Slashdot Mirror

Using b(1) definition of "negative" here, negative can be proven.

Since using one definition of negative, a negative can be proven, the statement "you cannot prove a negative" is false. If you randomly redefine negative as "that something didn't happen", probably it might be correct - depending on how precisely "something" is defined. If "something" includes time, place and manner of its happening, its not happening can be proven.

What's your point?

a) the post I replied to SPECIFICALLY indicated that the poster couldn't tell if it was soccer or "grid iron" football, so clearly he was cognizant of the existence of non-European uses of the term "football"

b) The definition of the WORD football, in the English language specifies that it may refer to any one of several disparate sports. Note also that the post was written in English, over the GLOBAL internet, on an American website.
Definition: "football"

c) Your tautology notwithstanding, (rugby is indeed called rugby!), Australian Rules Football, despite bearing a passing resemblance to rugby, is not rugby!
Australian Rules Football

Every definition I've seen disagrees with you.

Your flat tax is actually defined as "proportional," not "progressive."

Of course it isn't

Really? Lulz is where you draw the line? Not "google" (verb), or worse, "irregardless"?

What happened to English is that it's not Latin--never was. It's always followed less-than-static rules. It's a conglomeration of half-a-dozen different base languages. You should stop making idealistic assumptions about what it should be that most people don't share and accept what it is.

Really? Lulz is where you draw the line? Not "google" (verb), or worse, "irregardless"?

What happened to English is that it's not Latin--never was. It's always followed less-than-static rules. It's a conglomeration of half-a-dozen different base languages. You should stop making idealistic assumptions about what it should be that most people don't share and accept what it is.

I don't think the point is that under-grad's will be self-educated by selecting modules ala cart

It's à la carte, from the French. HTH.

http://www.merriam-webster.com...

That's because the Meriam Webster definition quote from above only quotes the abstract, not the full definition:

the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group

emphasis added.

It is not enough to merely kill (nor is killing a hard requirement). The main point behind genocide is an attempt at destruction of the race. This is also reflected in other sources

Wikipedia:

Genocide is the systematic destruction of all or part of a racial, ethnic, religious or national group...

Dictionary.com:

the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group.

The amount of Palestinians killed by Israel is so small, it has not even stopped natural growth. You cannot destroy a race if you're not even significantly affecting natural growth.

This brings me back to my original claim: Either Israel is being completely incompetent about it, or this claim is pure bullshit.

It's not clear whether Hamas is attempting genocide or something else. I for one, haven't managed to deduce any meaningful aims from their actions.

One way or the other, genocide is very clearly listed in Hamas's charter. Then again, equally clearly, is that even if that's what they are attempting, they are very very very far from successful. In this case, however, you can blame incompetence. I think their incompetence renders the question of whether that's what they are attempting moot.

Shachar

I always find the "genocide" mantra strange.

Pick any place in the world where a "genocide" accusation was levied, and you get a death count in the hundreds of thousands at least. Over the past decade, less than ten thousand Palestinian were killed by Israel (this number includes Palestinian killed while holding and using a weapon, which would not, normally, be counted in the "genocide" statistics). If Israel is committing genocide, why is the death toll so low?

Either Israel is attempting genocide, but is being completely incompetent about it, or the genocide accusation is pure bullshit.

Shachar

genocide
noun \je-n-sd\

: the deliberate killing of people who belong to a particular racial, political, or cultural group
source: http://www.merriam-webster.com...

There is no requirement for a particular quantity of people to be killed.

nostalgie de la boue

I, for one, could live more happily if the anti-human nihilists would just fall off the planet.

So basically, what you are saying is that you hate anti-human nhilists, and nothing would make you happier than if they all died.

hmmm......
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/irony

nostalgie de la boue

I, for one, could live more happily if the anti-human nihilists would just fall off the planet.

How do you know?

I don't. I'm guessing, based on the fact that I am doing something I'm presuming is similar, and based on the fact that, were I a student today, I'd be joining in.

Mind you, the anti-Israel crowed is similarly motivated. The people spewing party lines accusing Israel of everything and anything (can be seen here on Slashdot whenever the word "Israel" is mentioned) aren't given instructions or coordinated by some central entity. They are giving us their honest opinion, misguided though it is.

This is similar to all of the above, but it being done with a political rather than an economic agenda. I don't think I know a word for organized political rants over the internet. This doesn't mean they don't happen, and aren't even rather common. But spam isn't the right word.

How about "freedom of speech"?

Someone suggested the word is "propaganda". This word has a severe negative context, because propaganda usually involves lies. At its core, however, the word merely means actively working to spread an idea (see definition no. 2). I definitely consider what I'm doing to match that narrow meaning.

Shachar

One thing worse than a grammar nazi is a grammar nazi who doesn't even know what he's talking about.

That's a Stanley Kubrick kind of question and I can picture something of a Kubrickian rendition of an answer...

Kubrick? I'm thinking this is more of a David Lynch work, presuming we're constraining ourselves to use film analogies. Otherwise, this is effectively the definition of Kafkaesque.

http://www.merriam-webster.com... - like it or not, it's a word

I think that you are mistaking misogyny for something else.

Misogyny: "dislike of, contempt for, or ingrained prejudice against women"

Misogyny: "hatred, dislike, or mistrust of women."

Misogynist: "a person who hates women"

There are female superheroes, so you couldn't be saying that there the statement indicated that there should not be any of those. And Thor was a male god in the mythos, so are you saying that not changing the mythos is hating women? Perhaps you meant that they were speaking in defense of continuity? Or do you instead mean that they are transexualophobes? (what exactly would be the word?)

Either way, my takeaway from your post is that if anyone were to say that George Washington did not have female reproductive organs, they must be a misogynist.

Misogyny: A self-proclaimed feminist disagrees with you.

I think that you are mistaking misogyny for something else.

Misogyny: "dislike of, contempt for, or ingrained prejudice against women"
Misogyny: "hatred, dislike, or mistrust of women."
Misogynist: "a person who hates women"

There are female superheroes, so you couldn't be saying that there the statement indicated that there should not be any of those. And Thor was a male god in the mythos, so are you saying that not changing the mythos is hating women? Perhaps you meant that they were speaking in defense of continuity? Or do you instead mean that they are transexualophobes? (what exactly would be the word?)

Either way, my takeaway from your post is that if anyone were to say that George Washington did not have female reproductive organs, they must be a misogynist.

http://www.merriam-webster.com...

I've never heard anyone try to pronounce the abbreviation as a word.

http://www.merriam-webster.com...

Actually, by definition, faith is:

defn: : strong belief or trust in someone or something.

Thus your ability to confirm is based upon a certain trust in the validity of the scientific process. It does not mean that it is unreasonable, but simply that it is of something that you cannot observe.

As far as the 'duplicated independently', certainly that increases the validity of the measurement. But the question arises: what if there is only one instrument that can measure the phenomenon [such as CERN] ? How much is this really duplicated independently? If the ruler is marked wrong, everyone will be measuring wrong. The foundation of science is more subtle than just the ability to duplicate observations.

So no, the ECJ or ECHR are NOT an equivalent of the United States Supreme Court.

I never claimed that the ECJ was anything like the SCOTUS, only that it was a supreme court, as in "the highest judicial tribunal in a political unit" (Merriam-Webster), or specifically as in a court that makes final judicial decisions that bind lower courts and is not subject to any other court.

And no, I was not thinking about the ECHR. Even if this case might tangentially touch upon European human right law, I am well aware that the ECHR is not an EU court.

Did you even read the page you're quoting? The ECJ is not a Supreme Court, as national cases cannot be appealed to the ECJ.

You (as a citizen) cannot appeal a case to the ECJ, but you can challenge the law or intepretation of that law (under which the original case was decided) in a national court; the court may then direct the case to the ECJ. In other words, if you can make a reasonable case that GCHQ violates EU law, but is found in a UK court not to violate UK law, the case can certainly end up before the ECJ.

This has happened numerous times.

The [U.S.] Supreme Court has a much broader horizon when it comes to legal issues, most notably they can declare a national law to be unconstitutional.

The EU might not have a constitution, but the ECJ can certainly overturn EU law found to violate basic rights of citizens.

This isn't true.

Etymology of "incentive":

Middle English, from Late Latin incentivum, from neuter of incentivus stimulating, from Latin, setting the tune, from incentus, past participle of incinere to play (a tune), from in- + canere to sing

Etymology of "incite":

Middle French inciter, from Latin incitare, from in- + citare to put in motion

The two words come from completely different Latin roots and arrived in English from completely different sources.

This isn't true.

Etymology of "incentive":

Middle English, from Late Latin incentivum, from neuter of incentivus stimulating, from Latin, setting the tune, from incentus, past participle of incinere to play (a tune), from in- + canere to sing

Etymology of "incite":

Middle French inciter, from Latin incitare, from in- + citare to put in motion

The two words come from completely different Latin roots and arrived in English from completely different sources.

Secular does not mean "from age to age" in English:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/secular

Another source comes close to the meaning you have, but that variant (way down the list) means once in an age (implying rarity, not enduring):
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/secular

This "study" is garbage. Most people have always said that advertising doesn't effect them.

They'd be right, unless it's an advert for fertility treatment. http://www.merriam-webster.com..."

For the record "incite" and "incent" are two different words. And "incentivize" is indeed a word. [1] [2]

[1] http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/incentivize
[2] http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/incentivize

Home plate is base after third in baseball.

Players run from third to home when they score.

As such, those are all runs.

Definition of a home run. "a fair hit that allows the batter to make a complete circuit of the bases without stopping and score a run."
Therefore a running from only third base to home is not a home run.

Definition of a button. "a small part of a machine that you push to make the machine work"
The manual eject on a cd drive is a small part of a machine that you push to make the machine work. There for that manual eject is a button.

That manual eject hole is a "knob on a piece of electrical or electronic equipment that is pressed to operate it."

It's a button here is a better definition.

: a small part of a machine that you push to make the machine work

So, then you either get actual attacks happening nobody took seriously. Or the men in dark sunglasses hauling you off in the night for questioning because they're 100% convinced that your threat to drop the condoms, Snickers wrappers, and Depends on Capitol Hill was real.

Which scenario do you think is more likely? Furthermore, if anyone is a real threat, there will be much more intelligence (as in evidence of a threat) surrounding that individual than their tweets. Arresting people based solely on their tweets or FB posts will very rapidly devolve into an outright ban of saying anything critical of government officials or policy -- AKA fascism.

I asked because of the use of the word agnostic..

http://www.merriam-webster.com...
http://thesaurus.com/browse/ag...

Lucas123 wrote the summary. Also http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/further

chincy (sp?)

chintzy

Actually, empathy have many different layers. A purely intellectual empathy is a lesser empathy. "Knowing" the emotions of others (often because one has "been in their shoes") is a higher form of empathy.

Some people when confronted by pain, will seek to inflict the same in others.
Others see the futileness of projecting their own pain onto others, and thus seeks to alleviate the same pain in others.
The more mature strive to make society avoid decisions leading to pain.
The most mature strive to make society strive for happiness and wholesomeness.

How compassion can have a provable biological root: See "mirror cells" in the brain
Psychopaths often tend to lack these mirror cells, but can use their intellect to understand others' feelings without being conflicted by emotions.

Your understanding is limited: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/empathy

Empathy is a precondition for compassion, which is the highest feeling a human being can feel, when it is perfectly balanced.
Sympathy is actually weaker, as it is often purely intellectual; http://www.diffen.com/difference/Empathy_vs_Sympathy

I used my own words here, but links on the net will back them up.

Captcha: teacher ;-)

First, I am a doctor, and I know both Drs Tisherman, and Rhee, having met both in person and having read many of both of their papers. They are both stellar leaders in the field of trauma surgery. I am therefore posting as AC to avoid the perception of any even quasi-official criticism. These are my thoughts on the subject and are meant only to educate the readership, not to try to detract from the work cited

Second, I'm not jumping on " confused one"'s post, just taking an opportunity to correct a minor misconception, and use it as a hook to provide some detail as I understand them.

cold enough to shut everything off, but not cold enough to damage cells. Basic principle originates in all those "miraculous" drowning victims who fall through winter ice and are resuscitated 20 or 30 minutes later.

The "miraculous drowning victims" to which you refer usually survive due to the mammalian diving reflex, which is a distinct event (although hypothermia is involved) involving a slowing of the heart, vasoconstriction, and a closing of the glottic opening due to the face being submerged. The principle this proposed technique is using is more of a physio-chemical slowing of the reactions in the whole body, but of prime importance the heart, kidneys, and brain (and to a lesser extent the liver and lungs).

The proposed candidate patients (I presume, not having read their IRB nor their treatment protocol) would involve patients with penetrating trauma (knife or GSW) that have already had a resuscitative thoracotomy (as per my interpretation of the New Scientist article). This means that the patient is either in extremis, or has lost vital signs (no B/P, no pulse), at this point, under certain criteria, the chest is opened and the heart prolapsed from the pericardium, the aorta is cross-clamped and open massage or defibrillation is performed along with massive volume resuscitation. For these patients, this is literally, pulling out all the stops to try to save them. It often has a low survivability (~7%) as there is literally nothing else that can be done....until this trial.

The effect would be to suspend cellular aerobic metabolism and induce a state of hypometabolism that could be sustained by anaerobic metabolism. Not quite the suspended animation of science fiction. This would limit the amount of oxygen radicals that can lead to reperfusion syndrome, but this is not a given.

The questions that remain: how will humans as a "higher lifeform" with a more temperamental neurological makeup deal with this hypometabolic state? Will they be able to cool them fast enough in the hectic conditions of a trauma-code to be useful? What will their neurological status be? What about the blood already lost - the patient will likely need significant transfusions, will this reduce the effectiveness of the treatment due to transfusion related lung injury or transfusion related immunosuppression. Will the patient tolerate the hypothermia as this is traditionally considered a part of the lethal triad, for that matter, saline is a very acidic substance (to the body), how will they tolerate that acidosis (also part of the triad). I hope they are able to obtain useful information about these (and other) questions that may make this a viab

According to http://www.merriam-webster.com... a yeoman is

:a person who owns and cultivates a small farm;
specifically : one belonging to a class of English freeholders below the gentry

The gentry is the nobility. So a yeoman is a small farmer, a free man, not a serf living on a noble landlord's property, and a lot of farmers in the US South were large farmers, with large plantations. Washington was a yeoman, when the war for independence was over, he told the others he was going back to his farm. King George to this said that Washington is the greatest man alive, as the top military person, he could have been emperor of the US, like Julius Caesar, instead he handed over power to an elected body of government. He was eventually recalled as president, and started the tradition of changing presidents every 4 years. Btw, Isaac Newton was also a yeoman farmer, and the small income he derived from his farm let him devote his time to what he devoted it to. The term yeoman farmer in general does not mean slave keeping plantation owner, though in the South plantations dominated as farms. And yes, a lot of the early founding fathers were hypocrites, proclaiming all men are created equal, but only freeing their own slaves upon death, and one of them said they will be punished badly in afterlife for their hypocrisy, I can't track it down right now who.

A whole lot of people have a good side and a dark side to them, people like Michael Jackson, or a lot of catholic bishops, and probably a lot of stars and politicians too, like Bill Clinton. The tabloids keep track of such things in detail. I sit here and bitch about a lot of things, sounding like I'm sitting on a high horse, but it's not like I don't have issues, or a darker side to me. Though some of the darker side stories about celebrities are invented, and do not have basis in reality, like the one at http://urbanlegends.about.com/... or I'd put even Michael Jackson or the catholics bishops in that category, false allegations, but you can never be absolutely sure about these things.

You really don't get it at all. It is the sheer mitigated arrogance of the US government...

How exactly is the US government's arrogance being mitigated? Based on the context, I'm guessing you meant 'unmitigated'.

And we wonder why folks outside the US think we're all morons. Sigh!

You seem to have confused math with technology. I'm frequently amazed by how many /. posters don't quite understand what "technology" means: more efficient ways to perform tasks with the same base resources.

You might want to invest in a better dictionary.

Optimize: make the best or most effective use of (a situation, opportunity, or resource).
Efficient: achieving maximum productivity with minimum wasted effort or expense
Ephemeralization: the ability of technological advancement to do "more and more with less and less until eventually you can do everything with nothing".

It would appear you wanted one of those words (or something related), rather than technology:
1. the branch of knowledge that deals with the creation and use of technical means and their interrelation with life, society, and the environment, drawing upon such subjects as industrial arts, engineering, applied science, and pure science.
2. the terminology of an art, science, etc.; technical nomenclature.
3. a scientific or industrial process, invention, method, or the like.
4. the sum of the ways in which social groups provide themselves with the material objects of their civilization.

Even if we limit our use of "technology" to require actual implementations of ideas rather than the ideas themselves - The JPEG standard turns 31 this year. MP3, likewise, turns 23.

What the hell is "It'd"?

First Known Use of IT'D 1859. It's been a part of the language for over 150 years, and is perfectly standard -- if informal -- usage in both American and British English.

"Unless you can come back and tell me why Google should be able to profit from spreading false information and have no obligation to correct or remove then you don't have an argument."

So, I'm curious why you think that argument a straw man.

I've already explained it numerous times, but since you are a different poster I will try once more:

Definition: "a weak or imaginary opposition (as an argument or adversary) set up only to be easily confuted "

The EU case is not quite that, since the information published was true,

Oh look, you already know! Since this case is not about libel, I do not have to defend Google being able to profit from libel. I could have a position against that or not. It is irrelevant to this debate.

but it's still a matter of publishing information that legally should not be published.

No, not quite. The same court that ruled that Google couldn't index the site also ruled that the newspaper hosting the information did not have to take it down, as it was a matter of public record, as I quoted from the article in my original post.

And what do protocols have to do with implementations???

You know, I just went back and read your post again. Are you serious? Do you even know what a protocol is? As I said, I'm not intimately familiar with payment systems technology, but I know enough to say that there are at least two protocols which must be adhered to by any implementation of a contactless payment processing system for the elements to communicate: some sort of communication protocol so that payment information can be transmitted/received, and the format of the payment information itself. It wouldn't surprise me if there were others that were required as well.

Sigh. I guess you took that plunge from remaining silent to removing all doubt, friend.

Design by random chance is still design.

No, it is not.

The greenhouse effect is something that causes the earth to retain heat.

The greenhouse effect is a important consequence of those dynamics that cause Earth to retain heat (see its definition, I'm not making this up). It's not the dynamics themselves. And it happens to not be climate change only in the case where its "contributing factors" happen to be in "balance". So are the greenhouse effect's contributing factors in balance today?

I wager you would say no. That consistent, long term warming, which is the greenhouse effect, in today's imbalanced world is a change of the world's climate just by itself, not even counting the effects it spurs in turn. The greenhouse effect is climate change.

You clearly perceive yourself to be right because you don't understand what you're talking about, so aren't even aware of how your statements are false. I don't think it will be worth discussing any farther until you consider the very basic inaccuracy of your statements.

Follow your own advice. You have yet to state a reason why you think I'm wrong.

To elaborate on my point in my first paragraph above, you conflate the causes of the greenhouse effect with the effect itself. The retention of heat is the greenhouse effect not the dynamics of the Earth-Sun system that lead to that retention of heat. Similarly, the current warming of the Earth due to the energy imbalance in this system is the greenhouse effect not the factors that lead to that imbalance.

An effect is not a cause. For example, the second definition from that link:

an event, condition, or state of affairs that is produced by a cause

Are you serious? The Greenhouse Effect is the result of gases that transmit visible light more easily than infrared light. Because of the presence of those gases (cause), the system in question retains more energy (Effect). This phenomenon, in turn, is believed to be the primary factor in the observed upward trend in Earth's temperature, averaged globally (Global Warming). A single thing can be both a cause and an effect.

Bob wants a dog (Cause). He buys a dog (Effect). Bob just bought a dog (Cause). He then buys dog food (Effect).

This is basic logic. Try to understand topics before attempting to educate others about them.

You just argued a definition that is wholly unrelated to climatology

What is the greenhouse effect?

warming of the surface and lower atmosphere of a planet (as Earth or Venus) that is caused by conversion of solar radiation into heat in a process involving selective transmission of short wave solar radiation by the atmosphere, its absorption by the planet's surface, and reradiation as infrared which is absorbed and partly reradiated back to the surface by atmospheric gases

We see from the description of global warming that the second definition actually is the appropriate one to use.

And yes, I'm going to lecture you on the relevancy of your previous post. This whole argument could have been rendered irrelevant by you understanding the words in question.

The problem with that is that "the greenhouse effect" is a *cause*, but "climate change" is a *result*

An effect is not a cause. For example, the second definition from that link:

an event, condition, or state of affairs that is produced by a cause

The Supreme Court does not have the right to amend the Constitution (removing the militia clause)

The militia clause is a prefatory clause, not a limiting clause. The Amendment clearly states that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, not the right of the people serving in a militia.

Your desired interpretation of the 2nd Amendment has never been upheld by any Federal Court, pre or post Heller. If you dislike the 2nd Amendment you'll have to use Article V to get rid of it. Best of luck with that undertaking.

So I'm not a police officer or a weapons expert. However it seems to me handguns are not a defensive technology. Their primary purpose is to kill someone. A bulletproof vest I would agree is a defensive technology. But I guess as a culture we have gotten used to doublespeak with terms such as "peacekeeper missile" so your use of the language is not unusual.

As far as I know, police officers carry handguns as an offensive technology to attack dangerous criminals. They use bullet proof vests to protect against bullet attacks.
http://www.merriam-webster.com...

infamous adjective: well-known for being bad.

They could put a picture of the 2600 ET cartridge on that dictionary entry.

"a very unique milestone in space exploration"

WTF?

"unique" is not a relative adjective. There are no degrees of "unique". Something is either unique or it's not.

Aaargh!

That's why there are no such words as uniquer or uniquest

</rant>

Funny thing about English - many words have more than one meaning:

http://www.merriam-webster.com...

unique adjective \yu-nk\

...

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

Usage Discussion of UNIQUE

Many commentators have objected to the comparison or modification (as by somewhat or very) of unique, often asserting that a thing is either unique or it is not. Objections are based chiefly on the assumption that unique has but a single absolute sense, an assumption contradicted by information readily available in a dictionary....