Slashdot Mirror

It would usually only be a tit bit if you are referring to one of the gods with 8 or 10 breasts or something like that. In most other cases, it would be a tidbit ;-).

While "tidbit" is standard American English, this word has had different spellings in previous years and in different regional standards. (The OP is from India, so some differences in his English can be expected). See e.g. Merriam-Webster for a mention of the alternative spelling "titbit".

Actually no he is right, regulated means trained and properly equipped in this sense. The English language has been corrupted over time to mean strictly mean only regulated in the sense of controlled under the law.

I have to call bullshit on this one, barring extraordinary proof. "Regulate" comes from the Latin regula , which means rule, as in "regulation" or "law". It can also mean "adjusted" or "tuned", but normally referred to machinery or procedures, not people or military units such as a militia.

If "regulated" ever meant what you are saying, you are telling us that English imported the word, changed its meaning by the time the US Constitution was written, and then its meaning reverted to its original one (as it is in Latin and Romance languages). I find that unlikely.

I think C++ is all but horrible.

Judging from the rest of your comment, I don't think you think that. C++ being "all but horrible" would mean C++ being almost horrible. What you obviously mean is C++ being not at all horrible.

(You wrote descent, but I think you meant decent.)

FTFY. It's silly to put only "this" as links.

(You wrote descent, but I think you meant decent.)

FTFY. It's silly to put only "this" as links.

I have written descent sized projects on Open/LibreOffice(.org) and never had a problem with it.

Other than lack of a grammar checker?

(You wrote this, but I think you meant this.)

I have written descent sized projects on Open/LibreOffice(.org) and never had a problem with it.

Other than lack of a grammar checker?

(You wrote this, but I think you meant this.)

There are about 10000 death per firearm per year , about 3000 are murder

Sorry, your numbers are seriously fscked up. 10,000 deaths per firearm would wipe out the US population many times over. Maybe you're trying to say, "10,000 deaths from firearms per year" ?

The first definition of per is: 1 : by the means or agency of : THROUGH <per bearer>

While it's arguably confusing to use "per" in two different senses right next to each other, what he wrote is a valid way of saying, "There are about 10000 deaths by firearm each year."

"Defence" is perfectly acceptable.

"Cheese" not made from milk is only cheese if you consider margarine to be butter. Wikipedia: "Cheese is a generic term for a diverse group of milk-based food products." The dictionary:a food consisting of the coagulated, compressed, and usually ripened curd of milk separated from the whey.

If it isn't made from milk, it isn't cheese.

as you've discovered, it's made up of a bunch of yahoos.

I find it difficult to believe that you've not encountered any of the following:

1) At least one major dictionary supporting my definition
2) Literature over thousands of years in which the definition, obviously in various languages, has been disputed. Somehow I don't think you're resolving that debate in a pseudonymous Slashdot post

Well, a quick google search gives lots of result ( http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/agnostic , http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/agnostic , http://www.thefreedictionary.com/agnostic and so on) with descriptions like the following:

a person who holds neither of two opposing positions on a topic

a person who is unwilling to commit to an opinion about something

One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.

Perhaps I have just misunderstood something, but to me those definitions do support my view of what agnosticism is. If I am incorrect then I do not know the proper definition for a person who takes no stance on the existence of gods or such beings.

Flaunt

Every time a prescriptivist is proven wrong by a dictionary, an angel has an orgasm.

You're right ... every lecture should be delivered in the most droll monotone available. We need to get a hundred Ben Stein clones up in our colleges and universities.

I think you have that backwards. Gamification is an attempt to make lectures and learning more droll*, an adjective that the post you were responding too seemed against. And monotones are rarely droll, though Ben Stein's is a notable exception. Having someone as smart and funny as he is up there teaching seems like a pretty good approach.

* Droll: having a humorous, whimsical, or odd quality .

I'm fairly certain you don't know what Israel or Jews are.

You should look up the definition in the dictionary. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/jew

Jew == Israelite

AND ALSO

Jew == Religion

Though they are not mutually inclusive.

Huh? You're just grasping at straws now.

Definition of fascism

Whole Wiki article on fascism

Seriously, this is Israel, the penultimate security state.

Which state is, therefore, the ultimate security state? Seriously, penultimate doesn't mean "ultimate, except with three extra prefix letters of awesome emphasis!", it means "next to last".

I only realize it now, but what you are telling is that we have now plenty of food and what is happening is that because of all of the companies doing automatisation we can have more entertainment as well.

panem et circenses or panem et circenses. Darn, that was well hidden.

Entitlement is about comparing your circumstances to other people.

No dictionary in the world says that. Well, maybe your own twisted dictionary. An entitlement is simply what you're entitled to and has nothing whatever to do with your circumstances or how you compare them with others.

Your definition of "worth" is equally incorrect. Is English a second language to you?

How about linking to a respectable dictionary? You might as well link the Urban Dictionary if you're getting your definitions from those rags.

1: extending indefinitely : endless
2: immeasurably or inconceivably great or extensive : inexhaustible
3: subject to no limitation or external determination
4a : extending beyond, lying beyond, or being greater than any preassigned finite value however large b : extending to infinity c : characterized by an infinite number of elements or terms <an infinite set> <an infinite series>

Well, there's here. So somebody is using it, and it is the proper comparative form of "slippery."

I personally take every opportunity to resist the American English tendency to form comparitives and superlatives with "more" and "most" for any multi-syllable word. Pleasanter, pleasantest. Cleverer, cleverest. Those are perfectly serviceable words, and sound more dignified* than the "more" and "most" forms. Why are we so loathe to use them?

*Even I won't go for "dignifieder," though. That's just silly.

See? The very first definition: "an aggressive attack on or refutation of the opinions or principles of another"

The author saw the bundling of windows-only, drm-laden games as an attack on the principles of those to whom the humble bundle is marketed. Whether that view is accurate or not, the word usage fits.

The only Irony here is the the OP think he know what the word means but in reality has no idea what it actually means.

I meant what I wrote. The impact of this gentleman's work is beyond measure, and is therefore immeasurable. Please acquaint yourself with the English language before commenting again, and have a nice day in the interim.

None of which forms an effective rebuttal since I didn't *diagnose* anyone[...]

Keep backpedaling, because apparently you can't even read/recall your own posts. Allow me to hyperfocus it for you:

[...]implies you suffer from narcissistic personality disorder

The context is unambiguous: it's clear that you made an incompetent diagnosis.

In anticipation of your next attempt to spin your hypocrisy, I will go ahead and cite the definition of diagnosis for your review.

You may try to spin this with claims of citing "facts", or retcon'ing in your mind that you attempted to window-dress your diagnosis with a pseudo-disclaimer such as "it's likely" (which, despite your previous claim, you did no such thing). Ultimately, we both know the truth... the psychologist from my previous post's links is describing you here:

Actually, narcissism is a very old diagnosis but in recent years it has become a very popular diagnosis to the point of becoming a therapy fad. In my previous posting, I used the fad “diagnosis” narcissism as an example of bogus online “diagnosis” from both licensed mental health professionals who really should know better and people lacking any credentials but who nevertheless believe they are an expert, having attended the University of Google.

Before you attempt to smear others with the same brush, you might review what the psychologist has to say to those like you:

For this reason, given that virtually everyone has degrees of so-called narcissism, one cannot possibly diagnose NPD by reading someone’s postings on the internet. Without having full knowledge of a person’s life which involves taking a full, detailed history there is no way that conclusion can be come to based on what the person writes on the internet. Even a person with just a little bit of narcissism (which virtually everyone has) might have that bit brought out in a given situation that would come out in an internet posting and then taken out of context and blown out of proportion, especially by people who have been angered by what the person had to say.

The point of mixing the fluids is that you cannot otherwise impart enough heat to flash boil the water.

That begs the question, can you not otherwise impart enough heat to flash boil the water? Why not a big metallic thermal load, made out of recycled popcans?

That's not begging the question.

That begs the question, how is the original statement not an example of the petitio principii fallacy?

Definition of SECRETARY

1

: one employed to handle correspondence and manage routine and detail work for a superior

secretary

Definition of SLASHDOT

1

Fox News For Nerds

I looked up "insanity." Your definition was not in the list. See?

I am aware of the (political) history of your definition, and it remains a bad definition of the word, useful usually to disparage people for persistence (which is usually a virtue, (but not always)).

They might be persisting in folly. YOU are propogating ignorance (of the English language).

Your pharmacist has lots and lots of scruples, too.

I've had recruiters tell me this diatrbe too. Contacted me saying they specialize in recruiting engineers; their specialty is that "the best aren't looking" and therefore I must be part of that group since I'm currently employed. Gee thanks ego, but no bite from me.

Not sure which meaning of diatribe you're aiming for here.

The first result in Google for camradery is http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/comradery. The first definition is camaraderie, so it looks like we have two valid spellings of the same word.

It's also currently in the top 1% of lookups on the site, so the slashdot effect is still alive and well.

That's only a part of what a PE is. To become a PE you have to take an entrance exam and you have to get letters of recommendation from some number of current PEs. You also have to attend an accredited school and take the appropriate coursework.

It may be different in your jurisdiction (I know for example that it is much more strict in Canada) but where I live anyone can have a job title with 'Engineer' in it so long as they do not advertise themselves as providing the services of an engineer or being a PE (unless they actually are one). People hand out business cards all the time saying 'Sales Engineer' or 'Field Engineer' and there is no problem with it.

Anyway, the problem I have with this debate is that there is a generic definition of what engineering and an engineer is but there is a group of people (mainly PEs) who want to rewrite this definition and force them to be the gatekeepers of who is/isn't one.

That's only a part of what a PE is. To become a PE you have to take an entrance exam and you have to get letters of recommendation from some number of current PEs. You also have to attend an accredited school and take the appropriate coursework.

It may be different in your jurisdiction (I know for example that it is much more strict in Canada) but where I live anyone can have a job title with 'Engineer' in it so long as they do not advertise themselves as providing the services of an engineer or being a PE (unless they actually are one). People hand out business cards all the time saying 'Sales Engineer' or 'Field Engineer' and there is no problem with it.

Anyway, the problem I have with this debate is that there is a generic definition of what engineering and an engineer is but there is a group of people (mainly PEs) who want to rewrite this definition and force them to be the gatekeepers of who is/isn't one.

put that dictionary away. it's doing more harm than good.

Is it b/c I used the word 'transmogrify'?

1. Being pedantic doesn't disprove my point
2. I chose to use a word that sounded like a made up technical word b/c, if you read my post, I think the whole idea of making a 'thinking machine' is...well...silly and quasi-technical...just like the word
3. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/transmogrify

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

Definition of MANIA
1
: excitement manifested by mental and physical hyperactivity, disorganization of behavior, and elevation of mood; specifically : the manic phase of bipolar disorder
2
a : excessive or unreasonable enthusiasm —often used in combination
b : the object of such enthusiasm

So, in conclusion: it's the object of excessive or unreasonable enthusiasm, not the best thing since sliced bread.

Brooks discovered that approximately equal percentages of liberals and conservatives give to private charitable causes. However, conservatives gave about 30 percent more money per year to private charitable causes, even though his study found liberal families earned an average of 6 percent more per year in income than did conservative families.

This is another one of those things I call a "true lie" - it is a shallow literal truth that is used to obscure a more meaningful truth.

It is literally true that conservatives give more to charity than liberals. But it is a lie to say that means conservatives are more charitable. That is because the entire difference in charitable giving is accounted for by religious donations. When you take those out of the equation, both groups give roughly the same amount of money.

When religious giving isn't counted, the geography of giving is very different. Some states in the Northeast would jump into the top 10 when secular gifts alone are counted. New York would vault from No. 18 to No. 2 in the rankings, and Pennsylvania would climb from No. 40 to No. 4.

--The Chronical of Philanthropy

The problem with religious charity, aka tithing, is that it is not truly charitable. It is about giving money to something that benefits the giver whereas true charity is altruistic with no expectation of benefit to the giver. Religious donations are charity as defined by the IRS but are not charity as defined by common usage of the term.

In extreme cases the money can be "laundered" such that it counts as an IRS charitable deduction but then is used for something that is not deductible. One such example is the way the Knights of Columbus -- a religious charity affiliated with the catholic church -- spent $1.9M between 2008 and 2009 to fight same-sex marriage laws in Washington State. If a secular person wanted to donate money to a group like the Human Rights Campaign who advocate for gay marraige, it would not be considered charity.

Same thing with the way Mormons are expected to pay a 10% tithe to the Mormon Church. But the Church turned around and spent $22 million of that to defeat the pro-gay-marraige Prop 8 in california.

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

Usage Discussion of LITERALLY
Since some people take sense 2 to be the opposite of sense 1, it has been frequently criticized as a misuse. Instead, the use is pure hyperbole intended to gain emphasis, but it often appears in contexts where no additional emphasis is necessary.

It's more nuanced than that. Atheism has a few meanings. The most popular take I've observed is more about disbelief than belief. I'm an atheist in the sense that I disbelieve god claims, but I don't say for certain that there are no such things as gods.

One who considers the existence of a god or gods to be unknown or unknowable, is called, in English, agnostic.

Atheism is something else entirely.

Yes, there are no rules as to what concepts a person wants to incorporate into their world view. In fact, there is even the concept of atheistic agnosticism which seems to comport with the ideas you've put forward.

However, it's customary for people to agree upon the definitions of words that they use when discussing the concepts underlying those words. I try to stick to the definitions in the dictionary so that we all have a reference that we agree upon.

It's more nuanced than that. Atheism has a few meanings. The most popular take I've observed is more about disbelief than belief. I'm an atheist in the sense that I disbelieve god claims, but I don't say for certain that there are no such things as gods.

One who considers the existence of a god or gods to be unknown or unknowable, is called, in English, agnostic.

Atheism is something else entirely.

Yes, there are no rules as to what concepts a person wants to incorporate into their world view. In fact, there is even the concept of atheistic agnosticism which seems to comport with the ideas you've put forward.

However, it's customary for people to agree upon the definitions of words that they use when discussing the concepts underlying those words. I try to stick to the definitions in the dictionary so that we all have a reference that we agree upon.

A prosecutor and possibly a judge may argue that his actions differ from security cameras in the sense that a security camera is fixed in place and watches a predefined area to spot crimes and identify perpetrators.

I wasn't aware there were regulations limiting the adding of security cameras to places that record what's in the public's view. This is no different than a business putting up a camera on one corner of the building and deciding to move it to another.

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

The key here seems to be repeated attempts of what he is doing. I'm guessing as long as he doesn't do it after being told to stop he's not harassing anyone.

Annoying, perhaps but being annoying isn't illegal.

A misspelling on my part, and apparently a common one, but yes, that's what I thought was meant.

MW
1: to separate into pieces : expose the several parts of (as an animal) for scientific examination
2: to analyze and interpret minutely (dissect a problem)

If you're on the west coast that's not surprising. OT, but about your sig...

but it is not "stealing" by any remotely logic definition of the word

One merely needs to look at actual definitions of to steal:

: to take the property of another wrongfully and especially as a habitual or regular practice

I gather the intent here is that copyright is not property, even though it is legally treated as property.

to take or appropriate without right or leave and with intent to keep or make use of wrongfully

This definition doesn't even require that something be considered property.

It's pointless to make such an argument without even attempting to crack open a dictionary. Semantically, only countries which have a language which uses the word "steal" can have a definition of "steal", legally or not.

It's also worth noting that the term "intellectual property" has been used to describe things like copyright and such for a century and a half. Under that model/viewpoint, unlawful copying is indeed theft.

You, sir, are a hero.

And I mean that not in how the media calls everybody a hero. I mean that as a man admired for his achievements and noble qualities

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

You say Dingos, and I say "AAAAHAHHG WILD DOGS ARE EATING OFF MY FACE!!!"


who's really going to believe an American dictionary on the proper plural form of an Austrailailailain word?!

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/streets For those who were confused.

Canada is in 'North America', not 'America'.

it's in both
The Americas (or America)[2][3][4] are lands in the Western Hemisphere that are also known as the New World. Comprising the continents of South America and North America

Definition of 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

Would you also claim that Brazil is in 'America'?

Yes, and Argentina, which is where one half of my family comes from. They also claim that it is in America.

are Canada and Brazil located in the same continent?

No.

Aeon: one of a class of powers or beings conceived as emanating from the Supreme Being and performing various functions in the operations of the universe.

I see that you like dictionary.com as a reference. I prefer Merriam-Webster:

aeonnoun \-n, -än\
1: an immeasurably or indefinitely long period of time : age
2 a usually eon : a very large division of geologic time usually longer than an era
    b : a unit of geologic time equal to one billion years

Matches definition 2 and World English Dictionary entry from dictionary.com.

I'm a sucker for archaic spellings and exaggeration, what can I say?

Thanks for cluing me in to an alternate definition. I am not up on my gnostic terminology, so I thought it an odd editorial choice to put that definition first. Several other dictionaries do the same, though, so I guess it's time to update my vocabulary =)

How does science explain psychics? Auras, the afterlife, the power of prayer?

Or even more easily.