Slashdot Mirror

What the fuck?

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

affort
The word you've entered isn't in the dictionary.

And then you quoted the dictionary entry for "afford" with all the d changed to t.

Is this new age spelling to go with the new age math?

"Dragged", not "drug".

drug[3] : dialect past of DRAG

It doesn't take an insider source to figure that out. They included "d'oh" last year, and there's no reason to treat internet-memes differently than TV-memes.

Depending on your definition of "internet-meme" some already made it on there, for example lol.

How disappointing. I just checked out cromulent. Apparently that word isn't as cromulent as I thought it was.

It doesn't take an insider source to figure that out. They included "d'oh" last year, and there's no reason to treat internet-memes differently than TV-memes.

Depending on your definition of "internet-meme" some already made it on there, for example lol.

How disappointing. I just checked out cromulent. Apparently that word isn't as cromulent as I thought it was.

You're right on one point: The word theft appears to be more of a legal term than a layman's word, which I was unaware of. So let's use another word that has a common definition and hasn't been polluted by self-serving redefinition by the State:

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

"Wrongfully." Yes, the State has once again re-defined this word in a self-serving manner, to exempt themselves from its coverage, but I am using the term in its moral, not legal sense. It is wrong to take something from someone without their consent. Very few philosophies or religions accept exceptions to this concept, except for some theistic belief systems which contain a god who can do no wrong by definition. So, is the State a god to you?

It's discriminatory against bald people, and stupid people. But I repeat myself.

As we all know, stupid people go bald - there's just not enough information in there to force the hair out. Jokes which would normally pleasantly ruffle the hair of an intelligent person will just breeze right over the shiny pate of those who are mentally incapable of understanding or appreciating them. Hence, "whoosh".

Captcha (before I logged in):

acuity

Amazing.

It's discriminatory against bald people, and stupid people. But I repeat myself.

As we all know, stupid people go bald - there's just not enough information in there to force the hair out. Jokes which would normally pleasantly ruffle the hair of an intelligent person will just breeze right over the shiny pate of those who are mentally incapable of understanding or appreciating them. Hence, "whoosh".

Captcha (before I logged in):

acuity

Amazing.

Literally, "I don't know what", figuratively, like an x-factor (as used to describe, say, fashion models or actors, and not the comic-book mutant kind). Ah hell, Merriam-Webster, Free Dictionary, Wiktionary explain it better...

Husband says it won't be long before internet-meme creations are included.

It doesn't take an insider source to figure that out. They included "d'oh" last year, and there's no reason to treat internet-memes differently than TV-memes.

Depending on your definition of "internet-meme" some already made it on there, for example lol.

What made you sign the contract? Was it an incentive by any chance?

Nothing "made" him sign the contract. But there were no doubt incentives and wants that influenced him to sign the contract.

The definition of "make" here is "to cause to act in a certain way". But that doesn't hold here since neither the incentives of the employer and the wants of the employee compel the employee to accept particular work contracts. The employer couldn't compel the poster in question accept a contract any more than I could make you post your reply. It was something that was voluntarily entered into.

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

I meant 2a, or more precisely 15.

Only if you assume the people making the dictionary attack are so monumentally stupid they won't try 0's in place of o's.

They wouldn't be " monumentally stupid they won't try 0's in place of o's", they would be monumentally stupid to think to try a dictionary attack at all.

The entire exercise is academic to begin with. How many systems allow for infinite retries of random passwords without locking the account and or sending an alert ? Where I work you get 3 tries and after that you lock the account systematically for 30 minutes (or an admin has to unlock you) so maximum you have 144 chances in a single day to guess the right password systematically (without anyone noticing).

Hell you can come up with more than 144 variations knowing the password is SUPPOSED TO BE "homer loves donuts"

Is it:

homerlovesdonuts

HOMERLOVESDONUTS

Homerlovesdonuts

Homerlovesdonuts.

Homerlovesdonuts!

HomerlovesDonuts

homerLOVESdonuts

HomerLovesDONUTS!

h0m3rL0v3sD0nuts!

etc...

How long do you think a dictionary attack takes to get a SINGLE dictionary word to work (considering there are 470,000 of them in the english language: http://www.merriam-webster.com/help/faq/total_words.htm) ?

Not only do you have to guess the word(s), the order, the context, any substitutions ( 0's instead of o's, 3's instead of E's) , camel casing, abnormal camel casing "( hOMERlOVESdONUTS )" If a person created a sufficiently complex password it could take a lifetime to try and brute force it.

You're much better off finding an exploit to retrieve it (or even simpler) using social engineering to coax or trick a person into giving it to you.

in order to diffuse the threat posed by a....

I can see it now in their boardroom:

The Board: "Gahh! The threat! The Threat! It is so opaque and solid! What will we do?"

VP for Regulatory Affairs: "I know! Let's diffuse it!"

VP for Queen's English: "Wait, don't you mean 'defuse?' "

CEO: "Quiet, peon! I agree; let's diffuse the threat!"

The Board: "Yaaaay! More bonuses!"

in order to diffuse the threat posed by a....

I can see it now in their boardroom:

The Board: "Gahh! The threat! The Threat! It is so opaque and solid! What will we do?"

VP for Regulatory Affairs: "I know! Let's diffuse it!"

VP for Queen's English: "Wait, don't you mean 'defuse?' "

CEO: "Quiet, peon! I agree; let's diffuse the threat!"

The Board: "Yaaaay! More bonuses!"

who's mad? just trying to figure out if you're serious. you are sitting there saying that it's perfectly ok for some random person to appoint themselves as the courtesy patrol in a public location and to use an illegal device to do so. Whether it SHOULD be legal or not is not the point. It is illegal, and until you get the law changed you have no ground to stand on. Go on out and cut your neighbor's power line because they play loud music. See how far you get with the judge arguing that the law is not black and white and that it is your intent that matters.

"I have a hard time believing your story that they think it is their property."

Come on. Treating public transportation as if it's your private vehicle and you get to dictate what goes on inside sounds like a sense of entitlement. Why else would they be doing this? As a public service? Run for the local transportation board if you want to do that.

"Really deluded view you got there, guy."

Not really, it's just that you're implying that anything goes as long as "peace" is maintained. Just wondered if you had a limit on "anything". Apparently things do go black and white at some point.

If you're willing to tolerate anyone, then why did you reply to my post? It was specifically a reply to the OP who DOES use a jammer. By replying and arguing that the jammer is ok then suddenly saying, oh not me bro, I don't care about anything, you sound like a troll. Mad? Not really, but certainly frustrated by passive-aggressive types that won't just talk to other people to avoid any conflict. Anyway, I'm done. Either you're trolling or we just have such opposite viewpoints that it doesn't matter what's said.

Did you mean: Dilettantes

Way things are set up, you could quite legally, totally loose access to the airwaves at any time for a verity of reasons.

I don't think that sentence says what you meant to say. Typos aren't that bad until they completely change what you're trying to communicate.

I hope you're not a programmer, if so it explains all the bugs I see. Those errors got past the compiler and now you have a bug. The program runs, but it doesn't do what you wanted it to do.

science insists on being able to measure stuff with a physical instrument

Liar.

Instruments are not a principal requirement for science, and many current sciences do much of their work without them (psychology, anthropology, social sciences, to name just a few).

The reason the natural sciences are using instruments is that they have reached a level of precision that is higher than human perception. Early in their days, they didn't. Newton did some of his work on optics with his own eyes, some chalk and a few pieces of wood, etc.

So science has immediately disqualified itself from judging alternative medicine

You wish.

If I put 100 emergency patients into a hospital with real medicine, and the other 100 into a church where they are prayed for daily and get acupuncture and homeopathic sugar pills, the only physical instrument I need is a bunch of coffins. And the only science I need is checking who survives and who dies.

And when it comes to judgement, it doesn't get any more specific than your fraud is killing people.

the science fundamentalists

I think you want to look up the origin and actual meaning of the word fundamentalist.

That's the origin of the term. Language evolves, though:

[...]; broadly : one who is opposed to especially technological change

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

In modern usage, "Luddite" is a term describing those opposed to industrialisation, automation, computerisation or new technologies in general.

- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luddite#In_contemporary_thought

Yes but whinging, the gerundive form of “whinge”, has two "g"s.

Dumbass, I know what the word means, I know that it's obvious he meant what you reference as "the first definition" (FYI, Merriam-Webster has the same 2 senses, but lists them in the opposite order, so don't be so sure which is "the most common"), and I know that it's inaccurate to apply it there in either sense!

They never admitted they "on purpose" or "deliberate[ly]" facilitated piracy. They called the piracy "abuse", and they did admit they noticed it, and are now taking measures purporting to stop it -- there is nothing in that "refreshing admission" to indicate direct or oblique intent.

Not quite. An allegory is a story that reveals an idea through a figurative setting. There's no requirement that it be essential or true.

Allegory: the expression by means of symbolic fictional figures and actions of truths or generalizations about human existence; also : an instance (as in a story or painting) of such expression

from Merriam-Webster

And of course if you're going to excuse the Bible as being allegory, and thus the specifics no longer matter, Genesis could just as easily be an allegory for the big bang and evolution as for a god.

In order to to separate the truth from the figurative language, you have to read to books from the perspective of those who wrote them. The authors had no concept of evolution or the big bang, so that could not be what they were driving at.

Fiction most certainly belongs in the bible. The bible freely mixes fact and fiction.

Again, you must read the Bible from the perspective of the authors who wrote it. Their intent is not primarily to entertain, or to tell a story, but to share their understanding of God.

That being said, you can reject their understanding of God. However, you cannot reasonably put your own world view over their writing in order to explain it.

Just Vandalism.

Vandalism: willful or malicious destruction or defacement of public or private property

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

Definition of tongue-in-cheek.

So write them a letter if you are not in the UK
http://www.soca.gov.uk/contact-soca/complaints

I personally linked the definition of terrorism ( http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/terrorism ) in my e-mail and called them out on their terrorist actions

Sure, it's non-violent terrorism.. but it STILL IS terrorism....

TERRORISM http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/terrorism
1: the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion

Governments using terrorism to control people then claiming we (the world) need to fight terrorism...

Looks like we need to fight our governments then... I'm not a fan of anarchy though, so I'd recommend simply writing a strongly worded letter to the government to inform them they are engaging in acts of terrorism.
It's actually a funny joke..... Our governments are using what we are fighting...

Complaints link: http://www.soca.gov.uk/contact-soca/complaints

Yes. Religion implies, by definition, believing in the supernatural. Soviet communists believed in many things, but definitely not in the supernatural.

That may be the most common definition, but it is not the only one.

From http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/religion :
4: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

I think Savage is jealous that Santorum's name doesn't already have a negative connotation.

Isn't Savage as much of a bigot as Santorum? Is "good" bigotry OK? Is it acceptable to ridicule the "bad" bigots?

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

It depends on the definition of 'income'. Shooting down a proposal is much different than implementing something and finding it rejected by the courts on constitutional grounds.

Wikipedia's first sentence :

Income is the consumption and savings opportunity gained by an entity within a specified time frame, which is generally expressed in monetary terms

an entry from Webster:

a gain or recurrent benefit usually measured in money that derives from capital or labor; also : the amount of such gain received in a period of time

Dictionary.com

the monetary payment received for goods or services, or from other sources, as rents or investments.

The word regime has multiple meanings.
    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/regime
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regime
The article title clearly means "set of conditions" or "regimen" in this context.

CSM is one of very few English newspapers left with a high-school level of language. I'd prefer to keep it that way, though seeing your post get modded to +5 makes it clear why other newspapers are now written at middle school or even grade school reading levels.

Definition of ROBOT
1
a : a machine that looks like a human being and performs various complex acts (as walking or talking) of a human being; also : a similar but fictional machine whose lack of capacity for human emotions is often emphasized
b : an efficient insensitive person who functions automatically
2
: a device that automatically performs complicated often repetitive tasks
3
: a mechanism guided by automatic controls

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

Note that not only 2 and 3 require automation. 1a simply requires that it be humanlike and performs various complex acts.

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

iroÂny
noun \ËÄ-rÉ(TM)-nÄ" also ËÄ(-É(TM))r-nÄ"\
plural iroÂnies
Definition of IRONY
1
: a pretense of ignorance and of willingness to learn from another assumed in order to make the other's false conceptions conspicuous by adroit questioning â"called also Socratic irony
2
a : the use of words to express something other than and especially the opposite of the literal meaning b : a usually humorous or sardonic literary style or form characterized by irony c : an ironic expression or utterance
3
: exceptionally poor, of low quality, utterly dire; shit, crap.
4
a (1) : incongruity between the actual result of a sequence of events and the normal or expected result (2) : an event or result marked by such incongruity b : incongruity between a situation developed in a drama and the accompanying words or actions that is understood by the audience but not by the characters in the play â"called also dramatic irony, tragic irony

I don't think you said what you thought you said.

Facebook seems to be replacing the website for allot of people.

Allot alÂlot
verb
\É(TM)-ËlÃt\
al-lot- ted al- lot-ting
Definition of ALLOT
transitive verb
1: to assign as a share or portion <allot 10 minutes for the speech>
2: to distribute by or as if by lot <allot seats to the press>

Examples of ALLOT
Each speaker will be allotted 15 minutes.

The newspaper will allot a full page to each of the three mayoral candidates.

a security measure that presents a password prompt for authentication is a security measure that doesn't fit into the "security by obscurity" definition because the security measure itself is obvious. if on the other hand all you needed to know was a non-advertised URL (say) to get into the system, it would be considered "security by obscurity" because the system is still technically insecure

that you don't have the password to access a system doesn't make a password authentication security measure "obscure". there's nothing really obscure about it even in the normal definition (the word has multiple definitions, but one of them is (2) "not readily understood or clearly expressed" according to http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/obscure

that you don't agree with the industry definition of "security by obscurity" is irrelevant, except that your apparent lack of understanding of it implies you don't work in the industry

No chance -- I think part of the thing for trademarks is you're supposed to protect them. Well look at this article from 2007:

http://www.wi-fiplanet.com/columns/article.php/3674591

Frank Hanzlik, the current managing director for the Wi-Fi Alliance, was not at the meetings where the Interbrand names were discussed, but he was a member of WECA and he is now entrusted with protecting and perpetuating the Wi-Fi brand. He confirms that "wireless fidelity" has no meaning, is not part of the trademark, and is not used or encouraged to be used by the Wi-Fi Alliance. However, he feels no need to aggressively correct those who use it, since what's most important to his organization is simply that "Wi-Fi" continues to be a household name.

"In the very early days of building the brand, there was a linkage to the hi-fi chronology," says Hanzlik. "It was successful in creating a positive connotation of what that could mean to a user. Over the last seven years, the term Wi-Fi has become quite ubiquitous in the developed part of the world. We just try to keep it simple and use only Wi-Fi."

"We declared victory when we made the Merriam-Webster dictionary," says Hanzlik. "Now we encourage everyone to use Wi-Fi versus 'wireless LAN,' because it resonates more with folks -- but we do enforce the Wi-Fi Certified and the Wi-Fi Alliance brands and logos."

So they had no problem with people using wi-fi incorrectly, assigning it an incorrect meaning, or any desire to prevent it from becoming a common word in the dictionary, or a household name (which I think is pretty close to saying generic). I mean he's even saying "just use wi-fi instead of wireless lan." Okay... that's like kleenex saying "Just say kleenex instead of tissue paper" and then getting mad when people use kleenex to refer to tissue paper. All they care about was "wi-fi certified" and "wi-fi alliance". Well, nobody called it super "wi-fi certified".

As for their victory in the dictionary:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/wi-fi

Definition of WI-FI

—used to certify the interoperability of wireless computer networking devices

Doesn't even mention 802.11a/b/g/n.. just wireless. Based on that definition, any wireless networking standard can call itself wi-fi. That's just plain English at this point, and that was endorsed by the wifi alliance just a few years ago.

I recommend you read the actual definition of "creationist".

Your position on creationists' views of the planet, critical thinking abilities, and policy are as sad and ignorant as your average racist spewing hatred against those whose skin is a different color.

I'm confused. What part about what I said about creationists is in any way rebutted by your definition of creationism? You don't have to be a creationist to believe in creationism, and in fact, when referring to creationists, the kinds of people I'd described are what we are referring to.

I recommend you read the actual definition of "creationist".

Your position on creationists' views of the planet, critical thinking abilities, and policy are as sad and ignorant as your average racist spewing hatred against those whose skin is a different color.

Rule #1: There is no such thing as 100% secure. Even 100% bug-free cannot be considered 100% secure.

There's also no such thing as 100% bug-free.

Rule #3: All security is ultimately "security through obscurity."

While in the strictest sense, this may not be untrue, to phrase it that way is extremely dishonest. An encryption algorithm that relies on the secrecy of the algorithm is totally worthless (security by obscurity), whereas an encryption algorithm that relies on the secrecy of the keys used for encryption is quite useful (not security by obscurity in the normal sense).

In fact, if you want to be pedantic about it, the relevant definition for obscure is...

not readily understood or clearly expressed; also : mysterious [1]

Which is about understanding and not so much about knowledge. I may understand that I need a username and password to log into your system, just because I don't know what the username or password is doesn't make it security by obscurity. In fact, say I wanted to break into your house, I may have seen you use a physical key to open the front door and walk in and I may have even memorized the pattern of teeth on the key, but it does me no good if I don't have a key of my own to open the door with. There is certainly no obscurity in that security.

If you're going to go ahead and say that all security is "security through obscurity", then you may as well make the next logical step of not implementing any of it.

[1] http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/obscure

That's proper American English to be sure, but you never can tell with those Brits.

Actually British English preserves the s/c distinction in such pairs more often that US English - both in advise(verb)/advice(noun), where there is a sound distinction, but also where there isn't, e.g. practise(verb)/practice(noun) - where US English usually uses the "c" form (practice) in both cases.

despite that sounding far more like Southern American English ("I learnt me some o' them there fancy words!") than the Queen's English.

You seem to have some strange ideas about how the Queen speaks :) Try listening to how she pronounces the final consonant of "learnt" in this speech (start listening at about 5:50) - it's most distinctly a "t"...

abusus non tollit usum

: abuse does not take away use, i.e., is not an argument against proper use

Quod Latine sonat alta.

abusus non tollit usum

: abuse does not take away use, i.e., is not an argument against proper use

That is, fanboyish reactions do not strip the relevance of one of the largest players in a tech industry making more money than ever before, or prevent sane discussion of the fact.

1. He was escorted by police.

2. He was instructed (ordered) to remain in a cubicle.

3. Definition of Detain
"to keep from proceeding; keep waiting; delay."

Oh and one of the definitions of "arrest" is to stop.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/arrest

4. "they shall not be questioned in any other Place."

Hmm, sounds like questioning to me. As much as the TSA would probably like to blur this event. It sounds to me as if even a bad lawyer can make a pretty clear case that they were in violation of the Constitution.

SECTION 6 of the Constitution reads "They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place."

Before the Department of Homeland Security took over the United States it was unconstitutional to arrest a member of Congress while Congress is in session.

Don't know whether that's accurate, but in any case he wasn't arrested so it doesn't really apply. From TFA, he was briefly detained (not detained at all according to the TSA) and missed his flight, then booked a different flight and passed through security without an issue.

Of course, if he wasn't a senator he probably would have been arrested for refusing to complete the security process.

 
The idea is that preventing a Senator or Representative from reaching Congress could change the very laws of the land.

U.S. Constitution. Article I. Section 6. Paragraph 1.

The Senators and Representatives shall receive a compensation for their services, to be ascertained by law, and paid out of the treasury of the United States. They shall in all cases, except treason, felony and breach of the peace, be privileged from arrest during their attendance at the session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any speech or debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other place.

It is only in modern times that we have been convinced that there is a difference between "arrest" and "detention"... it is a fiction passed off by the police in order to extend their powers. In the parlance of the time when the US Constitution was drafted, detaining was arresting.

Arrest:

1. to bring to a stop, check, slow, to make inactive.

2. seize, capture; specifically : to take or keep in custody by authority of law

I generally feel that politicians are spoiled rich kids who get their jollies by screwing over the masses, deserving of any misfortune that may befall them. I expect that this incident will either turn into a very public dick-waving-contest or be quietly swept under the carpet, depending on what back-room deal is made.

The only skill that the US doesn't have that these workers have is being overly pliant. Businesses hate freedom unless it is solely in the hands of business.

Come on, words have several meanings depending on the circumstances. You will find this definition even in the Merriam-Webster.
Likewise, a hot dog is not a baked puppy. Or at least, I do sincerely hope so.

I'm afraid that Merriam-Webster, Wiktionary, OED, and many, many writers of British English would disagree.

p.s. definition 1 a freedom - Yes. Constraints limit freedom. Observing this limitation is not the same as saying "the world should be redefined so this limitation doesn't exist" - a subtlety that you are wholly unable to grasp. You're basically stuck at the first post, unable to get past your whining about what you think it means, while unable to fathom the true meaning of the discussion.

Pandemic isn't exactly a phrase. It's a real word, first used in 1666. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pandemic
It's probably a good practice to separate linguistics from topics such as conspiracy theories about vaccines.

So why (assuming your post is legit) are you doing this with PRIVATE posts and messages?

What part of the word "private" do you people continue to have a problem understanding?

Also, you have a serious credibility problem, given facebooks' past history of misconduct and breaking privacy laws in several countries, such as PIPEDA in Canada. Why should we believe you this time?

BTW, no, it's not similar to google zeitgeist - people searching using google never explicitly marked a search query as private or public, so stop with the bad analogies and disinformation. We're not that naive (or stupid), and treating us like technological unsophisticates is insulting.