Slashdot Mirror

We'll overlook the obvious typo, but the word for the thing that ought to be carefully weighed before it's added to the dictionary is neologism.

A management catch was that it could not appear to be a donation and it had to be for something we had notionally received in the current financial year.

"notionally" ?

Huh?

If your company is using these products then I think there's plenty of reason to donate money. But "existing in the mind only" is one definition of "notionally"; therefore, ANY FOSS project qualifies.

this isn't the grossest perversion of the language that I've seen.

The worst I know of is the fact that the prefix 'in-' means "not" or "the opposite of" and "flammable" means easily set on fire. So therefore, "inflammable" must mean "not easily set on fire." As in, "Don't worry about accidentally burning the house down, I coated the walls of the fireplace with inflammable material"

However, the "literally" thing is probably the most annoying perversion of the language.

Webster's Dictionary says you're wrong. WTF, mods, complete innacuracy is now interesting? Websters:

1: a spacecraft mission to the moon
2: a hit or thrown ball with a very high trajectory
First Known Use of MOON SHOT
1957

Someone please correct that horrible moderation. "Moon Shot", according to the fucking DICTIONARY, dos NOT have to be a manned landing. Apollo 8 was, indeed, a moon shot.

A moonshot is a manned mission that lands on the moon.

Says who? According to Mirriam-Webster, a moon shot (TWO WORDS) is "a spacecraft mission to the moon". Dictionary.com says the same.

Yeah, Wikipedia says a moon shot is specifically a manned mission, but it says that on a short disambiguation page without any citations. Wikipedia is pretty reliable -- most of the time. Not when the article is without citations and has a short edit history.

Nothing is "comprised of" anything else. The word you are looking for is composed.

"3: compose, constitute

"Usage Discussion of COMPRISE

"Although it has been in use since the late 18th century, sense 3 is still attacked as wrong. Why it has been singled out is not clear, but until comparatively recent times it was found chiefly in scientific or technical writing rather than belles lettres" -- http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/comprise

Sorry, but when usage has been established for over two centuries, it's incorrect to label it incorrect.

(I'd still advice using "composed of" or "made up of" in preference to "comprised of", though. )

OK, since this is the pedantic thread, they can make sense, but have to mean something different than the literal meaning.

Nope. See definitions 1 and 3: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/idiom

Well,well, firstly English is in part also a Latin language, and apart from that the word gift comes from Old Norse.. Fun fact: In German, the word 'gift' had the same meaning for something 'to be given' but later the meaning changed. The old meaning lives on in the word 'Mitgift' (dowry).

Is there such a thing as a political slur? It's not like something you're born into.

What does being born into have to do with it?

slur: "1 a: an insulting or disparaging remark or innuendo : aspersion"

If someone doesn't want to be associated with a party of idiots, they are free leave.

Juvenile.

You should probably look up the word circa (e.g. 1983/84 is circa 1982). Also, I lived in La Jolla California in the early 1980s. I cut my teeth on a Kaypro luggable and an early Apple II. You should learn your computer history, specifically this Wikipedia article and this one. Then it wouldn't surprise you that people who have been in the field since the early '80s have heard of him.

It's kinda funny how literally shitting on each other is the German national pastime, and yet only the NSA knows who exactly is shitting on whom.

I do not think that word means what you think it means.

Google Disagrees
So does merriam-webster
And Cambridge

His name is Elon Musk. With a 'k'. Not "Must".

There's a big difference.

(think of the difference between something that smells musty and something that smells musky....)

Alas, we literally lost...

Some words have multiple meanings: literally has multiple meanings. One of the meanings of "literally" is "in effect; virtually", and it is used in hyperbole to provide emphasis.

Merriam-Webster: literally

(Also, obligatory xkcd.)

Indeed, words have meanings. A dictionary to help you know these meanings is a good resource to have. Check out Merriam-Webster's definition of literally:

1: in a literal sense or manner : actually <took the remark literally> <was literally insane>
2: in effect : virtually <will literally turn the world upside down to combat cruelty or injustice — Norman Cousins>

pound [pound]
noun, plural pounds ( collectively ) pound.
1. a unit of weight and of mass, varying in different periods and countries.

Source

pound noun \paund\
plural pounds also pound

Definition of POUND

1: any of various units of mass and weight; specifically : a unit now in general use among English-speaking peoples equal to 16 avoirdupois ounces or 7000 grains or 0.4536 kilogram — see WEIGHT TABLE

Source

pound
Pronunciation: /pand/

noun
1 (abbreviation: lb) a unit of weight equal to 16 oz. avoirdupois (0.4536 kg), or 12 oz. troy (0.3732 kg).

Source

That's a dishonest way of saying we're all equal. Even communists don't say that: Communism says individuals must sacrifice their advantage to benefit others, which individuals don't want to do so the result is a race to the bottom. People get better jobs because they've got better education/experience/talent/parents/sex appeal/psychopathic traits.

There is nothing dishonest about it, and it does not even say we are all equal, but we must all be treated as though we are equal on the grounds of certian classes (race, religion, origin). Your argument is the dishonest one trying to redefine a term.

Oh, yes there is: Discrimination is treating someone differently because they're a minority. Treating someone differently because she's not in the minority group is not mere discrimination: It's reverse discrimination.

No, no there is not. Here is the definition of discrimination http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/discriminate. Where in this does it mention "minority" or "majority"

a : the act of discriminating

b : the process by which two stimuli differing in some aspect are responded to differently

2 : the quality or power of finely distinguishing

3 a : the act, practice, or an instance of discriminating categorically rather than individually

b : prejudiced or prejudicial outlook, action, or treatment

Discrimination is about a group, not just minorities, but any group, that you discriminate against solely because of a group.

And the definition of discriminate, since you obviously are trying to twist it as well, still no minority/majority, only groups:

a : to mark or perceive the distinguishing or peculiar features of

b : distinguish, differentiate

2 : to distinguish by discerning or exposing differences; especially : to distinguish from another like object

intransitive verb

1 a : to make a distinction

b : to use good judgment

2: to make a difference in treatment or favor on a basis other than individual merit

a sequence of coded instructions that can be inserted into a mechanism (as a computer)? http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/program

That is one of the definitions of a program

But using programs already written, creating and distributing documents and images and data files of all sorts in particular, is not programming.

That is not web programming, that is copying and pasting, and every level of programming has it..Writing complex javascript, vbscript and other languages are still programming whether you believe it is below you or not, because it falls squarely within the definition of creating a program

The definition of homicide means when both the killer and the person being killed are humans.
Citation: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/homicide
Many more citations: https://www.google.com/search?q=definition+homocide&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

I'm using the word "plagiarized" in the sense that the names and places he uses are not his own. Everyone who uses a line like, "You bastards. You killed Kenny!", is plagiarizing South Park.

Going to http://www.merriam-webster.com/ it gives the definition of "plagiarize" to be:

to steal and pass off (the ideas or words of another) as one's own

He certainly is using someone else's creation, and claiming his fanfic as his own.

Because of course you are the true arbiter of all that is good and bad behavior.

Some bad behavior is obvious and not at all subjective.

It is easy to see why this happened. It is because the poster pakar (813627) had no idea what the number meant, but he felt that he just had to comment on the number anyways. Its plainly stupid behavior.

When you dont understand something, the good and right course of action is to question, not to comment. This is obvious. In his 9 words post, he managed to fulfill every single definition of the word stupid. Not just one of them.. all of them.

If you're going to attempt such a blatant slashvertisement-disquised-as-a-story, at least tell us what the fuck "The Old Reader" *is*.

I presume it's yet another RSS-reader similar to Google Reader, like so many others out there??

No, it's a video site of septuagenarians reading novels out loud.

The summary started off by talking about Google Reader (which you clearly knew what it was) and went on to talk about The Old Reader, so it's pretty clear what it is. There are these newfangled things in writing called 'context' and 'inference' which you might want to look into. They're very handy.

If you're going to attempt such a blatant slashvertisement-disquised-as-a-story, at least tell us what the fuck "The Old Reader" *is*.

I presume it's yet another RSS-reader similar to Google Reader, like so many others out there??

No, it's a video site of septuagenarians reading novels out loud.

The summary started off by talking about Google Reader (which you clearly knew what it was) and went on to talk about The Old Reader, so it's pretty clear what it is. There are these newfangled things in writing called 'context' and 'inference' which you might want to look into. They're very handy.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/jerry-rigged

Those are two different terms. Jury-rigged is nautical in origin. Jerry-rigged is a racist term first used in ww1 or ww2 by british soldiers. It started in ww1 as jerry-built.

And if in turn _you_ are going to be pedantic, then let _me_ be pedantic by pointing out you are are wrong.

Electrocution, source 1:
1. to kill by electricity.
2. to execute (a criminal) by electricity, as in an electric chair.
Origin: 1885–90, Americanism; electro- + (exe)cute

Electrocution, source 2:
1: to execute (a criminal) by electricity
2: to kill by electric shock
— electrocution noun
Origin of ELECTROCUTE
electr- + -cute (as in execute)
First Known Use: 1889

Yes, the word has been dumbed down by some stupid dictionaries due to dumb people using it wrong so frequently. The derivation should be your CLUE to what the real meaning is.

Clue: you have never been electrocuted.

IThe definition of "electrocution" is "death or injury from electric shock"

Really? In English? I don't know where you getting your dictionary, but the several I referenced stated:

Definition of ELECTROCUTE

1: to execute (a criminal) by electricity
2: to kill by electric shock

Here's an example: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/electrocute

Prefer a UK reference? http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/electrocute?q=electrocute

Much as I hate to side with an AC, so far no one has recovered from an electrocution.

It's singular.

You want to do civil disobedience, stage a sit-in

Proven ineffective. "Sit-in" today means "Wait to be assaulted and arrested by Stasi forces."

Seriously, how many times do we have to be beaten down and have our soapboxes destroyed by government agents, before we collectively admit that it's a failed method of enacting change?

You don't need to jeopardize equipment in the air -- or people on the ground when you inevitably miss -- to make a political statement. That's the definition of terrorism.

Is it? From Websters:

terrorism - the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion

Hmm, nothing there about damaging equipment or causing accidental injuries... in fact, your statements seem more terroristic than those you're replying to, since you're apparently trying to frighten (read: terrorize) people into not opposing the government (who, by definition, is also a terrorist organization).

Food for thought.

white twenty somethings that shoot up schools, and what to blow shit up! You or someone you know are more likely to encounter (translation = die from) one of them

Are you seriously trying to argue that more people die from random acts of terror than in random gang violence? I think you may be off by orders of magnitude--just go look at Chicago's numbers.

Please allow me to enlighten you RACISM is the application of power from one group over another based on their color, creed, religion, or other distinguishing trait.

Please allow me to enlighten you: you are full of shit. You can't change definitions of words to fit your whims. Here's a neat trick: it's called a dictionary.

You list Sharpton but you again ignore those who look like you have power, those like Mitch McConnell, but he doesn't scare you does he? Of course not he's one of us.

He made an argument why Sharpton is racist. Why would someone looking like you matter if you are scared or not (ignoring zombies; yes, I am a zombist). Are you scared of people who look different than you? Are you so scared that you want to treat them differently based on their skin color so that they will not hurt you? Quick tell us how many black friends you have!

Unable to take this language seriously (along with all the others made past 1995 sans Haskell) when the individuals advocating it continually use phrases/words like this:

* memory management is explicit -- what does this mean?
* deterministic -- what does this mean?
* efficient and safe -- subjective/opinion
* endemic use of a garbage collector... -- what does this mean?
* reference-counted heap objects -- what does this mean? (note: i become immediately afraid when someone mentions "objects" (a vague term to describe ambiguous crap that the CPU itself has no knowledge of/familiarity with) next to the word "heap" (something the CPU does have knowledge of))
* "exchange" heap -- what does this mean?
* "local" heap -- what does this mean? (note: there is only one "heap" on most CPU architectures, so now we have added abstraction)
* via an "owned" pointer -- what does this mean?
* wild pointers -- what does this mean? (i'm left with the impression it refers to this)
* Use of the exchange heap is exceptional and explicit yet immediately available when necessary -- what does this mean?
* Memory "management" is reduced to efficient stack pointer manipulation -- uhh, what? the language sits around modifying content at %esp and %ebp along with some offsets? sounds far from efficient)
* ... or simple, deterministic destruction -- what does this mean? (note: 2nd use of word "deterministic")
* Compile time checks preclude bad pointers and simple leaks so common with traditional systems languages -- what does this mean and how does this work, considering that the value stored at a pointer (or what it points to) can be manipulated at run-time, so how would the language "deterministically know" (see what I did there?) what's "bad" vs. "good"?
* ... that is productive, concise ... -- what does this mean? (also borders on subjective/opinion)

Surely I cannot be the only programmer who when reading PL advocacy posts notices this "buzzword ahoy" trend. It appears that the language is chosen intentionally in attempt to give the impression of "a powerful language" when it's much more likely -- when going entirely off of the above description, mind you -- that the language wastes more time trying to automate things that should be left to a human mind to decide.

This and many other reasons are why people prefer C: it's not as time-consuming to write (for the programmer) as assembly language, yet its operational behaviour is parallel to that of the actual processor. Some other languages such as Lisp are the same way. They stay "close to the CPU".

Pro tip for younger programmers: any time you see the word "object" used, it mandates at least 1 (and more likely several) layers of abstraction between the programming language and the actual processor. In turn, that means CPU time is wasted dealing with the abstraction (to figure out what to do with this "ambiguous thing") rather than if you had used something the processor is natively familiar with. And with x86 (most common), there are maybe 4 "types of data" the CPU is familiar with/can operate on natively. Anything else requires actual code, thus abstraction, to disambiguate/handle/figure out.

Remember: computers are tools intended to make our tasks easier. By trying to turn the computer into a human being (making judgement calls, etc.) the tasks in turn often become harder than they need to be, and in turn often slower.

Unable to take this language seriously (along with all the others made past 1995 sans Haskell) when the individuals advocating it continually use phrases/words like this:

* memory management is explicit -- what does this mean?
* deterministic -- what does this mean?
* efficient and safe -- subjective/opinion
* endemic use of a garbage collector... -- what does this mean?
* reference-counted heap objects -- what does this mean? (note: i become immediately afraid when someone mentions "objects" (a vague term to describe ambiguous crap that the CPU itself has no knowledge of/familiarity with) next to the word "heap" (something the CPU does have knowledge of))
* "exchange" heap -- what does this mean?
* "local" heap -- what does this mean? (note: there is only one "heap" on most CPU architectures, so now we have added abstraction)
* via an "owned" pointer -- what does this mean?
* wild pointers -- what does this mean? (i'm left with the impression it refers to this)
* Use of the exchange heap is exceptional and explicit yet immediately available when necessary -- what does this mean?
* Memory "management" is reduced to efficient stack pointer manipulation -- uhh, what? the language sits around modifying content at %esp and %ebp along with some offsets? sounds far from efficient)
* ... or simple, deterministic destruction -- what does this mean? (note: 2nd use of word "deterministic")
* Compile time checks preclude bad pointers and simple leaks so common with traditional systems languages -- what does this mean and how does this work, considering that the value stored at a pointer (or what it points to) can be manipulated at run-time, so how would the language "deterministically know" (see what I did there?) what's "bad" vs. "good"?
* ... that is productive, concise ... -- what does this mean? (also borders on subjective/opinion)

Surely I cannot be the only programmer who when reading PL advocacy posts notices this "buzzword ahoy" trend. It appears that the language is chosen intentionally in attempt to give the impression of "a powerful language" when it's much more likely -- when going entirely off of the above description, mind you -- that the language wastes more time trying to automate things that should be left to a human mind to decide.

This and many other reasons are why people prefer C: it's not as time-consuming to write (for the programmer) as assembly language, yet its operational behaviour is parallel to that of the actual processor. Some other languages such as Lisp are the same way. They stay "close to the CPU".

Pro tip for younger programmers: any time you see the word "object" used, it mandates at least 1 (and more likely several) layers of abstraction between the programming language and the actual processor. In turn, that means CPU time is wasted dealing with the abstraction (to figure out what to do with this "ambiguous thing") rather than if you had used something the processor is natively familiar with. And with x86 (most common), there are maybe 4 "types of data" the CPU is familiar with/can operate on natively. Anything else requires actual code, thus abstraction, to disambiguate/handle/figure out.

Remember: computers are tools intended to make our tasks easier. By trying to turn the computer into a human being (making judgement calls, etc.) the tasks in turn often become harder than they need to be, and in turn often slower.

Unable to take this language seriously (along with all the others made past 1995 sans Haskell) when the individuals advocating it continually use phrases/words like this:

* memory management is explicit -- what does this mean?
* deterministic -- what does this mean?
* efficient and safe -- subjective/opinion
* endemic use of a garbage collector... -- what does this mean?
* reference-counted heap objects -- what does this mean? (note: i become immediately afraid when someone mentions "objects" (a vague term to describe ambiguous crap that the CPU itself has no knowledge of/familiarity with) next to the word "heap" (something the CPU does have knowledge of))
* "exchange" heap -- what does this mean?
* "local" heap -- what does this mean? (note: there is only one "heap" on most CPU architectures, so now we have added abstraction)
* via an "owned" pointer -- what does this mean?
* wild pointers -- what does this mean? (i'm left with the impression it refers to this)
* Use of the exchange heap is exceptional and explicit yet immediately available when necessary -- what does this mean?
* Memory "management" is reduced to efficient stack pointer manipulation -- uhh, what? the language sits around modifying content at %esp and %ebp along with some offsets? sounds far from efficient)
* ... or simple, deterministic destruction -- what does this mean? (note: 2nd use of word "deterministic")
* Compile time checks preclude bad pointers and simple leaks so common with traditional systems languages -- what does this mean and how does this work, considering that the value stored at a pointer (or what it points to) can be manipulated at run-time, so how would the language "deterministically know" (see what I did there?) what's "bad" vs. "good"?
* ... that is productive, concise ... -- what does this mean? (also borders on subjective/opinion)

Surely I cannot be the only programmer who when reading PL advocacy posts notices this "buzzword ahoy" trend. It appears that the language is chosen intentionally in attempt to give the impression of "a powerful language" when it's much more likely -- when going entirely off of the above description, mind you -- that the language wastes more time trying to automate things that should be left to a human mind to decide.

This and many other reasons are why people prefer C: it's not as time-consuming to write (for the programmer) as assembly language, yet its operational behaviour is parallel to that of the actual processor. Some other languages such as Lisp are the same way. They stay "close to the CPU".

Pro tip for younger programmers: any time you see the word "object" used, it mandates at least 1 (and more likely several) layers of abstraction between the programming language and the actual processor. In turn, that means CPU time is wasted dealing with the abstraction (to figure out what to do with this "ambiguous thing") rather than if you had used something the processor is natively familiar with. And with x86 (most common), there are maybe 4 "types of data" the CPU is familiar with/can operate on natively. Anything else requires actual code, thus abstraction, to disambiguate/handle/figure out.

Remember: computers are tools intended to make our tasks easier. By trying to turn the computer into a human being (making judgement calls, etc.) the tasks in turn often become harder than they need to be, and in turn often slower.

Unable to take this language seriously (along with all the others made past 1995 sans Haskell) when the individuals advocating it continually use phrases/words like this:

* memory management is explicit -- what does this mean?
* deterministic -- what does this mean?
* efficient and safe -- subjective/opinion
* endemic use of a garbage collector... -- what does this mean?
* reference-counted heap objects -- what does this mean? (note: i become immediately afraid when someone mentions "objects" (a vague term to describe ambiguous crap that the CPU itself has no knowledge of/familiarity with) next to the word "heap" (something the CPU does have knowledge of))
* "exchange" heap -- what does this mean?
* "local" heap -- what does this mean? (note: there is only one "heap" on most CPU architectures, so now we have added abstraction)
* via an "owned" pointer -- what does this mean?
* wild pointers -- what does this mean? (i'm left with the impression it refers to this)
* Use of the exchange heap is exceptional and explicit yet immediately available when necessary -- what does this mean?
* Memory "management" is reduced to efficient stack pointer manipulation -- uhh, what? the language sits around modifying content at %esp and %ebp along with some offsets? sounds far from efficient)
* ... or simple, deterministic destruction -- what does this mean? (note: 2nd use of word "deterministic")
* Compile time checks preclude bad pointers and simple leaks so common with traditional systems languages -- what does this mean and how does this work, considering that the value stored at a pointer (or what it points to) can be manipulated at run-time, so how would the language "deterministically know" (see what I did there?) what's "bad" vs. "good"?
* ... that is productive, concise ... -- what does this mean? (also borders on subjective/opinion)

Surely I cannot be the only programmer who when reading PL advocacy posts notices this "buzzword ahoy" trend. It appears that the language is chosen intentionally in attempt to give the impression of "a powerful language" when it's much more likely -- when going entirely off of the above description, mind you -- that the language wastes more time trying to automate things that should be left to a human mind to decide.

This and many other reasons are why people prefer C: it's not as time-consuming to write (for the programmer) as assembly language, yet its operational behaviour is parallel to that of the actual processor. Some other languages such as Lisp are the same way. They stay "close to the CPU".

Pro tip for younger programmers: any time you see the word "object" used, it mandates at least 1 (and more likely several) layers of abstraction between the programming language and the actual processor. In turn, that means CPU time is wasted dealing with the abstraction (to figure out what to do with this "ambiguous thing") rather than if you had used something the processor is natively familiar with. And with x86 (most common), there are maybe 4 "types of data" the CPU is familiar with/can operate on natively. Anything else requires actual code, thus abstraction, to disambiguate/handle/figure out.

Remember: computers are tools intended to make our tasks easier. By trying to turn the computer into a human being (making judgement calls, etc.) the tasks in turn often become harder than they need to be, and in turn often slower.

Unable to take this language seriously (along with all the others made past 1995 sans Haskell) when the individuals advocating it continually use phrases/words like this:

* memory management is explicit -- what does this mean?
* deterministic -- what does this mean?
* efficient and safe -- subjective/opinion
* endemic use of a garbage collector... -- what does this mean?
* reference-counted heap objects -- what does this mean? (note: i become immediately afraid when someone mentions "objects" (a vague term to describe ambiguous crap that the CPU itself has no knowledge of/familiarity with) next to the word "heap" (something the CPU does have knowledge of))
* "exchange" heap -- what does this mean?
* "local" heap -- what does this mean? (note: there is only one "heap" on most CPU architectures, so now we have added abstraction)
* via an "owned" pointer -- what does this mean?
* wild pointers -- what does this mean? (i'm left with the impression it refers to this)
* Use of the exchange heap is exceptional and explicit yet immediately available when necessary -- what does this mean?
* Memory "management" is reduced to efficient stack pointer manipulation -- uhh, what? the language sits around modifying content at %esp and %ebp along with some offsets? sounds far from efficient)
* ... or simple, deterministic destruction -- what does this mean? (note: 2nd use of word "deterministic")
* Compile time checks preclude bad pointers and simple leaks so common with traditional systems languages -- what does this mean and how does this work, considering that the value stored at a pointer (or what it points to) can be manipulated at run-time, so how would the language "deterministically know" (see what I did there?) what's "bad" vs. "good"?
* ... that is productive, concise ... -- what does this mean? (also borders on subjective/opinion)

Surely I cannot be the only programmer who when reading PL advocacy posts notices this "buzzword ahoy" trend. It appears that the language is chosen intentionally in attempt to give the impression of "a powerful language" when it's much more likely -- when going entirely off of the above description, mind you -- that the language wastes more time trying to automate things that should be left to a human mind to decide.

This and many other reasons are why people prefer C: it's not as time-consuming to write (for the programmer) as assembly language, yet its operational behaviour is parallel to that of the actual processor. Some other languages such as Lisp are the same way. They stay "close to the CPU".

Pro tip for younger programmers: any time you see the word "object" used, it mandates at least 1 (and more likely several) layers of abstraction between the programming language and the actual processor. In turn, that means CPU time is wasted dealing with the abstraction (to figure out what to do with this "ambiguous thing") rather than if you had used something the processor is natively familiar with. And with x86 (most common), there are maybe 4 "types of data" the CPU is familiar with/can operate on natively. Anything else requires actual code, thus abstraction, to disambiguate/handle/figure out.

Remember: computers are tools intended to make our tasks easier. By trying to turn the computer into a human being (making judgement calls, etc.) the tasks in turn often become harder than they need to be, and in turn often slower.

Unable to take this language seriously (along with all the others made past 1995 sans Haskell) when the individuals advocating it continually use phrases/words like this:

* memory management is explicit -- what does this mean?
* deterministic -- what does this mean?
* efficient and safe -- subjective/opinion
* endemic use of a garbage collector... -- what does this mean?
* reference-counted heap objects -- what does this mean? (note: i become immediately afraid when someone mentions "objects" (a vague term to describe ambiguous crap that the CPU itself has no knowledge of/familiarity with) next to the word "heap" (something the CPU does have knowledge of))
* "exchange" heap -- what does this mean?
* "local" heap -- what does this mean? (note: there is only one "heap" on most CPU architectures, so now we have added abstraction)
* via an "owned" pointer -- what does this mean?
* wild pointers -- what does this mean? (i'm left with the impression it refers to this)
* Use of the exchange heap is exceptional and explicit yet immediately available when necessary -- what does this mean?
* Memory "management" is reduced to efficient stack pointer manipulation -- uhh, what? the language sits around modifying content at %esp and %ebp along with some offsets? sounds far from efficient)
* ... or simple, deterministic destruction -- what does this mean? (note: 2nd use of word "deterministic")
* Compile time checks preclude bad pointers and simple leaks so common with traditional systems languages -- what does this mean and how does this work, considering that the value stored at a pointer (or what it points to) can be manipulated at run-time, so how would the language "deterministically know" (see what I did there?) what's "bad" vs. "good"?
* ... that is productive, concise ... -- what does this mean? (also borders on subjective/opinion)

Surely I cannot be the only programmer who when reading PL advocacy posts notices this "buzzword ahoy" trend. It appears that the language is chosen intentionally in attempt to give the impression of "a powerful language" when it's much more likely -- when going entirely off of the above description, mind you -- that the language wastes more time trying to automate things that should be left to a human mind to decide.

This and many other reasons are why people prefer C: it's not as time-consuming to write (for the programmer) as assembly language, yet its operational behaviour is parallel to that of the actual processor. Some other languages such as Lisp are the same way. They stay "close to the CPU".

Pro tip for younger programmers: any time you see the word "object" used, it mandates at least 1 (and more likely several) layers of abstraction between the programming language and the actual processor. In turn, that means CPU time is wasted dealing with the abstraction (to figure out what to do with this "ambiguous thing") rather than if you had used something the processor is natively familiar with. And with x86 (most common), there are maybe 4 "types of data" the CPU is familiar with/can operate on natively. Anything else requires actual code, thus abstraction, to disambiguate/handle/figure out.

Remember: computers are tools intended to make our tasks easier. By trying to turn the computer into a human being (making judgement calls, etc.) the tasks in turn often become harder than they need to be, and in turn often slower.

Unable to take this language seriously (along with all the others made past 1995 sans Haskell) when the individuals advocating it continually use phrases/words like this:

* memory management is explicit -- what does this mean?
* deterministic -- what does this mean?
* efficient and safe -- subjective/opinion
* endemic use of a garbage collector... -- what does this mean?
* reference-counted heap objects -- what does this mean? (note: i become immediately afraid when someone mentions "objects" (a vague term to describe ambiguous crap that the CPU itself has no knowledge of/familiarity with) next to the word "heap" (something the CPU does have knowledge of))
* "exchange" heap -- what does this mean?
* "local" heap -- what does this mean? (note: there is only one "heap" on most CPU architectures, so now we have added abstraction)
* via an "owned" pointer -- what does this mean?
* wild pointers -- what does this mean? (i'm left with the impression it refers to this)
* Use of the exchange heap is exceptional and explicit yet immediately available when necessary -- what does this mean?
* Memory "management" is reduced to efficient stack pointer manipulation -- uhh, what? the language sits around modifying content at %esp and %ebp along with some offsets? sounds far from efficient)
* ... or simple, deterministic destruction -- what does this mean? (note: 2nd use of word "deterministic")
* Compile time checks preclude bad pointers and simple leaks so common with traditional systems languages -- what does this mean and how does this work, considering that the value stored at a pointer (or what it points to) can be manipulated at run-time, so how would the language "deterministically know" (see what I did there?) what's "bad" vs. "good"?
* ... that is productive, concise ... -- what does this mean? (also borders on subjective/opinion)

Surely I cannot be the only programmer who when reading PL advocacy posts notices this "buzzword ahoy" trend. It appears that the language is chosen intentionally in attempt to give the impression of "a powerful language" when it's much more likely -- when going entirely off of the above description, mind you -- that the language wastes more time trying to automate things that should be left to a human mind to decide.

This and many other reasons are why people prefer C: it's not as time-consuming to write (for the programmer) as assembly language, yet its operational behaviour is parallel to that of the actual processor. Some other languages such as Lisp are the same way. They stay "close to the CPU".

Pro tip for younger programmers: any time you see the word "object" used, it mandates at least 1 (and more likely several) layers of abstraction between the programming language and the actual processor. In turn, that means CPU time is wasted dealing with the abstraction (to figure out what to do with this "ambiguous thing") rather than if you had used something the processor is natively familiar with. And with x86 (most common), there are maybe 4 "types of data" the CPU is familiar with/can operate on natively. Anything else requires actual code, thus abstraction, to disambiguate/handle/figure out.

Remember: computers are tools intended to make our tasks easier. By trying to turn the computer into a human being (making judgement calls, etc.) the tasks in turn often become harder than they need to be, and in turn often slower.

So he's able to see the common sense in the situation ahead of time, but not actually able to practice it. Not sure if that makes him a visionary, an idiot, or both.

Neither; It makes him a bigot.

Whereas I come here to read the rants of people who never seemed to learn that "populous" is an adjective.

Care for a noun?

(Posted from a laptop that has never had Windows on it, the "Designed for..." sticker notwithstanding.)

preventative

Stop it. The word is preventive.

Unless, of course, the word is "preventative":

http://grammarist.com/spelling/preventative-preventive/

Preventative vs. preventive
Preventive is the original adjective corresponding to prevent, but preventative has gained ground and is now a common variant. The two share all their definitions.

http://ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=preventative&submit.x=41&submit.y=12

preventive (pr-vntv) also preventative (-t-tv)

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

preventative adjective

concerned with or serving to keep something from happening
Synonyms precautionary, preventative, prophylactic

Interestingly, the Merriam Webster Thesaurus doesn't even mention preventive as a synonym for preventative

Of course, if you're on a mission to eliminate a widely used word from the English Language, well, I wish you luck.

For more immediate visual gratification appreciated by a wider audience, the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter provides wonderfully detailed images of Phobos.

That was the instrument that caught this mind-numbing image of the Phoenix lander as it was descending on its parachute. Words are really quite superfluous.

That's a great image, I wouldn't consider it mind-numbing at all.

Bullshit, until relatively recently everybody had that kind of privacy that wasn't a celebrity or other famous individual.

"That kind of privacy" = thoroughly 'modern' redefinition of privacy by the self-entitled.

Privacy
1 a : the quality or state of being apart from company or observation : seclusion
b : freedom from unauthorized intrusion
2 archaic : a place of seclusion
3 a : secrecy
b : a private matter : secret

What's more, even for the famous, if something happened a year ago, chances are good that you'd have to go digging for it in the news paper archives if you wanted information about it. Now, you can do a web search and find information from the last decade easily, and usually within minutes.

Backhanded way of admitting exactly the point that I've made. You're merely complaining about availability. You want to take activities which were not private and control whether other people may make their pictures/writing availablile -- for your benefit.

It's not just how you behave in public, it's knowing how an innocuous action is going to be construed by an out of context photo or recording. Even just drinking soda out of a red plastic cup is sufficient to end a persons career in teaching if they weren't 21 at the time the photo was taken.

Your solution is to control others' innocuous actions, taking their actions out of context (after all, it's all about you, and not at all about them), because you're incapable of avoiding 'innocuous' situations which are potentially career ending? That's very ends-justify-the-means. Would you care to try again? Or should I merely dismiss you as the censorious nutcase you apparently aspire to be?

How are you using the phrase "cozy efficiency". Just wondering. Her own apartment?

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/efficiency%20apartment

"Cozy" is also a real estate euphemism for "small."

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

1. the act or an instance of conjoining
2. occurrence together in time or space
3. b : a configuration in which two celestial bodies have their least apparent separation

So.... you could say that the paths of an object like the ISS and one of these fist sized bits of junk meeting is.... them occuring at together in time and space; which would make them have the "least apparent separation" (none at all)....and would likely at least partially "conjoin" them (especially if the debris punched through the wall)

...and it's not our (NASA's) fault!

See, it works with 'and' too.

Letr's try 'or'...

"It was either space debris or the Chinese doing anti satellite weapons testing."

Yep, works with 'or' too.

Is there ANY conjunction that it doesn't work with?

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

1. the act or an instance of conjoining
2. occurrence together in time or space
3. b : a configuration in which two celestial bodies have their least apparent separation

So.... you could say that the paths of an object like the ISS and one of these fist sized bits of junk meeting is.... them occuring at together in time and space; which would make them have the "least apparent separation" (none at all)....and would likely at least partially "conjoin" them (especially if the debris punched through the wall)

You really should look something up before you correct someone.

Dude you are so wrong.

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

No, I am not. Context is everything. If you look at the examples in the dictionary and that I used, when referring to a subject, like abortion or politics, then controversial is how you are intending it. When used as the original person is using it as in questioning the action somebody might take, it is a judgement statement.

Words derive their meaning based on the context they are used in. When your teenage daughter slams down the phone and you ask how she is doing and she says "Fine," with a sigh, The definition found in the merriam-webster dictionary probably is not the meaning that would be first choice that comes to mind.

Likewise, when use an adjective in a context that is not the normal context it is found, there is usually an different meaning implied. When you tell your kids that you put the dog to sleep, if they look that word up in the dictionary, they will have a different idea than what actually transpired. If I hook up my trailer to my car, is definitely a different meaning than if I hook up with my friend.

Context is everything and the context that the original poster used the word controversial was not the usage from the merriam-webster dictionary, or if that was their intention, they phrased the rest of the sentence poorly so as to make it sound as if like a judgemental statement.

In short, we are left with two choices, either the original poster did make a judgemental statement, or the original poster has a poor grasp on English grammar and miscommunicated their original intention. Regardless, the statement as presented is still a judgemental statement, as least grammatically, as written.

Dude you are so wrong. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/controversial

No, "Leaked" and "released" is not a matter of semantics. Released documents go through a formal process to have them declassified prior to being available to the public. Leaked documents are documents that bypass the formal process or aren't previously declassified before being available to the public. That's not a difference in semantics.

Semantics: the language used (as in advertising or political propaganda) to achieve a desired effect on an audience especially through the use of words with novel or dual meanings

Interpreting a word in a way that fits your political views is the very definition of "semantics" -- I says Snowden "released" the documents, you say he "leaked" them. Both are right. It comes down to semantics. Whether he followed the formal process or not, he "released" (to set free from restraint, confinement, or servitude) the documents. He also leaked them,

No, "Leaked" and "released" is not a matter of semantics. Released documents go through a formal process to have them declassified prior to being available to the public. Leaked documents are documents that bypass the formal process or aren't previously declassified before being available to the public. That's not a difference in semantics.

Semantics: the language used (as in advertising or political propaganda) to achieve a desired effect on an audience especially through the use of words with novel or dual meanings

Interpreting a word in a way that fits your political views is the very definition of "semantics" -- I says Snowden "released" the documents, you say he "leaked" them. Both are right. It comes down to semantics. Whether he followed the formal process or not, he "released" (to set free from restraint, confinement, or servitude) the documents. He also leaked them,

Yes it is. Induced doesn't mean what you think it means.