTAIN- information, but the book itself, including the author or editor's original words are not information.
• Information is 4+9=13.
• Information is "The past tense of to pay is paid, not payed."
• Information is "The past tense of to die is died not dyed."
• Information is "I am sick of whiney entitlement babies demanding something for nothing."

You aren't being serious, are you? The whole thing is just a joke. Do you know what a "Luddite" is? See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luddite and http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/luddite, for example:

"In recent years, the terms Luddism and Luddite or Neo-Luddism and Neo-Luddite have become synonymous with anyone who opposes the advance of technology due to the cultural changes that are associated with it."

As regards your specific criticism, not that it really matters, note this comment on the first referenced page, under "History:"

"1979 Ernest P. Buckman sells first Atari 2600 with custom wooden frame out of his Cupertino Garage."

>> "Yahoo Mail recently launched their new webmail service, dubbed Beta (yes just like gmail)

> I don't think that word means what you think it means....

So, "to call by a distinctive title, epithet, or nickname" isn't one of its meanings?

3 a : based on or determined by individual preference or convenience rather than by necessity or the intrinsic nature of something

a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings"

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

1 obsolete : WEAL, WELFARE
2 : abundance of valuable material possessions or resources

Well, strangely, yes - I am going by that logic... I'm not sure what logic that you're working from, however - I personally do not see the word "many" as being ambiguous in the slightest.

FYI

from http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/many

Main Entry: 1many
Pronunciation: 'me-nE
Function: adjective
Inflected Form(s): more /'mor/; most /'mOst/
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English manig; akin to Old High German manag many, Old Church Slavic munogu much

1 : consisting of or amounting to a large but indefinite number [worked for many years]
2 : being one of a large but indefinite number [many a man] [many another student]

Unless that you have another definition of many, of course.

Incidentally, many computers do not use notepad, calculator, etc - I know that mine doesn't.

I am not arguing what the poster above stated - I am replying to your comment.

I am not arguing that you may know many computer users, I am simply replying to the implicit statement which you have made - i.e.
What do you mean by many computers are NEVER used for playing music?
Just because all your friends use their pc for playing music, does not mean that everyone uses their computer for playing music - that is a huge (and most likely incorrect) assumption.

That's because you're using the wrong dictionary.

Miriam-Webster says:

Main Entry: flagging
Function: adjective
1 : LANGUID, WEAK
2 : becoming progressively less : DWINDLING
- flaggingly adverb

SYLLABICATION: flagging
PRONUNCIATION: flgng
ADJECTIVE: 1. Declining; weakening: flagging strength. 2. Languid; drooping.
OTHER FORMS: flaggingly --ADVERB

1 : having recently come into existence : RECENT, MODERN
2 a (1) : having been seen, used, or known for a short time : NOVEL <rice was a new crop for the area> (2) : UNFAMILIAR <visit new places> b : being other than the former or old <a steady flow of new money>

http://m-w.com/dictionary/genuine

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=genuine&x =12&y=22

What kind of linguist are you, if you don't even know how to use a dictionary and then go and write an entire blog post based on that error?

`(3) As used in this subsection--

`(A) to `circumvent a technological measure' means to descramble a scrambled work, to decrypt an encrypted work, or otherwise to avoid, bypass, remove, deactivate, or impair a technological measure, without the authority of the copyright owner; and

`(B) a technological measure `effectively controls access to a work' if the measure, in the ordinary course of its operation, requires the application of information, or a process or a treatment, with the authority of the copyright owner, to gain access to the work.

by "n.b. must support mac", I take it you mean that for that result, a notbook must support MacOS? Sorry, none do, but with FreeBSD, Linux, or IMO even Windows, I don't need MacOS.

no, he probably means Nota Bene, which means he wants information about a digital music player that supports mac.

>>This article presents an alternative to dark matter
>Just as dark as your regular matter, but with only 1/3 the calories!

Heh.

Of course, there's alma matter, which is just plain wet, eh. But, being full of DiHydrogen Monoxide (DHMO) which some want to ban but other defend.

I don't really care if it is Microsoft filing this kind of a patent. I still feel that it is baseless and that it already exists. The counter to my argument is that it IS fairly exciting software (in concept) and should be protected from theft. I feel that the software lies in a grey area between invention and copying. The code, not the concept, could be protected. IANAL.

I agree that "patenting a method or system for performing X != patenting X", but does this really qualify? Both paper and computer dictionaries already contain references like "Inflected Form(s): saw /'so/; seen /'sEn/; seeing" http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/see and cross-references to related entries. Translation dictionaries include possible misinterpretation cross-references. Translation applications rely on databases of tense/verb/misinterpretation charts to accomplish the same thing. A user relies on these systems according to their own resources. The more I think about it, this feels like a search engine patenting all of the content it reveals.

To illustrate, my mom may have a perfect method for scrambling eggs. She can say it is her method, but she cannot claim that she invented scrambled eggs, and she is not claiming that she invented the egg. The implementation of fork, bowl, egg, and milk are not new. She could not exclusively patent and sell Mom's Eggs as a new thing, just because she was the first to think of patenting it.

With today's pantent office, however, I would not be surprised if she could. ::scrambles for phone::

You're probably a troll, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and treat you as if you are not :)

I think neither of you realizes that depending on our chosen philosophy you both might be right or you both might be wrong. Generally speaking if you choose modern Western philosophy, you both are wrong in that you did not consult a reputable source on definitions like Merriam-Webster.

Anyway, from ancient philosophy suggesting that you are both valid in creating your own definitions for words used in the English language, you both are right.

However, most people nowadays say that it's up to a more knowledgeable source like Merriam-Webster to come up with our best definition for encyclopedia. To rephrase M-W's definition in my own words, they consider an encyclopedia to be a body of work that treats all bodies of knowledge or a particular body of knowledge. Its subjects are usually, but *not necessarily*, arranged alphabetically. Thus, Wikipedia by a more popular definition of encyclopedia most definitely qualifies as an instance of an encyclopedia.

Sorry, Chacham... if you're going to be pedantic, you should really check that your knowledge has been checked with the "rest of us." ;)

I gather you use a different dictionary than I do.

He didn't ask for a definition of "anti-social behavior". In fact, he didn't ask for a definition of antisocial. He merely used antisocial in a completely unrelated context to that wikipedia article. If you'll view the definition of antisocial, you'll notice two definitions the first one corresponding to the GP's context and the second one corresponding to the wikipedia article's context. Note that dictionaries generally list the more common and generally applicable usages of words before the narrower and less common ones. Dictionary.com backs that up too.

Notice that the wikipedia article you linked to isn't even about the general concept of "antisocial", it's in several Psychology categories and links to several aricles about various pieces of legislation. It's an article discussing a jargon term and completely independant of the broader meanings associated with the word antisocial.

What you do not seem to understand is that Dell did not provide any timeline yet receives the best possible marks. Apple provided a timeline that illustrates its work on reducing the amount of PVC, and stated they are actively working to completely eliminate PVC use (as opposed to Dell's, "We'll take a look at our options maybe once a year, if we think we need to."

In a project, I discover a product I have been engineering cannot be manufactured without some technological advancements that would reduce its cost or negative environmental effects and increase its performance. If my boss asks for a timeline of my current project's progress and I come back to him with, "It'll be done in 2009. Maybe. If someone else has already got something like it. I'll take a look for something like it once a year until then, if I think I need to," what I would be providing him would not be a timeline. No, a timeline looks a lot more like that pretty little graphic on the Apple site showing when they phased out PVC use in packaging and in most product parts. The one with the arrow extending to the future, illustrating that while currently available technology limits what chemicals can be eliminated without "compromising product performance", "lowering product health" or (assumedly undesirable) "environmental impacts" (quotes Dell); Apple is actively researching ways to completely eliminate PVC. It's true that they did not publish an arbitrary date, claiming the world's problems would be solved by that date, but doing so would be no more a timeline than the Patriot Act is a solution for terrorism.

The reason complete elimination of PVC use isn't shown on Apple's timeline is that it hasn't happened yet and cannot be accurately predicted as it is limited by the availability of technology. You may consider it odd that a display of historical events wouldn't show something that hasn't happened, yet it happens all the time. Right now I'm looking at a history textbook that doesn't show the date the Enterprise NCC-1701-D was christened in relation to the date the Enterprise NCC-1701-B was christened. In fact, it seems to sort of trail off after the second world war. What a useless timeline.

In spite of being unable to foretell future events with any more reliability than Dell, Apple makes a sterling effort to describe what they have done to eliminate PVC use (timeline material), and even go so far as to present this information in a timeline, which Dell doesn't. Dell tells us little about what it's done and tells us it will yet do less, yet Dell gets best points for having such a plan to eliminate PVC use.

Perhaps I should compile a report in which both companies are deemed disinterested in their market position for not publicly (and within 3 clicks of a crackhead's mouse) publishing the date on which they would achieve total market dominance? Or a report in which both companies are deemed disinterested in customer satisfaction for not publicly publishing the date on which they will achieve 100% customer satisfaction? Either report would be equally useful to that which Greenpeace is presenting, and without much effort more detailed and accurate.

Once again, Greenpeace's report is flawed. Most of Greenpeace's efforts are flawed. This report is no exception.

Unlike yourself, I do not believe Greenpeace are especially concerned about smearing Apple. Like yourself, they compile all their "reports" with uniform knack for misinformation. Apple just happens to be one of four companies bearing the brunt of their ineptitude for this particular report.

I can't be assed continuing this debate with you. Too much time would be wasted explaining that chickens aren't mongeese, tomatoes aren't potatoes, and random dates pulled out of