Slashdot Mirror

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

The joy of English is that it often makes little sense, even to its native speakers (like me). Your understanding of 'moot' is the most common usage, but it can also mean to debate, and a bunch of other vaguely related things.

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

Your argument is like a McDonald's sign: Billions and Billions sold.

        Doesn't say anything about quality.

        Doesn't say anything about value.

An analogy! Let me try: your argument is like a car: it doesn't understand what words mean.

Dud
a : one that is ineffectual; also : failure <a box-office dud>

Love it or hate it, the Apple II was a massive success, becoming one of the best-selling computers of its day thanks in large part to VisiCalc, its affordable price, and the wide availability of apps for it, which allowed it to become an important component of the PC revolution of the '80s. Suggesting that the Apple II was overpriced and outdated (as you did in an earlier comment) is preposterous and factually inaccurate, and suggesting it's a dud on the grounds of quality and value (as you did in your last comment) is irrelevant since those are only indirectly related to whether something is a dud (not to mention that those arguments make no sense in historical contexts). The only thing you got correct was that the volume discount being offered by Apple to educational institutions was, while aggressive, still nowhere comparable to the sort of dumping that we're seeing Microsoft do here.

M-w claims that sense #3 is "attacked as wrong"; however, in my experience (central Texas), sense #3 is the only one that's considered correct.
If you say "comprising X" instead of "comprised of X" in central Texas, then you should expect to hear "you ain't from 'round here, is ya?"

I find it funny that different regions can have vastly different ideas of which language forms are correct, and that my region is in the minority.

You're kidding right? Of course when you were a bit unsure about a term you found on the Internet, you used the Internet to look it up because it only takes seconds, and you're only posting this here to yank our legs right?

"1. being the first or earliest known of its kind present in a region "
( http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/aboriginal )

"1. Having existed in a region from the beginning: aboriginal forests. See Synonyms at native."
( http://www.thefreedictionary.com/aboriginal )

Gender and sex are synonyms in English. The attempt to redefine them in recent years has no historical or etymological basis, and smacks of a 1984-style Newspeak where people attempt to redefine language for political reasons--something like "gender/sex identity" would be a less confusing (and less wrong) way of addressing the matter.

Others have noted that in most databases it shouldn't matter--if you want to store a salutation, store a salutation. Outside of limited contexts (e.g. medical records, where you almost certainly want both and definitely want genetic gender) there really isn't a good reason to ask the question. A lot of places it's used as a lazy shorthand to apply stereotypical inferences, when you'd really be better off asking other questions.

(See, e.g., http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gender which notes that the primary definition of "gender" (outside of the linguistic context, which is totally off topic) is "sex". The OED concurs. )

From MW:

Definition of SENTIENT
1 : responsive to or conscious of sense impressions
2 : aware
3 : finely sensitive in perception or feeling

— sentiently adverb

Synonyms
alive, apprehensive, aware, cognizant, mindful, sensible, conscious, ware, witting

Antonyms
insensible, oblivious, unaware, unconscious, unmindful, unwitting

If one gives up being sentient then the antonyms would apply...

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

Sex IS gender, no matter what twisted PC redefinitions and 'research' the college campus queers are throwing around these days. These people think gender is some kind of social construct instead of something that is very closely tied to biology. They're as whack as the scientologists.

gender a : sex
b : the behavioral, cultural, or psychological traits typically associated with one sex

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

So an extreme minority has to explain to most people why they need special treatment? What else is new? Even a straight white male with a broken leg in a cast needs to explain his situation to the airline attendant in order to get his seat squared away. The fact is, he may be turned down for the flight because of it. Either example is life on the fringe. The further one goes, the harder it gets. It sucks but we are not all equals and society can't afford to roll out the red carpet for every little difference. That's life. A transgendered 'woman' is a man who had his penis and gonads removed in order to live out some kind of sexual fetish. He's still a man.. just has issues. There is no reason why society should be forced to pay for and play in his fantasy. If he wants to be a 'she' then he should check off 'she' and be done with it. Eventually, though, 'she' will end up holding up whatever process 'she's involved in because 'she' is really a he and other women won't accept 'her' in their space, or 'she'll end up with the wrong kind of medical care.

Oh, that must be correct then because it's in a dictionary.

criminal

2criminal
noun
Definition of CRIMINAL
1 : one who has committed a crime
2 : a person who has been convicted of a crime

Really? REALLY???

One that has committed or been legally convicted of a crime.

From your own FLIPPING citation. Did you bother even READING it?

How about (this)

1: one who has committed a crime

And look up CRIME

1. an action that is deemed injurious to the public welfare and is legally prohibited. "

How about Oxford:

noun

        an action or omission that constitutes an offense that may be prosecuted by the state and is punishable by law

Unless you are willing to re-do all the important scientific experiments ever done yourself, then you have to trust that other people did them correctly and reported them correctly, and also if their reasoning is beyond you, that their reasoning was valid. So from a personal perspective, it requires trust and belief in the work of others.

It requires trust, it does not require belief - there are two different things.

I think you're looking for a distinction that isn't as strong in practical terms as you'd like to claim. In certain places (like on Slashdot), the word "belief" only tends to be associated with religious belief or other wacko ideas that couldn't possibly be true. But that's just not how we use the word "belief" in normal everyday language.

Take a look at Merriam-Webster's definitions for "belief":

• (1) a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing
• (2) something believed; especially : a tenet or body of tenets held by a group
• (3) conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence

Each of these definitions seem to work fine with the idea of "scientific belief": the trust and confidence in the scientific method, the aspect of a (scientific) community which has a shared set of commonly accepted ideas, and the idea that "truth" as far as it exists requires supporting evidence.

From a practical standpoint, a scientist needs to assume on an everyday basis that the underlying research in his/her field is an accurate representation of reality. (I'll avoid the word "truth," since I know everyone's wary of it, but that's also a practical assumption, even if philosophically, we always say we're just talking about "theories.")

Trying to claim that you somehow have trust in the scientific method but don't believe in its results is sophistry. What does that mean? "I trust what my priest/minister/rabbi/sage/witchdoctor says, but I don't believe it." What would that mean? "I trust what physicists say about general relativity, but I don't believe it." Same question.

The only time you'd ever utter a statement like that is if you actually didn't really trust the authority -- you thought the physicists were well-intentioned, perhaps honest and hard workers with integrity, but ultimately idiots who very likely could have messed something up.

Even if you don't believe dictionary definitions, belief is simply a manifestation of trust in a set of ideas. The history of science also clearly has cases where this trust/belief was misplaced, and very intelligent scientists found it very hard to doubt established theories even in the case of contrary evidence. Sometimes they were bull-headed, but often they were just human...

Humans who couldn't actually carry out further research and make scientific progress unless they believed in the likely accuracy (and even "truth"?) of research that came before them.

P.S. I'm NOT at all saying there is no difference between science and religion. There clearly is. But this particular vocabulary fight is ridiculous and doesn't accord with the actual everyday use of the word "belief."

Your premise is incorrect. The quote you used in your first sentence is from Karl Marx, a socialist not a liberal. Socialism and liberalism are quite different in many ways.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/liberalism
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/marxism

Your premise is incorrect. The quote you used in your first sentence is from Karl Marx, a socialist not a liberal. Socialism and liberalism are quite different in many ways.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/liberalism
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/marxism

Your premise is incorrect. The quote you used in your first sentence is from Karl Marx, a socialist not a liberal. Socialism and liberalism are quite different in many ways.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/liberalism
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/marxism

Murder is the deliberate killing of another human being

Murder is the crime of unlawfully killing a person [...].

That it's legal has nothing to do with whether it is moral or ethical. You call it an execution, but the only difference between your 'execution' definition and the 'murder' definition is "We made it legal."

Yes, that is exactly the difference between 'execution' and 'murder'. It is not murder because it is legal.

Insisting on using the wrong word makes your argument confusing and deceptive.

Perhaps because shuttered is the correct word

You have also missed the point

The origin of words is often important, as are regional variations. I am assuming you realise that the Merriam-Webster is the quintessential American English dictionary. A quintessentially English English dictionary does not have the "or a split roll" addition to the definition (see also this one). My Macquarie English Dictionary (Australian English) dictionary reads: "1. two slices of bread (or toast) , plain or buttered, with a layer of meat, fish, cheese, or the like between. 2. something formed by similar combination." The term "Sub", traded so heavily by Subway is a contraction of Submarine sandwich which is claimed to be American in origin (along with quite a few US regional variations). While what Subway sell is a "sandwich" in arrangement that is not the term that much of the English speaking world would use outside of a Subway outlet: that is the point.

From the Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Sandwich - sandÂwich noun \Ësan(d)-ËOEwich, Ësam-; dialect ËsaÅ-\

1
a : two or more slices of bread or a split roll having a filling in between
b : one slice of bread covered with food
2
: something resembling a sandwich; especially : composite structural material consisting of layers often of high-strength facings bonded to a low strength central core

How does what Subway and McDonalds sell not fit the definition of Sandwich?

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/assault%20weapon

One Problem is teaching.

One problem is "compatibility" or "easy to learn". E.G. regarding keywords.

C has a keyword: static.
C++ has the same keyword: static.
As Java aimed to be similar to C++ and "easy to learn" it also has a keyword static.

While the meaning of the "keyword" in Java and C++ is the same, it differs from C. (Oh! and this already is not true as you can use 'static' in C++ similar to C if you just use it for free functions and data).

So what does 'static' mean?

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/static
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/static
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/static
http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/static

Unfortunately 'static' in a programming language has no meaning at all. Why is the "starting method" in Java called "static void main(String[] args) {}"? Yeah, because in C and C++ it is called main(). Pascal has not that problem.

What do you think a non native english (oh, well what about the english?) considers if he hears the word 'static'?

Good, now lets bash Python and Groovy. What is a "def"? Oh? A definition? Are you certain you can distinguish what the difference between a definition and a declaration is?

So "methods" are now "declared" (or is it defined?) by the introducing keyword "def"? Oh, for fuck sake, I got it wrong again.

Oki, in Python you declare, oh no!!!! you define methods with the keyword "def". In Groovy you define variables (oh! no!!!!! you declare!!!) with the keyword "def".

Yeah, I could rant forever ...

All new languages we see here and there are only languages for programmers that already can program.

But, what is about expressing your mind?

What about teaching programming? Imho Java is one of the most difficult languages to teach. Why? Because you need to know already so much about programming to grasp it!!!!! (Same for C# ofc).

However: modern times show: you don't need to understand Java/C# (just a replacement for most modern languages) because the programing tasks a modern developer has (especially compared to the tools he has at hand) is so mondane. C++ on the other hand only shows how super smart and knowing you need to be to use the language, or not to shoot into your foot.

So where are we?

New languages should use new keywords, that describe precisely what they mean. No void, no static, no final or for that matter finally, no fucking def, var or func. Did I forget one? I certainly did. And they should have reasonable defaults. I hate Java meanwhile, "public void doit() {}", "private boolean done = false". Then we get to "static final String DID_WE_DO_IT = "yes we did";" What is so hard in having methods be PUBLIC by DEFAULT and attributes PRIVATE by DEFAULT?
Writing code is still possible, even if it hurts my hands and my eyes. But reading? I simply don't want to read code anymore ... neither C++ nor Java nor C#. The redundancy hurts me literally.
In a typical Eclipse window I would estimate 30% of all characters/words are simply superfluous. And the fact that they all have a different colour emphasizes this.

How would a real world language look to you if it was written like this: "I want (that is me the guy writing) that we (that is us, you who are listening, and me who is talking) that we (well, dont be mistaken, I only want it, it is not an order) that we (yes, I invite you to participate) go to the beach (and want does not mean it is super important ... it is kinda void)? (And all words in () above in a different colour? Like pink (ARRRRGGG!!!!) light green ( /*facepalm*/), dark and light blue, emphazised(bold) full

Thing is, saying something opposite to reality goes in the dictionary as a lie

Not really.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/lie?show=0&t=1369142059

lie
1. to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive

A lie has the connotation of malicious intent attached

Never attribute to malice which can be explained by stupidity.

Not according to Merriam-Webster.

Speaking of learning opportunities, here's one for you!

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

the very fact that you are using the un-word "progressives"

You fail it.

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

But really, the government is not entitled to have ubiquitous surveillance, so this whole thing is meaningless.

I am not sure you understand the meaning of the word ubiquitous
1. The government does not have enough money for the hundreds of thousands of drones and their pilots, the hundreds of thousands of analysts watching these videos to find wrong doing, and the massive amount of storage needed to log all these video feeds.
2. It has already been ruled illegal to look inside homes, even with FLIR, without a search warrant.
3. One can not be identified inside most buildings even with FLIR.

With the few thousand drones that may be used in the entire US the surveillance is far from ubiquitous. However, the government is entitled to do the things they do today and spend less money doing it.

It will go the same way as cable.

No. The difference is that digital streaming like YouTube or Netflix must compete. Cable systems own their regions and milk their subscribers. Streaming systems will never be able to jack rates like cable because they're fungible.

Had to actually look that one up, never ran across it before. Thanks for broadening my vocabulary! ;o)

And mercaptans.

And Skatole...
"a foul-smelling compound C9H9N found in the intestines and feces, in civet, and in several plants or made synthetically and used in perfumes as a fixative "

So if you think your girlfriend smells like shit, you might be right.

I like how you selectively read my post and are completely oblivious to the word "often" : http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/often

Comparing OSI failure rates to commercial failures rates is very difficult as per THE TOPIC of TFA because there is no set standard for OSI to be deemed a failure outside of subjective analysis. In which case, there's tons and tons of failed projects, but a few major successful ones.

You might think that. But that doesn't mean you are right in thinking that. Perhaps you should consult a dictionary or two.

From merriam webster:

2: a device that automatically performs complicated often repetitive tasks

It is a robot.

Then so is a blender..

From merriam webster:

2: a device that automatically performs complicated often repetitive tasks

It is a robot.

Have you seen the video with said "robots"? There is nothing complicated about the task they do.

Not a robot.

From merriam webster:

2: a device that automatically performs complicated often repetitive tasks

It is a robot.

Not a Robot

From merriam webster:

2: a device that automatically performs complicated often repetitive tasks

It is a robot.
 

That's not how you spell reneging. If you find yourself typing n-i-g-g at any point, you're probably either (a) spelling it wrong or (b) an asshole.

To remain on topic, however, reneging on the reward would be quite a niggardly thing to do.

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

> a bit nuts

Indeed. And:

rea-son, noun: the power of comprehending, inferring, or thinking especially in orderly rational ways; proper exercise of the mind; the sum of the intellectual powers.

rea-son-able, adjective: being in accordance with reason.

> a bit nuts

Indeed. And:

rea-son, noun: the power of comprehending, inferring, or thinking especially in orderly rational ways; proper exercise of the mind; the sum of the intellectual powers.

rea-son-able, adjective: being in accordance with reason.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism
"Capitalism is an economic system..."

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/capitalism
"an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market"

A capitalist economic system effects the political sphere, of course, but it is not in and of itself a political system.

Re your argument: not all forms of control are politics. I control my dog but that's not a political system. You argument requires that all forms of control are forms of government but this is false therefore your argument is invalid.

Since when does any private entity have the power to shut you up at gunpoint or cuff you and put you in jail?

Since when is that the meaning of "censor"?

"...to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable ; also : to suppress or delete as objectionable".

I know it's fashionable for apologists for corporatism to claim that only the state can censor; but it happens to be wrong. When a private company decides "this is objectionable", that's censorship. (Note that deciding "this won't sell therefore we don't want to waste space carrying it" is different.)

I'm not saying they are having fun the wrong way. I'm saying they aren't camping..

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

You're wrong.

No, I believe that my statement falls directly in line with the definition of camp provided by MW:

a place usually away from urban areas where tents or simple buildings (as cabins) are erected for shelter or for temporary residence (as for laborers, prisoners, or vacationers)

It doesn't sound like a simple shelter when you have a TV, playstation/xbox/computer, and a LAN set up to play games with friends. That sounds like a LAN party or a hotel room. Maybe to you, a simple shelter includes these things, but to me, it does not. I've walked through camps in the 3rd world, where people live in shanty towns and their homes are much more in-line with the definition of camp than people hosting LAN parties.

I'm not saying they are having fun the wrong way. I'm saying they aren't camping..

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

You're wrong.

From the dictionary:
Origin of CREDIT
Middle French, from Old Italian credito, from Latin creditum something entrusted to another, loan, from neuter of creditus, past participle of credere to believe, entrust

While your justifiable vigilance is a valid point in favor of Bitcoins, I am not sure about the long-term prospects for a currency whose main selling point is that you don't need to trust anyone or anything in order to use it. The ultracautious attitude displayed by Bitcoin proponents does not seem compatible with the granting of credit, which, (in its modern form) has been at the foundation of commerce since Renaissance Italy.

As long as Bitcoin users and miners are predominantly less willing to trust, and Bitcoin intermediaries like Mt Gox generally prove themselves untrustworthy, Bitcoin will be unable to be a successful currency. That is, Bitcoin will not be a robust medium of exchange that is able to support growth in the economy, because credit granted and received in Bitcoins will be so limited. (Although it could continue to be a commodity, whose main use is not to be used in direct exchange for goods and services).

I reject your bizzaro Latin and substitute an authoritative ENGLISH source to further back up the philosophic citations I made previously:

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

a : a disbelief in the existence of deity
b : the doctrine that there is no deity

And from the Catholic Encyclopedia:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02040a.htm

By the Atheist I understand the man who not only holds off, like the sceptic, from the affirmative, but who drives himself, or is driven, to the negative assertion in regard to the whole unseen, or to the existence of God.

Sorry folks but I've supplied MULTIPLE sources for my defintion, both from modern language and multiple philisophical and theistic sources. The idea that atheism is the same thing as a lack of belief in God is preposterous.

Use the dictionary of your choice and check the words "continent" and "country".

Well, I went one step further and used several of the dictionaries and encyclopedias of my choice and checked the word "America". Guess what I found.

From the New Oxford American (oh the irony!) Dictionary (emphasis mine):

America (also the Americas):
a landmass in the western hemisphere that consists of the continents of North and South America joined by the Isthmus of Panama. The continent was originally inhabited by American Indians and Inuits. The northeast coastline of North America was visited by Norse seamen in the 8th or 9th century, but for the modern world the continent was first reached by Christopher Columbus in 1492.
- used as a name for the United States.

Note that the definition of the landmass precedes the definition of the USA. Similar precedence will be found also in Wikipedia, Merriam-Webster, and most other authoritative sources (admittedly not all, although all will acknowledge both meanings).

And regarding the definition of "continent" you need to realize that there are at least five different definitions for that word using different criteria. You were taught a particular one that separated North and South America, but other people (in particular outside the USA) are taught other definitions and most of those don't make that distinction.

By the way, according to the CIA the conventional short name for the United States of America is "United States", not "America".

That's true - the Spanish speakers.

And your dictionary compilers:

America

1 either continent (North America or S. America) of the western hemisphere
2 or the Americas the lands of the western hemisphere including North, Central, & S. America & the W. Indies
3 United States of America

from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/america

Case in point:

Compare
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/semitic

To
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anti%20semitic

Case in point:

Compare
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/semitic

To
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anti%20semitic

The historical population movement that occurred did "require" this (in the important sense that what happened, happened).

That's not a definition of "require".

Since I see little historical evidence for common "everyone's nice to one another" mass migrations into otherwise inhabited areas

The huge migrations into the New World are an excellent counterexample. The US, Brazil, Argentina, and a number of other countries had vast, peaceful migrations over a period of centuries.

Google is however doing nothing to prevent this usage,

Really? Check out Merriam-Webster.

They also specifically ask that we respect their copyright for "Google" in this blog post.

I just did, and I don't understand what point you are trying to make.

Or perhaps you were confused about what it means. or what he said.