Slashdot Mirror

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/plan
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/goal
And if you disagree, go yell at the AC to whom I was replying.

Go to Merriam-Webster's Dictionary and you will find that bot a hard G and a soft G are acceptable in pronunciation of "giga", but thanks for trying.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/earn
1a) to receive as return for effort and especially for work done or services rendered

In contrast, for example, to being born to wealthy parents, and then leveraging your access to capital to exploit the work done of others and take their earnings as your own.

Assuming this isn't a troll, you might be unfamiliar with the English-language term "Balkanize".

Yes, "begging the question" is a type of fallacy and now it also means, "to elicit a question logically as a reaction or response".

Even the Wikipedia article you cite presently describes the modern usage as well. The Wikipedia article cites thefreedictionary.com entry, which includes a reference to the Cambridge Idioms Dictionary, 2nd ed, that lists the modern usage first, before the definition of the fallacy ("if a statement or situation begs the question, it causes you to ask a particular question").

The other internet-based citation from the Wikipedia article is even more damning: "...most people now suppose the phrase implies something quite different: that the argument demands that a question about it be asked—raises the question. Although using the expression in its original sense is now rare, using it in the newer sense will cause irritation among traditionalists." Ouch.

So, you're correct that language is fluid. It's just that the burden is now upon you to stamp out a commonly accepted idiom that makes perfect sense in its modern, "incorrect" form vs. the traditional, regrettable English translation of the petitio principii fallacy. This is obviously what you are attempting to accomplish, but I don't believe your goal is worthy. Furthermore, I believe it is disingenuous to refer to the modern usage as incorrect at this stage.

There's just two problems here:

a) Congress has not actually declared war. The 5th explicitly says "War", not "military operations". Bush went to great lengths to fight a war without it being a war.

b) You can't declare war on a "group". War by definition is an armed conflict between states or nations.

Now I do agree with you in principle that in war we don't consider courts and legal details for the enemy leadership, we view them as military targets. The problem isn't that you're not right - in principle. The problem is that the US government has been playing dirty with those principles. You can't ignore them when you like and then base your arguments on them when it's convenient. Either you play by the rules, or you don't get to appeal to the rules.

So you're now asserting that if we unintentionally control the climate, we're somehow not controlling the climate?

Words have meaning, and I'm not sure if you're clear on what "control" means. Here's some cheerful help:

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

Take a look at 2a (to exercise restraining or directing influence over).

If you want to claim that humans have, through their actions, been responsible for greater than 50% of the warming over the past 50 or 100 years or whatever timescale you choose, you are claiming that natural climate change has *not* been in control of that additional warming.

Sigh. Were you born as dumb as this or is your brain damage given to you with a blunt instrument.

That lines alone shows you have nothing but bluster and arrogance supporting you.

Your link to useful idiot is also insanely misplaced. You clearly didn't even understand what a useful idiot is.

I'm afraid it is you who do not understand. You sir, are being used. A definition of convenience is only useful for jiggery-pokery.

Someone who supports cronyism and big government spending is not a capitalist, no matter what they or others think. By definition.

Whose definition?

There is no consensus on the precise definition of capitalism, nor on how the term should be used as a historical category.

I checked three different dictionaries and got essentially the exact same definition:

capitalist
noun \-ist\
1 : a person who has capital especially invested in business; broadly : a person of wealth : plutocrat
2 : a person who favors capitalism

Notice it does not say that a capitalist must be opposed to government. You might be convinced that capitalism itself is opposed to government, so let's look at that too, shall we?

capitalism
noun
\ka-p-t-liz-m, kap-t-, British also k-pi-t-\
Definition of CAPITALISM
: an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market.

What's this? I can't seem to find your definition that government is antithetical to capitalism. It doesn't appear to be in the definition. Maybe you meant "by inference", "by deduction" or "by custom"? Wow, it's a good thing you didn't call the person you were disagreeing with brain damaged or you'd really have egg all over your face.

The point you seem incapable of understanding is that using your definition there are no real capitalists, there is only an ever changing list of people who have not disappointed you so far, and when they do disappoint they are replaced with an identical person who primarily qualification is that they have not yet disappointed. You will forever be hoping that this time they aren't really human.

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results - Albert Einstein.

That's why the entire developed world is run by liberal democratic governments with state-regulated capitalism, because it's the best system for the most people that we have discovered so far. Libertarian-capitalist governments have been tried a few times and they rarely last more than a year before they collapse due to internal or external pressures.

Sigh. Were you born as dumb as this or is your brain damage given to you with a blunt instrument.

That lines alone shows you have nothing but bluster and arrogance supporting you.

Your link to useful idiot is also insanely misplaced. You clearly didn't even understand what a useful idiot is.

I'm afraid it is you who do not understand. You sir, are being used. A definition of convenience is only useful for jiggery-pokery.

Someone who supports cronyism and big government spending is not a capitalist, no matter what they or others think. By definition.

Whose definition?

There is no consensus on the precise definition of capitalism, nor on how the term should be used as a historical category.

I checked three different dictionaries and got essentially the exact same definition:

capitalist
noun \-ist\
1 : a person who has capital especially invested in business; broadly : a person of wealth : plutocrat
2 : a person who favors capitalism

Notice it does not say that a capitalist must be opposed to government. You might be convinced that capitalism itself is opposed to government, so let's look at that too, shall we?

capitalism
noun
\ka-p-t-liz-m, kap-t-, British also k-pi-t-\
Definition of CAPITALISM
: an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market.

What's this? I can't seem to find your definition that government is antithetical to capitalism. It doesn't appear to be in the definition. Maybe you meant "by inference", "by deduction" or "by custom"? Wow, it's a good thing you didn't call the person you were disagreeing with brain damaged or you'd really have egg all over your face.

The point you seem incapable of understanding is that using your definition there are no real capitalists, there is only an ever changing list of people who have not disappointed you so far, and when they do disappoint they are replaced with an identical person who primarily qualification is that they have not yet disappointed. You will forever be hoping that this time they aren't really human.

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results - Albert Einstein.

That's why the entire developed world is run by liberal democratic governments with state-regulated capitalism, because it's the best system for the most people that we have discovered so far. Libertarian-capitalist governments have been tried a few times and they rarely last more than a year before they collapse due to internal or external pressures.

However, as an opinion about your mother, I can't actually hold that opinion, as I have no personal knowledge of her, and thus it most certainly is not an opinion about your mother.

Since your entire argument hinges on the meaning of the word "opinion" I think it would be helpful to start with a formal definition. Merriam-Webster is generally considered canonical, probably second only to the OED.

As you can see, the two most common definitions don't require anything like personal knowledge or evidence. Just simply belief. Sometimes a strongly held belief, but still just belief. Which pretty much ends this line of debate.

WWhere's the pedantry? In noting the difference between "need" and "want" or "nice to have" or "worth paying extra for"? Because that's rather fundamental, and by no means splitting hairs over strict definitions.

Merriam Webster definition of need:
2a) a lack of something requisite, desirable, or useful
meanwhile YOUR definition is the last of 4 definitions.

So yes you are acting like a six year old pedant and you got back the level of argument you gave.

You mean, "donning?" http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/donning

> "An anonymous reader writes " ... "checkpoint smurf"

Only the title was written by the Slashdot staff, so you can't very well blame them for what the anonymous contributer wrote.

As for the title... groping is defined as "To feel about blindly or uncertainly in search". The TSA agent doing an enhanced patdown is required to feel, without looking, for explosives in the genital are. They are required to grope people. All TSA agents that perform the enhanced patdowns are, by definition, gropers.

But why let mere facts dissuade you from ranting. Carry on.

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

Definition of CELEBRITY
1: the state of being celebrated : fame
2: a famous or celebrated person

Your definition is wrong.

Going by the real definition Sergey Brin is a celebrity.

That's sad, as 'data' is quite happy (in so far as nouns have emotions) to be singular depending on context/use case:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/data
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/data

And despite what reference.com says about the plural form being predominant in scientific/academic writing, I see it written as singular quite often.

E.g.
http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Anature.com+"data+was"
http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Asciencemag.org+"data+was"

That's not to say that GP is right in calling wtf on the plural form, of course.

I don't think the writer knows what self-effacing means

I don't think you do (hint: efface != efficacy).

I don't think the writer knows what self-effacing means

I don't think you do (hint: efface != efficacy).

If aberrant is abnormal, why should they use abhorrent instead? It actually can be both at the same time, IMO.

When will people realize that pushing back against morons redefining words to mean random shit that has nothing to do with what they truly mean is living in the real world?

I bet you are the type of fool who is pleased that "funner" is now proper American-English.
This is a product of your type of silliness and you should feel bad about it. -> http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/funner

But you don't feel a thing do you?

Calm down, the writer you're referring to is simply misspelling a word he's only heard and never seen written.

Ha'penny is an abbreviation for "half penny", a coin worth 1/2 cent. According to a quick wikipedia check ha'pennies have been minted in Great Britain (including Ireland and Scotland), Australia, New Zealand, and the United States (probably not an exhaustive list). Half penny coins were also issued before decimalization (i.e. before a penny was 1/100 of anything, becoming a "cent"), with varied values.

What the poster you replied to probably meant was 1/2 pennies on the dollar, or purchasing for 1/200th of the original value. I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt, anyways. It makes me sad that neither of you apparently had someone teach you the nursery rhyme "Christmas is Coming", or else you'd know all this already (wow, I think I'm having a "get off my lawn" moment). And I don't know what's going wrong in your life that a simple misspelling leads you to lay the invective on that thick as a response, but I hope your day gets better.

Calm down, the writer you're referring to is simply misspelling a word he's only heard and never seen written.

Ha'penny is an abbreviation for "half penny", a coin worth 1/2 cent. According to a quick wikipedia check ha'pennies have been minted in Great Britain (including Ireland and Scotland), Australia, New Zealand, and the United States (probably not an exhaustive list). Half penny coins were also issued before decimalization (i.e. before a penny was 1/100 of anything, becoming a "cent"), with varied values.

What the poster you replied to probably meant was 1/2 pennies on the dollar, or purchasing for 1/200th of the original value. I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt, anyways. It makes me sad that neither of you apparently had someone teach you the nursery rhyme "Christmas is Coming", or else you'd know all this already (wow, I think I'm having a "get off my lawn" moment). And I don't know what's going wrong in your life that a simple misspelling leads you to lay the invective on that thick as a response, but I hope your day gets better.

Ah, since we're redefining well-known technical words like "template" in their generic senses, your program STILL doesn't work. My Python completely ignored the script and attacked the juicy mouse in its cage instead. It did shit all over its cage, so I guess that's the output. Typical, too... "garbage in garbage out". Your shitty code produced shitty output. Literal shit. In case you didn't catch that, see this definition here & I'm sure you don't need any pertinent quotes:

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

By the way, I could do that lame string reversal in a single line of Javascript, so again: nothing more than a lame attempt at some pseudo-code by a luser script-kiddie.

P.S. I noticed you still haven't written a program that doesn't require SOURCE CODE MODIFICATION to actually work. Your program can STILL be reduced to a "single line of code which is incorrect".

P.P.S. You can't program your way out of a wet paper bag, as proven by nothing more than "honorable mentions" for your programs - if you can call them that, even. Seems like most people think your programs are shit, or worse (malware) even. And your "credentials" are also shit. A few good reviews from newspapers or magazines that needed to fill pages aren't worth anything here in the real world. Even CyberDefender got a good review from USA Today, and it's basically a scam - overpriced and underpowered, and they use scare tactics to get you to buy it, telling you your computer is infected with a virus when it isn't (don't just take my word for it, search YouTube for "MyCleanPC" and there's lots of videos telling you how it's a scam).

She definitely knows Bill Clinton.

That depends on what your definition of "know" is. Technically, she only gave him a blowjob, which wouldn't qualify for definition #3.

But she did know a cigar that would give him a solid 4.

She definitely knows Bill Clinton.

That depends on what your definition of "know" is. Technically, she only gave him a blowjob, which wouldn't qualify for definition #3.

The 'drunk guy' had 2 knives; he used one of them to cut up one of the policemen, and threw one (perhaps the same knife, I don't know) and the bottle at the policemen. This is fairly easily seen in the video, and is a clear example of malicious intent and use of (a) weapon/s. He was not some innocent victim, as you choose to portray him. Remember: it always helps to get your facts straight *first* when you attempt to join in a discussion of events like this, if for no other reason than to avoid embarrassing yourself.

Note also the use of the word "threw" as opposed to "throwed".

The rest of your post was so thoughtfully composed, I felt like you might want to know that it's just 'adhere'.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/adhere

No, that's not what a computer is. Since you're so thick, here's what a computer is.

Merriam Webster's Definition of Peruse - see definition #2.

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

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

Perhaps, perhaps not. But when I write what I wrote, it registers as correct in my mind. People "decry" the proverbial predicted bloodbath as the reason that rights to bear arms should be denied.

I could easily have written "claim" but decry has the appropriate negative component where claim is neutral.

Linguists know that "out" is not a verb.

Are you sure?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outing
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/outing
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/outing

Linguists know that their job is to document usage, not prescribe it.

As feminist enlightened research has already shown...

1) [Citation Needed]. Just saying "research has shown..." without referencing a source doesn't mean squat. For all I know, you're just making it up...or you could be misinterpreting the results...or it could be right on the money. Problem is, I can't read it for myself to see if there is any merit to your claim.

2) "...feminist enlightened..." Color me skeptical on the objectivity of THAT research then. Sounds like a heavily biased panel, IMHO. Surprise! Researchers with axe to grind and looking to prove their point find results that validate their opinion! News at 11:00.

Men are actively pushing women out of top positions by getting undeserved promotions, whereas women has [sic] to work five times as hard as men for peanuts.

Yeah, I'm certain that happens. I'm also certain that women are actively pushing men out of top positions and getting undeserved promotions, too. I used to have a female flight instructor who later landed a job working as a corporate pilot for an oil company. Aviation, like IT, has long been a "good ole boys' club", so I asked her if she found it difficult to get a break in aviation because of her sex. She laughed at me. "No, quite the opposite," she said. "HR departments are going out of their way to recruit women pilots right now. Even if you and I had the same qualifications [she had more flight time and more ratings than I did], I would still land the job nine times out of ten because I am a woman." Anecdote, and regarding a different industry, but what I've seen in IT is similar. Where I work right now, there is a woman in my group who blatantly abuses her salaried position; none of the guys in the office get away with the crap she pulls. In the office where I finally got my break in IT, the lead analyst was female. The majority of that office was female (one out of two analysts, four out of six computer operators). Most of my managers since I graduated from high school have been female, even though my current boss is male. IME, you get what you give. I've worked my 4$$ off and gotten promoted; I've also worked my 4$$ off and gotten passed over for promotion. Blaming it on sex, race, etc., IMHO, is making excuses. If you're bitter and blaming everyone else, you probably won't go far in any industry, not just IT. OTOH, if you are willing to look at other people as individuals and judge them on their own merits, you'll find others probably do the same for you. Most of the guys I know in IT don't really give a rip how you're plumbed if you can help get the job done; I know I don't.

Men are evil.

1) PEOPLE are (often) evil. Get over it.

2) Ummm...based upon the context and arguments you present, you seem to be claiming that men are evil because they are sexist and oppress women. Then, you lump all men into the category "evil". Does that not seem like a sexist and oppressive position to take, particularly for one who is denouncing sexism and oppression? How can you possibly argue that for men to lump women into a second class status on the basis of their sex alone is evil, but then do the very same thing to men? There's a word for people who do that: hypocrite.

Feminist state Sweden has implemented good measures to prevent this and as a result some 85% of University degrees there are females,and well deserved.

Men are evil.

Let me make sure I got this right...you point out how Sweden -- which I assume also contains its fair share of men -- has managed to do something to increase the ratio of women:men graduating from college with university degrees and then reiterate you

Guess what, the English language is constantly evolving. Either way you're wrong:

2fail noun

Definition of FAIL

1
: failure —usually used in the phrase without fail
2
: a failure (as by a security dealer) to deliver or receive securities within a prescribed period after purchase or sale
  See fail defined for English-language learners
First Known Use of FAIL

13th century

And here:

–noun
13.
Stock Exchange .
a.
a stockbroker's inability to deliver or receive security within the required time after sale or purchase.
b.
such an undelivered security.
14.
Obsolete . failure as to performance, occurrence, etc.
—Idiom
15.
without fail, with certainty; positively: I will visit you tomorrow without fail.

Maybe next time actually know what you are talking about before speaking up?

I don't think that means what you think it means.

Then you loose your funding

I think more people should loose their funding; science would advance more quickly if it were better funded. But I also don't think you said what you meant to say.

police state is a tautology.

Origin of POLICE:

French, from Old French, from Late Latin politia government, administration, from Greek politeia, from polits citizen, from polis city, state ; akin to Sanskrit pur rampart, Lithuanian pilis castle

It has a similar meaning in English, though I swear I've never heard or seen it used that way, or indeed with any positive connotations.

Last summer I found a little herb shop in Phoenix, Arizona. One of their custom loose-leaf tea blends was called An Elephant Never Forgets. My memory had been rather fickle, ever since I lost it entirely for a 2-week period after I nearly drowned at the lake, some 12 years before. The lack of consistency was rather annoying, but only when I realized that there was something I couldn't quite remember.

I bought an ounce of said tea, and immediately noticed a dramatic improvement in my ability to remember. I don't take it all the time, or even regularly, but I did happen to see the bag this morning. Funny how that works.

Here are the ingredients from the above link, to save you all a click:

Mental focus formula
Ingredients:
Ginkgo (Ginkgo biloba) – increases circulation to brain, increases cerebral function
Gotu Kola (Centella asiatica) – nerve and brain tonic
Rosemary (Rosemarinus officinalis) – antioxidant, supports cerebral function
Rhodiola (Rhodiola rosea) – increases memory and overall performance
Sage (Salvia officinalis) – antioxidant, supports cerebral function
Spearmint (Mentha spicata) – increases circulation, flavor
Cardamom (Eletteria cardomomum) – increases circulation
Calendula Petals (Calendula officinalis) – encourages lymphatic circulation

Additional Information
This formula is great for those who wish to be mentally alert without using caffeine. A very popular tea among students, but excellent for anyone wishing to support focus, concentration and memory.

Huperzine-A, from the moss, also has potent memory-improving properties.

There are a lot of other important factors to memory improvement... I should look for a publisher. :)

Definition of ANTI-SEMITISM: hostility toward or discrimination against Jews as a religious, ethnic, or racial group

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

If only there were some characteristic by which one might be aware of and sensitive to the thoughts, feelings, and expectations of others, then one could predict the reasonable effects of one's actions on others.

Definition 2 definitely doesn't need market power. Please don't confuse a "monopoly" (english language word) with being found guilty of abusing an "illegal monopoly" (legal term) which requires a much more stringent standard.

As to 'no really criticisms or critiques in this', if it is a good book, then it wont have any.

Yes it will. Criticize - 1: to consider the merits and demerits of and judge accordingly: evaluate

According to Merriam-Webster

Near Antonyms: chump, dupe, gull, pigeon, sucker

There are multiple definitions for geek, in her case it would be "an enthusiast or expert" but not in technology. The "especially" clause does not limit that definition to technology.

The "peculiar and unlikeable" definition is when the word is intended as an insult. In my time, that was when it was yelled at someone on the school playground just before they got beaten up, but maybe times have changed. Probably not. Ok so I got beat up.

Somebody's gotta do it, they don't have to like it (and I doubt they do), it's not their fault, they need to feed the kids/themselves.

I disagree. The same argument is used for "enhanced interrogators", concentration camp guards and people who extract gold fillings from the pile of skulls. "I needed a job" does not justify "...so I joined the Gestapo, big deal, get off my back."

Yeah, you'll find someone to fill the job. Every society has bottom-feeders, petty little jerks who get off on having a little power over others, and people who just don't give a damn. I'm certainly not going to pretend they warrant respect; they do not. I don't think they do either, so they settle for "oderint dum metuant". Impotent personalities and badges do not mix well, but you can certainly build an internal political police force out of that mix.

When you join the TSA, you know damned well what you're being expected to do to your countrymen. It IS their fault, and to hell with their kids.

Usage Discussion of ALRIGHT
The one-word spelling alright appeared some 75 years after all right itself had reappeared from a 400-year-long absence. Since the early 20th century some critics have insisted alright is wrong, but it has its defenders and its users. It is less frequent than all right but remains in common use especially in journalistic and business publications. It is quite common in fictional dialogue, and is used occasionally in other writing .
First Known Use of ALRIGHT
1887

Source: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/alright

Just because you don't like it, doesn't mean its not correct. In fact its use starts from before your birth, so you should probably just forget about it ever changing.

Posted anon, becase I don't really want "Oxford Comma Lover" to tell me how badly this post is written.

Geek n. 1: a carnival performer often billed as a wild man whose act usually includes biting the head off a live chicken or snake

I see your Wikipedia article quote and raise a quote from merriam-webster.

money (as paper currency) not convertible into coin or specie of equivalent value

and a quote from N. Gregory Mankiw as cited in your Wikipedia article.

Fiat money, such as paper dollars, is money without intrinsic value: It would be worthless if it were not used as money.

Yes, by the very definition of "complicity":

association or participation in or as if in a wrongful act

They had an association (through selling machines to the Nazis, helping to maintain them, etc to run their death camps) in a wrongful act (slaughtering jews in death camps).

People will reason why they need the junk that they really don't need. Humans naturally seek evidence that support their reasoning while they ignore contradictory evidence. People are looking for reasons why they made the correct decision rather than admitting that they could be wrong.

What you're describing isn't reason, it has a name of its own: rationalization.