Slashdot Mirror

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

Easily.

Your definition of "car" is meaningless and isn't anything like Webster's. You don't seem to realize that words are used for communication, and if you simply use your own meaning of a word everyone uses, you are obfuscating, not communicating.

There's nothing in the definition of "car" that says what the method of propulsion is. This is indeed a car. Here's what a car is:

Definition of CAR
1: a vehicle moving on wheels: as
a archaic : carriage, chariot
b : a vehicle designed to move on rails (as of a railroad)
c : automobile

2: the passenger compartment of an elevator
3: the part of an airship or balloon that carries the passengers and cargo

Design by comity

Never heard of it. Sounds quite friendly though.

I hope you mean convenience...although continence might work for some apple fanbois too! http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/continence

Perseveration from an AC on Slashdot? Yeah, I'm certainly going to... oh, wait.

You know, if you look a word up in the dictionary to see if it's real, slang, or newly coined you look a lot less stupid. Aborning is a real word, "cromulent" was invented in a cartoon making fun of making up words.

Definition of ABORNING
: while being born or produced
Origin of ABORNING
1a- + English dialect borning (birth)
First Known Use: 1916
2aborningadjective
Definition of ABORNING
: being born or produced
Examples of ABORNING

First Known Use of ABORNING
1943
Related to ABORNING
Synonyms: nascent, budding, inceptive, inchoate, incipient
Antonyms: adult, full-blown, full-fledged, mature, ripe, ripened

Look at any dictionary. Definitions are listed in the approximate order in which their usage first became known. Each mild variant of meaning came into being in the same way. Technology is no different.

Words get thrown out there, people use them in various ways, and the meanings change over time. Then people settle on a usage, the "vulgar" definition. Which in itself is an interesting read. The Damascus Latin Bible was "vulgar" for a thousand years.

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

I try to keep people to the real meaning of things. But people were taught in school how to determine meaning from context. When they find a word or phrase they don't completely understand, they use it they way it makes sense to them. So you have "for all intensive purposes" and "begs the question" in common usage. You can correct it, but you can't win unless you personally intervene with everyone, individually, and repeatedly.

Good for you for wanting to be specific and clear when communicating. When groups of people do that and agree on the meaning, it is "jargon". No one cares.

This happens to be the kind of "trolling" where you have a specific victim in mind. It is not clear that Leo was the only victim - he could very well be the only one willing or able to find his troll. If you have any fringe awareness of the concept of "4chan", you should be aware that targeted trolling is no different from anonymous random trolling. Except for the heightened satisfaction it gives when you know you have "won" again.

As I understand the story, this kid targeted the facade of a neighbor, the online presence who is not a person but a bunch of text and pictures inside the little box. And he kept dragging his line, and got a kick out of every time Leo bit. The only way to make it more fun was ramp it up a notch. The only difference here is the kid's inability to see a neighbor as a person. Counseling was appropriate. Although if your neighbor had some sort of fame or notoriety outside of being a neighbor, such as being popular on Twitter, it could be possible to associate the neighbor with the person you met, and the persona with the digital world.

From this:

1
a : neglect or wrong performance of official duty
b : concealment of treason or felony by one who is not a participant in the treason or felony
c : seditious conduct against the government or the courts

Also refer to the Criminal Law Act 1967 section 5(1):

Where a person has committed an arrestable offence, any other person who, knowing or believing that the offence or some other arrestable offence has been committed, and that he has information which might be of material assistance in securing the prosecution or conviction of an offender for it, accepts or agrees to accept for not disclosing that information any consideration other than the making good of loss or injury caused by the offence, or the making of reasonable compensation for that loss or injury, shall be liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for not more that two years.

It is not only a crime to not report a crime, it is a compoundable indictment.

Now you, please shut the fuck up or present a citation to your assertion that overrides the definitive source of English Statute.

I see that you view things from a more or less humanist viewpoint and tend to dismiss religion and spirituality.

Correct, I'm a secular humanist.

My view is that men need a general common sense and common spiritual structure of morality over and above any laws any government may pass in order for a free and open society to remain stable, as a need for some sense of spirituality is part of basic human nature and inescapable in a general sense, as people make up their own spiritual belief systems lacking any outside examples.

I would agree with you, and that was basically what I was saying about how the collective and the individual define their rights. You can look at societies and history to see how this has happened with various results. The only difference in our positions is that I believe "God" is just another one of those "make up their own spiritual belief systems lacking any outside examples".

Please accept my apologies for any actual or implied slights against you on my part.

That's good of you, and no offense taken, but I'd rather see you acknowledge that your initial summary of the situation was biased and didn't give the whole story. I acknowledged the judge's position that the government overstepped their bounds.

The whole "Once a Marine, Always a Marine" isn't propaganda at all.

Propaganda: "2: the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person"

I know the word propaganda has a connotation of being false and harmful, but that's not my meaning here. I'm just recognizing that this terminology is part of the whole group bonding thing. As somebody who is not a Marine, I'm not going to respect what they call themselves when they leave the service and stick to plain words.

Look up "dessert".

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dessert
a usually sweet course or dish (as of pastry or ice cream) usually served at the end of a meal
Interesting... tell me more. Is a "dust bowl" a seasonal type of dessert you humans enjoy at parties in some regions in the US?

wrong as hell.

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

There is an amazing new thing out there called an online dictionary. Perhaps you might consider using one?

If they can't provide something which refutes the prosecution's case, then they have failed to instill doubt, and the cell phone isn't close to what is needed for that.

The defense doesn't have to "provide" anything, and certainly doesn't have to "refute" anything, as the definition of refute is:

1: to prove wrong by argument or evidence : show to be false or erroneous

The very act of refutation is "proving wrong." You cannot refute unless you prove, and there is no, repeat no burden of proof on the defense. The defense does not have to prove the prosecution wrong, or show that any of their evidence or facts are incorrect. The defense can cede every fact and piece of evidence the prosecution can provide but simply raise enough doubt that this evidence is sufficient to reasonably prove their case. The defense can be successful simply telling another tale with the same evidence.

For instance, the police arrive on the scene to find bigstrat2003 and zzsmirkzz locked in room with a dead prostitute. A knife is buried in the back of the prostitute's neck. Both people are wearing gloves, neither has blood spatter on them, and neither of them are talking. The prosecution claims "bigstrat2003 did it! He was in the room, he had the opportunity, and bigstrat2003 bought the knife earlier that day!" You don't have to prove you weren't in the room. Don't have to prove you didn't buy the knife. You can cede you had the opportunity. You don't have to even say "I didn't do it." All the defense has to say is, "Isn't it possible bigstrat2003 gave the knife to zzsmirkzz, and zzsmirkzz killed him?" Done, reasonable doubt established, and bigstrat2003 walks. No "refutation" required.

Does that make sense now? You don't have to prove or refute anything to establish "reasonable doubt." Just tell another story with the same facts that could be "reasonably" true. However, the more evidence the prosecution has, and the stronger that evidence is, the harder it becomes to tell another story that fits the facts and is still reasonable. If 30 million people watched you murder someone on live TV while it was recorded from 15 different camera angles, and police apprehended you immediately, you could cede all those facts and claim it was not, in fact you, but a doppleganger from an alternate dimension who switched places back with you immediately after committing the crime, but that would hardly be "reasonable."

Actually it used to be quite common in parts of the US as well. It used to be called ague. I'm not sure of it's original range, but I think it was even as far north as Ohio. There are variants like avian malaria which have been a barrier to reintroducing eagles and other species.

"If your numbers are going to be arbitrary, why not roll them over at 3.9?"

Probably because that wouldn't be arbitrary.

If "made of photons" == "light" then that makes perfect sense.

But as it turns out both "light" and "sound" are defined in colloquial English as perceptual phenomena, and not as categories in physics:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/light
1 a : something that makes vision possible
      b : the sensation aroused by stimulation of the visual receptors
      c : electromagnetic radiation of any wavelength that travels in a vacuum with a speed of about 186,281 miles (300,000 kilometers) per second; specifically : such radiation that is visible to the human eye

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/sound

1 a : a particular auditory impression : tone
      b : the sensation perceived by the sense of hearing
      c : mechanical radiant energy that is transmitted by longitudinal pressure waves in a material medium (as air) and is the objective cause of hearing

In both cases the definition goes out of its way to specify only that subset of the physical phenomena which produces the perceptual phenomena.

Mod parent up? Mod parent DOWN. WTF is jstor.org? The Penn State U would have been a good one had it actually addressed the subject, which it did not. But how about the definitive citation?

Definition of STUPID
1a : slow of mind : obtuse b : given to unintelligent decisions or acts : acting in an unintelligent or careless manner c : lacking intelligence or reason : brutish
2: dulled in feeling or sensation : torpid
3: marked by or resulting from unreasoned thinking or acting : senseless
4a : lacking interest or point b : vexatious, exasperating
â" stuÂpidÂly adverb
â" stuÂpidÂness noun

.

Definition of IGNORANT
1a : destitute of knowledge or education ; also : lacking knowledge or comprehension of the thing specified b : resulting from or showing lack of knowledge or intelligence
2: unaware, uninformed
â" igÂnoÂrantÂly adverb
â" igÂnoÂrantÂness noun

You can cure ignorance, but there's no cure for stupidity.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/per%20se

Not even remotely funny.

Just in case, from http://www.merriam-webster.com/medical/potable :

Definition of POTABLE: suitable for drinking

What idiot talk show did you get that from?

Idiot talk show? Try reading the definition of the word, then think of the concepts that go in to being "Free". Defining "liberty" is not like defining "Zero" or "blue", it's more like trying to define "rational" or "Republic".

I have read the constitution numerous times. The wording chosen is wonderfully done and very intentional. Perhaps try studying a bit more rhetoric and you will see how deliberate and intelligent the terms used really are.

Contrary to how many people think, the founding fathers were not a bunch of boobs that wrote things in a way that would be open to interpretation. With that said, many words are conceptual and not singular. Those conceptual words are very fluid and not contradictory. You see the same from masters of rhetoric through history, starting with Plato's Republic.

A last point, do you think it's unintentional that we are founded as a Republic? Perhaps you should read, or re-read, Plato's Republic. Not only is it a blueprint for our Government, but it is the prodigy for rhetoric similar to what you read in our Constitution. They used to call being able to understand and write this way being "enlightened", though that has been lost for some time now in our corrupted system.

The first use of Ginormous was in 1948 as British “military forces’ slang”. It’s a blend of gigantic and enormous and refers to something extremely large or gigantic in size. Ginormous is a word that is currently acceptable to use, but only in informal conversation. It is considered a bit too childish a word to use in formal or business settings.

last i checked, slashdot is not a formal or business setting. it's a troll farm. arguing that point is childish.

Dictionary.com and Merriam-Webster disagree with you.

slaughtered eight million chickens

This is supposed to be news for nerds, not news for geeks.

I'm pretty sure he meant what he said:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/jerry-rigged

Then it's hardly an iMac, now is it? You might as well say your Linux desktop is a Mac. If it's not running Windows it's not a Windows computer, if it's not running Linux it's not a Linux computer, and if it's not running OSX it's not an iMac.

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

Pay Chinese workers Western wages? This would invalidate the entire idea of moving production to China. It would render millions of Chinese people unemployable - in favor of Western people. What's that called again?

A manufacturing boom in the United States with the attendant reduction in unemployment?

Also, jingoism and protectionism are significantly different concepts.

Pay Chinese workers Western wages? This would invalidate the entire idea of moving production to China. It would render millions of Chinese people unemployable - in favor of Western people. What's that called again?

A manufacturing boom in the United States with the attendant reduction in unemployment?

Also, jingoism and protectionism are significantly different concepts.

Death can be reversible or non reversible.

<face-palm> Sorry, no. Just no. I don't care if you're an MD; words have meaning. If a person's heart stops and you revive him by cardio resuscitation, you are not reanimating a dead person. You are stopping a person from dying. I'll lay heavy odds that you would do the right thing if the patient's heart and breathing stop and the patient loses consciousness, because I have high regard and respect for anyone who has successfully passed through the grueling process of becoming a medical doctor. But I would argue that proper use of terms is particularly important in the field.

Wikipedia: "Death is the cessation or permanent termination of all biological functions that sustain a living organism." Cessation; not interruption.

Merriam-Webster.com: "a permanent cessation of all vital functions: the end of life."

Dictionary.com: "the end of life; the total and permanent cessation of all the vital functions of an organism."

MedicalDictionary.theFreeDictionary.com: "Death is defined as the cessation of all vital functions of the body including the heartbeat, brain activity (including the brain stem), and breathing." Cessation, not interruption.

Euthanasia.procon.org: "the cessation of life; permanent cessation of all vital bodily functions. For legal and medical purposes, the following definition of death has been proposed-the irreversible cessation of all of the following: (1) total cerebral function, usually assessed by EEG as flat-line (2) spontaneous function of the respiratory system, and (3) spontaneous function of the circulatory system..." There are those pesky words again, permanent and irreversible.

The Definition of Death (Stanford Encylopedia of Philosophy: "According to the organismic definition, death is the irreversible loss of functioning of the organism as a whole (Becker 1975; Bernat, Culver, and Gert 1981)." ... "According to the mainstream whole-brain approach, the human brain plays the crucial role of integrating major bodily functions so only the death of the entire brain is necessary and sufficient for a human being's death (Bernat, Culver, and Gert 1981)." ... "According to the higher-brain standard, human death is the irreversible cessation of the capacity for consciousness...Although no jurisdiction has adopted the higher-brain standard, it enjoys the support of many scholars (see, e.g., Veatch 1975; Engelhardt 1975; Green and Wikler 1980; Gervais 1986; Bartlett and Youngner 1988; Puccetti 1988; Rich 1997; and Baker 2000)." Each of those three definitions shares the necessary component of "irreversible".

Fine, let's see what the dictionary says:

Examples of BIRTH ...
        the birth of the solar system
        the birth of the blues
        We are witnessing the birth of a new era.

I have some hoisin sauce in the fridge, might make that crow go down a little better.

Honest question, please don't mod me down: You can't get through an episode of Deadwood without them saying "Cocksucker" enough times for it to lose meaning, did they really say "Cocksucker" back then?

Probably not. Deadwood was set in the 1870s; MW claims first known use was ca. 1891.

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

Or maybe this one.

Citation required. And no, a blog post is not an inquest.

pretty much requires that you ignore the actual meaning of the words

graft: "the acquisition of gain (as money) in dishonest or questionable ways; also : illegal or unfair gain"

corruption: "a. impairment of integrity, virtue, or moral principle; b. inducement to wrong by improper or unlawful means (as bribery); d. a departure from the original or from what is pure or correct"

Note that accepting bribes to do your job is not illegal or immoral in most cultures.

References needed.

pretty much requires that you ignore the actual meaning of the words

graft: "the acquisition of gain (as money) in dishonest or questionable ways; also : illegal or unfair gain"

corruption: "a. impairment of integrity, virtue, or moral principle; b. inducement to wrong by improper or unlawful means (as bribery); d. a departure from the original or from what is pure or correct"

Note that accepting bribes to do your job is not illegal or immoral in most cultures.

References needed.

You need to use a dictionary more often. Just because you don't like what someone else is posting doesn't make it incorrect. Apple is censoring content.

Your assertion is not the same thing as a dictionary. You are just as mistaken as the other poster if you think that a store choosing not to stock a product is censorship. You don't understand the word.

How about backing that up with some actual dictionary references instead of asserting your opinion as a definition?
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/censorship
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/censorship
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/censor
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/cultureshock/whodecides/definitions.html

Some definitions mention "official", but not all mention government as a necessary component.

Censorship is a word of many meanings. In its broadest sense it refers to suppression of information, ideas, or artistic expression by anyone, whether government officials, church authorities, private pressure groups, or speakers, writers, and artists themselves. It may take place at any point in time, whether before an utterance occurs, prior to its widespread circulation, or by punishment of communicators after dissemination of their messages, so as to deter others from like expression. In its narrower, more legalistic sense, censorship means only the prevention by official government action of the circulation of messages already produced. Thus writers who "censor" themselves before putting words on paper, for fear of failing to sell their work, are not engaging in censorship in this narrower sense, nor are those who boycott sponsors of disliked television shows.
--Academic American Encyclopedia

Reading. It's not just for the landed gentry any more.

Too bad modern browsers don't yet have semantic analysis, so they can't detect when one correctly spelled word is used in place of another similar one.

Whether you want to call that harassment or not

It's not, which is the point I was trying to make. As someone else pointed out, it can be considered rude, it can be considered assault, but if there is no use of a position of power to gain an advantage, it's not harassment. But the replies in this thread merely go to underline my point: harassment nowadays seems to include any arbitrary behavior that is unwanted.

Harass: a: exhaust, fatigue, b: 1) to annoy persistently, 2) to create an unpleasant or hostile situation for especially by uninvited and unwelcome verbal or physical conduct

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

Perhaps prefect is a real word, which means that it would be a pretty sucky spell checker if it flagged it.

Looking at the definition in Merriam-Webster, or Dictionary.com or simply googling "define:speech"... the definitions aren't nearly that wide. Most specifically mention that you need to utter/articulate/whatever by vocal means and the example phrases in both my links directly contrast speech and written form. This is supported by the fact that constitution had to specifically mention freedom of printed press and it wasn't simply thought "Well, the speech already covers that". I also would argue that speech in common language isn't that wide but that could be a matter of opinion so I won't go there.

I do agree that political messages through paintings, music or even stripping yourself naked to protest demeaning searches should be protected under constitution of the US but I'm not that sure that they are. In general, the whole "speech" word is highly problematic and there should be an errata. For example, where I live (more recent nation than the US), the constitution doesn't mention "Free speech" but it does mention Freedom of religion and conscience, Freedom of expression and right of access to information, Freedom of assembly and freedom of association, each of which is further defined by its own paragraph. For example, description of freedom of information is:

Everyone has the freedom of expression. Freedom of expression entails the right to express, disseminate and receive information, opinions and other communications without prior prevention by anyone. More detailed provisions on the exercise of the freedom of expression are laid down by an Act. Provisions on restrictions relating to pictorial programmes that are necessary for the protection of children may be laid down by an Act.

Which makes it very clear that if it's information or expression, it is protected. Exceptions are the one directly mentioned and where it breaks other peoples' constitutional rights for reasons other than being expression (for example, constitution also protects the right to property, so I can't break your stuff and say "It's just my artistic expression").

However, I doubt that we are going to see any clarifications to the constitution of the US anytime soon. It is treated like a religious document: Instead of people debating what it should say and should it be modified to say that, people debate how it could be interpreted to support the views they already have.

Irony can be either "the use of words to express something other than and especially the opposite of the literal meaning" or "incongruity between the actual result of a sequence of events and the normal or expected result". While /. might not be surprised by a musicians' rights group violating their client's music rights, it could generally be said that this is an ironic situation since the claimed protector is one committing the violation.

Definition and diagnosis should not be confused.

Indeed, though that seems to be exactly what you are doing.

By definition, diabetes stands for excessive urination. Mellitus stands for sweet urine (sweet because the only way to diagnose in the early days was tasting). This is how diabetes mellitus is defined.

That sounds like an old-school definition being taken too literally in the modern world. Here's what an actual medical dictionary says:

"a variable disorder of carbohydrate metabolism caused by a combination of hereditary and environmental factors and usually characterized by inadequate secretion or utilization of insulin, by excessive urine production, by excessive amounts of sugar in the blood and urine, and by thirst, hunger, and loss of weightâ"see type 1 diabetes, type 2 diabetes"

Notice that urine is just one characterization.

and for type 2:

"diabetes mellitus of a common form that develops especially in adults and most often in obese individuals and that is characterized by hyperglycemia resulting from impaired insulin utilization coupled with the body's inability to compensate with increased insulin production"

Definition and diagnosis should not be confused.

Indeed, though that seems to be exactly what you are doing.

By definition, diabetes stands for excessive urination. Mellitus stands for sweet urine (sweet because the only way to diagnose in the early days was tasting). This is how diabetes mellitus is defined.

That sounds like an old-school definition being taken too literally in the modern world. Here's what an actual medical dictionary says:

"a variable disorder of carbohydrate metabolism caused by a combination of hereditary and environmental factors and usually characterized by inadequate secretion or utilization of insulin, by excessive urine production, by excessive amounts of sugar in the blood and urine, and by thirst, hunger, and loss of weightâ"see type 1 diabetes, type 2 diabetes"

Notice that urine is just one characterization.

and for type 2:

"diabetes mellitus of a common form that develops especially in adults and most often in obese individuals and that is characterized by hyperglycemia resulting from impaired insulin utilization coupled with the body's inability to compensate with increased insulin production"

Are we really going to convict this guy before he has his day in court?

Yes. We can do that, because we aren't a court of law. Our convictions counts for nothing. We have a conviction in the third meaning of the word.

The word is corps, pronounced /kor/ .

Slashdot could really use an editor or two who are actually *editors* who, you know, like, know correct English and stuff, dude.

Appears to exist in American English at least.

I see what you did there. That was a nicely executed use of irony; using an adjective to incorrectly modify a verb.

How is this insightful?
Check a dictionary - "wrong" is also an adverb, and was used as such.

<grammar-nazi>
If I were you, I'd look up the difference between semicolon and colon; "using an adjective to incorrectly modify a verb" is a fragment that lacks a subject.
</grammar-nazi>

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fretter Google, do you speak it?

Can we please (pretty please!), once and for all stop using the term "pirate" instead of "copyright infringement" or maybe "illegal copying" (if you want to get a slightly harsher tone) — especially for headlines and story blurbs!?!?!

Yeah, and "computer" should only be used to describe people who manually do mathematical calculations as a profession. <rolls eyes> It's 2012, sperglord; wake up and smell the coffee. Software piracy has even made it into major dictionaries.

"Droves" is not a word.

Drove