Slashdot Mirror

Since you are apparently new to the internet, or q dumb fuck, I decide to post a definition:

proportional - corresponding in size, degree, or intensity

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

I am tired of idiots like you overlooking the context in order to make a stupid ass statement.

You are NOT nearly as smart as you think you are.

"Also, if "equivalent" is meant by "proportional","
it doesn't and that is pretty damn clear. Your first clue was that they use the word 'proportional'.

Flaunt:: to display ostentatiously or impudently
Flout: to treat with contemptuous disregard

Both are accurate. Flaunt context is not substandard.

Of course, form you post you don't know what the word context means either.

Do the definition of causal relationship require the existence of time? I think not.

I think so.

Causality "...(also referred to as causation) is the relationship between an event (the cause) and a second event (the effect), where the second event is understood as a consequence of the first."

Consequent - from Latin consequent-, consequens, present participle of consequi to follow along, from com- + sequi to follow

follow - intransitive verb
1: to go or come after a person or thing in place, time, or sequence
transitive verb
6a : to come or take place after in time, sequence, or order

Do the definition of causal relationship require the existence of time? I think not.

I think so.

Causality "...(also referred to as causation) is the relationship between an event (the cause) and a second event (the effect), where the second event is understood as a consequence of the first."

Consequent - from Latin consequent-, consequens, present participle of consequi to follow along, from com- + sequi to follow

follow - intransitive verb
1: to go or come after a person or thing in place, time, or sequence
transitive verb
6a : to come or take place after in time, sequence, or order

No. Abiogenesis is life arising from non-living matter. In context as a piece of scientific terminology, it also usually conotes a natural process (i.e. not divine intervention).

Merriam-Webster
Wikipedia

Damn, I misspelled that (thanks, Mozilla). It should have been aliterate, FireFox tagged it as a misspelling so I went with the spell check. DOH!

Definition of ALITERACY
: the quality or state of being able to read but uninterested in doing so
â" aliterate adjective or noun

Too damned many alliterates here these days (and no, that wasn't misspelled, look it up).

Fine, I'll take the bait: Merriam-Webster says it's a verb, but you're using it as a noun. Wiktionary agrees that it's a verb. So what were you trying to say? In English this time.

I backed the claim up

No, you made an argument. Anyone can do that for anything. Let's start with the definition of slavery:

a person held in servitude as the chattel of another

There are other definitions, but they are irrelevant to this discussion.

You wrote:

If the only freedom we have gained (for the vast majority of people) is the right to choose a different owner, then we have gained no freedom at all.

Well, that means you aren't chattel then since you aren't actually owned. Property doesn't get to decide who owns it or change its mind. As a result, your claim doesn't fit the definition of slavery.

We also have as a result absurdities like the self-employed simultaneously being their own slaves and masters or someone becoming a master for a few minutes by renting a taxi or other such service.

Hence, my evaluation of the claim as "quite dumb".

To me, rationalizing would be "fight the power" style stuff and other BS to use as a smokescreen for pirating.

I'm sorry, how is "fight the power" part of the definition of rationalization ("broadly : to create an excuse or more attractive explanation for ")? But beyond that, you've done something similar by focusing on Blizzard's status as a large company with a policy you don't like, while talking up how you support indies.

I admit that I just don't want to pay for it outright, hence I'm not rationalizing. My listed reasons are WEAK, hence I don't consider them part of any effort to rationalize my behavior.

So you failed at your rationalization with WEAK arguments, and still want to claim you weren't rationalizing. Gotcha. Come on, stop trying to refute the obvious. It's all recorded in the conversation history, and unlike some other crappy forums, you can't edit what you said previously (a frequently requested malfeature on Slashdot).

>"What do you do when your daughter wants the girl to be the hero"

Sorry, you can't without a sex change operation. But you can help her be the heroine!

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

I was bitter about the whole thing for a long time, until I learned the failure part...which made a tiny part of me very happy indeed.

Ah, schadenfreude—it has always seemed historically inevitable to me that the word with this definition would have German etymology. "There's a word for this? And it's German? Quelle surprise."

I'm sorry, but once someone dies, they can no longer have birthdays after their death. It should be "61st anniversary of his birth"

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/birthday A birthday is literally the anniversary of one's birth. A death day would presumably be the anniversary of one's death. My only qualm with this doodle is that it doesn't really appear to say "Google". I haven't been paying attention to all the doodles, but I like the ones that say Google while still relating to what the subject matter is.

pedandtic

It's pedantic, as in:

1: of, relating to, or being a pedant(see pedant)
2: narrowly, stodgily, and often ostentatiously learned
3: unimaginative, pedestrian

Pedant:
2a : one who makes a show of knowledge
b : one who is unimaginative or who unduly emphasizes minutiae in the presentation or use of knowledge
c : a formalist or precisionist in teaching

This post is an example of definition 2a of pedant.

I see what you did there.

Here is the definition of Tolerance.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/tolerance

Until someone comes and "STOPS YOU" they are at the very least tolerating you. Tolerating does not require someone to "accept" or "not disparage" you in any way.

Speaking of schools, lets review their "Zero Tolerance" policies and the fact that they lean more left than right. The left is the intolerant side if anything which is why that word sits on your minds more frequently than the right. Hypocritical much?

Honed in" may be in common usage but that doesn't make it correct.

And your assertion doesn't make it incorrect either.

It has been in use for quite some time.

Language evolves, you're going to have to learn to deal with that. Hone in has been in use for literally decades.

'Hone' means to focus in or to work towards a specific goal, and is listed in reputable print dictionaries (i.e. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hone%20in). Honed in is the past tense of hone in. It is true that some people think it is wrong, and that opinion is open to debate, as it should be for any living language. But the deciding factor is whether the intent of the phase is understood by the majority of readers. Since it is in common use, it follows that it has become accepted phraseology.

"Definition of bigot: a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance "

Do you realize that it describes you?

You can still be a bigot despite being in a minority just like you can still be a racist no matter what colour your skin has.

here's still quite a few metaphorical diamonds in the rough.

The expression means unpolished, not that there are gems amid trash.

I stand corrected. Thanks.

Merriam Webster, especially (3a):

incongruity between the actual result of a sequence of events and the normal or expected result

If you truly were not aware of the definition of irony, let me suggest the irony of your attempt to correct other's use of the word.

*You might argue that it was not ironic to you because you had no such expectations. But, you would still be unable to argue that it was not ironic to Travis; his use of the word remains correct.

**captcha: commando

I'll cite the Webster dictionary for the definition -
WEAPON : something (as a club, knife, or gun) used to injure, defeat, or destroy.

For an item to be a weapon, it needs to be applied in a specific manner. The hammer, sitting on the table, won't jump up and bop you on the head all by itself. Neither will the firearm, nor the table itself, nor this nifty rock I have here. All of these items can be weapons when applied properly. The application (and intent) makes it a weapon.

I already added a DVR security system, so hopefully the new things won't get burgled!

I suggest a dictionary.

Or perhaps you should get one? http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/burgle

here's still quite a few metaphorical diamonds in the rough.

The expression means unpolished, not that there are gems amid trash.

Meritocratic.

Perhaps some are but GP is being pragmatic:

It seems to be more about practically and what works for the given situation.

I don't believe IE ever deserved to be called venerable.

venerable: No

venereal: Maybe

I don't believe IE ever deserved to be called venerable.

venerable: No

venereal: Maybe

I don't believe IE ever deserved to be called venerable.

weary of ...

To tired to change your spell checker?

Too weary to check your dictionary?

weary of ...

To tired to change your spell checker?

Too weary to check your dictionary?

No, it's f as in "fawn".
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/faux

This is not meant to nickpick

I know "US getting less sun than US" means "US getting less sunlight than US", but I still feel a little bit queasy when people substitute the word "Sun" for "Sunlight"

Maybe that's just me ...

So, when people use the phrase, "fun in the sun", do you correct them with, "fun in the warmth and light of the Sun"? Do you tell people, "No, you are not getting some sun. You are receiving some sunlight!"

If only you had been around to prevent the Beatles from making fools of themselves by singing, "Here Comes the Sun", instead of, "Here Comes More Direct Sunlight".

Or maybe you are just a little too caught up in misplaced pedantry to notice the usage of the word "sun" has a common and accepted usage to denote the light or warmth of the sun.

Merriam-Webster.com: sun"

Don't call my canine a dog. She's a bitch.

That is specifically a word for female dogs-- not all dogs.

Take the following with a grain of salt.

A ship is referred to using feminine pronouns.

That is not the same thing as grammatical gender.
Look up ship in English; note how there is no indication of its gender, nor is there any difference in usage.
Now look it up in German; note how it indicates "neuter" next to schiff, and it indicates that for neuter nouns, you use "das Schiff" as opposed to "der Schiff".

It also has nothing to do AFAIK with wither you use he or she vs it-- lets look at "teacher". It has no gender in english, and you would generally say "he" or "she" depending on whether the teacher in question was male or female. In german, "der Lehrer" is masculine, but once again, you would use "er" (he) or "sie" (she) depending on the gender of the teacher.

I am fairly certain we have no grammatical gender as I cannot name a single masculine noun, or their corresponding articles (eg, "[das / der / die] Noun").

You are right that many places teach foreign language but at least where I went to school that was always an elective, and my point was more that "gendered" words arent a native english concept.

That word "marginalize", I don't think it means what you think it means.

I realize you're probably just typing in a meme by reflex action, but here's the definition:

to relegate to an unimportant or powerless position within a society or group

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

Now let's look at the rest of what you typed:

The core question is whose rights are being violated by the existence of animal porn, that supposedly gives you the right to initiate force against those who view animal porn. Your rights do not get violated by the mere existence of the stuff, and to claim as such is an extraordinary stretch - how are your rights violated - are you unable to go out in public because there are posters of animal porn everywhere?

The point is that many of us don't want to live in a society where deviancy is the accepted norm. Legalizing animal porn takes that away from us.

Psssst... It's "cachet".

The dictionary disagrees with you:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/spelt

spelt1 [spelt] verb
a simple past tense and past participle of spell1 .

spelt2 [spelt] noun
a wheat, Triticum aestivum spelta, native to southern Europe and western Asia, used chiefly for livestock feed.

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

1. chiefly British past and past participle of spell

2. Subspecies (Triticum aestivum spelta) of wheat that has lax spikes and spikelets containing two light red kernels. A related species, Triticum dicoccon, commonly known as emmer wheat or farro, was cultivated by the ancient Babylonians and the ancient Swiss lake dwellers; it is now grown for livestock forage and used in baked goods and cereals.

The constitution does not give foreign powers the right to override our own constitution. That would be totally stupid.

This is why reading is fundamental. Please stay in school.

Forgive me the colloquialism, but... LOL!

An estimated 1,000,000 people secretly cross the border into the US every year; that's about 2,700 people per day. ...

It must not be much of a secret then...

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

The word has more than one definition, you know.

Actually, according to Miriam-Webster, either attorneys general OR attorney generals is the acceptable plurality.

The noun can be considered both words together in this case.

When blamestorming (snikeys! it's actually in the dictionary) you must have someone to blame.

Main Entry: 2leverage
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): leveraged; leveraging
Date: 1957
1 : to provide (as a corporation) or supplement (as money) with leverage; also : to enhance as if by supplying with financial leverage
2 : to use for gain : exploit

From here

FAIL.

I'm glad to hear that you had a good time while you were in Cuba and that things looked pretty good. If you re-read my post, you will see where I stated that modern products and conveniences were present for the wealthy few and the tourists, like you.

The fact that YOU didn't see any food shortages doesn't really mean anything at all, does it? There have been numerous food shortages over the past few years. Perhaps, you should read a newspaper once in a while, or do some research of your own. Just because your tour guide didn't show it to you doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.

The healthcare is indeed legendary. However, I remain unconvinced that this single attribute makes up for fifty years of poverty and oppression for the populace.

The most interesting thing about Cuba is that presently, the vast majority of the population has known nothing else but Castro rule. Everyone 50 years old or younger has never known anything but Castro rule. Almost everyone is fiercely nationalistic, naturally. But, they are also completely indoctrinated into the Castro/Cuban way. Yet, if you get them aside and get them to open up, individuals will pine about change, travel and "escape". They don't want to leave the only home that they have ever known, but they know that they are severely lacking. Of course, it is easy to blame the U.S. and the "blockade" when that is the only reason for all that's bad that you've heard since birth.

Viva Fidel! /s

Honestly I don't believe I am reading anything other than what you wrote. If you note the whole paragraph I quoted, you will see that you contradict yourself. This backs what I pointed out, in that people believe in something rather delusional.

Lets go a bit further: How can you believe in a different definition of guilt other than what is in the dictionary? Think about that question very hard. There is only one definition of guilt, and only one definition of innocent (don't pull out the semantics card and say 1.) 2) etc..). If you need to change the definition of a word to make your logic work, then your logic can't be very good. There is no broad definition of "guilt" like there would be with "red". Defining guilt is as straight forward as defining "One" or "Ten".

That last point is the delusion that many people believe in (or perhaps a better way of defining the delusion). If I have one block of stone, or one feather, I still have exactly "one" item. No matter how big the stone or how small the feather, the definition of "One" can not be changed. It's the same with being guilty of something. It would be the same as being innocent of something. There is no scale of committing an act. You either "did" or "did not" do something.

Great, you ignored the word militia.

See definition 2 here. This is what was meant at the time the second amendment was ratified. You can check through all of the writings of the founding fathers, especially those of James Madison, author of the amendment.

America is winning a worldwide race to the bottom.

This happened in Canada, dumbass.

America has many problems, including the fact that many of its citizens believe it to be the center of the Universe—if not the entirety of it.

Canada lies in (North-)America, dumbass.

The United States of America have many problems, including the fact that many of its citizens believe it to be the center of America—if not the entirety of it.

Note the first link on that Wikipedia page.

Of course, there are also a more authorative sources

[b]There's no insight here, no data. The parent just spews his own feeling that "girls are rule followers" and "boys are smarter". The scientists with actual data found that the qualities were actually "attentiveness, task persistence, eagerness to learn, learning independence, flexibility and organization", but don't let science get in the way of your shit headed misogyny.[/b]

I agree with you that the author you are replying to has a weak opinion. However, that doesn't mean he hates women.

Calling him a misogynist because you don't like his opinion is a false argument ad hominem.

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

> Standardise is British (wrong).

You DO realize languages evolve right? Languages (and spelling) are a dynamic entity not a static one. If your English teacher failed to teach you that they were ignorant of history.

Replacing 'z' with 's' IS unfortunately now a standard - not sure what year that practice became standard (or introduced) but whining about it isn't going to change anything.

i.e.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/optimise
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/optimize

There are many words not in the dictionary until YEARS later when the academics [finally] realize that people have been using them.

> Standardise is British (wrong).

You DO realize languages evolve right? Languages (and spelling) are a dynamic entity not a static one. If your English teacher failed to teach you that they were ignorant of history.

Replacing 'z' with 's' IS unfortunately now a standard - not sure what year that practice became standard (or introduced) but whining about it isn't going to change anything.

i.e.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/optimise
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/optimize

There are many words not in the dictionary until YEARS later when the academics [finally] realize that people have been using them.

Not quite. That is ONE definition of coercion. Merriam-Webster defines coercion as-
1 : to restrain or dominate by force
2 : to compel to an act or choice
3 : to achieve by force or threat

So #2 does not require force or threats, and one can be coerced without threats or physical force.

As a wise man on the internet once said "You don't get to change the meaning to suit your world view."

You really don't understand the differences between American and British/Canadian spelling do you?

standardise = British
standardize = American

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/standardize
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/standardise

You really don't understand the differences between American and British/Canadian spelling do you?

standardise = British
standardize = American

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/standardize
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/standardise

Although a number of variants of the metric system emerged in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries the term is now often used as a synonym for "SI" or the "International System of Units" - the official system of measurement in almost every country in the world.

Merriam Webster:

A decimal system of weights and measures based on the meter and on the kilogram

For the last few years, I've been using Android tablets ... I started out with a Motorola Xoom

How can you have been using something "for the last few years" when it's been out less than 2?

I'd personally consider 1 year and 10 months to be a "few years", and apparently so would merrian-webster, reference.com, and oxford. Even if "few" required it to be 2 (which is does not), I'd still consider that close enough to 2 to not get your panties in a bunch over it.