Slashdot Mirror

visa vi -> vis-a-vis

accent on the "a"

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/vis-a-vis

My favourite one is how journalists, particularly TV reporters, love to talk about people being evacuated. I know it can be hard to control one's bowels when faced with extreme danger but I'm pretty sure that's not what they meant.

I like The Wire, too, but this little joke was just something they trumped up for TV. Merriam-Webster gives one definition of evacuate as: "to withdraw from a place in an organized way especially for protection." David Simon says he put it into the show as an homage to one of his copy editors who used to give him a hard time about it; nonetheless, the usage is perfectly fine.

Definition of snarled.

people tend to handle intersection in a weird way.

FTFY

"Not guilty" intersects Innocent so "Not guilty" = Innocent

I have to admit that the bash side of my brain appreciates your quotation marks. In any case, I checked out Merriam-Webster to see what the real language nazis think about !guilty?=innocent, and they indicate that guilty is a near antonym of innocent, and not an exact antonym. That is the most heartwarming experience I have ever had with a dictionary.

and a loss of property labeled the 'victim.'

This is where your logic is flawed. The definition of stealing has nothing to do with the LOSS of property, only the acquisition of property that does not belong to you.

However, lets assume your definition is the correct one (because you are going to anyways). Is it possible to steal an idea? Lets say you where the first person ever to think of calling someone who disagrees with you a "Cro-Magnon". You tell your friend about this brilliant insult you have came up with that you can't wait to use on an internet forum. Unfortunately your friend beats you to it (because he is an idiot who can't think of original insults). It's reasonable to say your friend stole your idea. But how is that possible since you haven't lost that idea?

If you'd like to fall back on an argument of "they aren't really losing a sale", I'd love to discuss that too.

It's not "just political" - most of the supposed "crisis" incidents recently were deliberately engineered so that one political group or another could scream "OMG CRISIS" and get a group of sheeple following them unthinkingly. Case in point: the US unemployment situation. Is it a coincidence that a bunch of right-wingers who are at the beck and call of the robber baron class "happen" to be screaming about the ruin that will come if we don't give their masters another set of tax breaks, while at the same time their robber baron masters took the last round of tax breaks and instead of creating jobs, just plain hoarded or wasted it [huffingtonpost.com]? I doubt it.

Somewhat inciteful (I don't care if it's not a word). There are plenty of arguments to support what you're saying without using the tone you chose.

Politically, the true answer usually lies in the middle, but we're stuck having to choose between laissez-faire, robber baron capitalism and near-total socialism instead of having the option of something sane. Sad, isn't it?

In the end you all say about the left is 'near-total socialism', but you do not admonishthem nearly as much as republicans.

It's not "just political" - most of the supposed "crisis" incidents recently were deliberately engineered so that one political group or another could scream "OMG CRISIS" and get a group of sheeple following them unthinkingly. Case in point: the US unemployment situation. Is it a coincidence that a bunch of right-wingers who are at the beck and call of the robber baron class "happen" to be screaming about the ruin that will come if we don't give their masters another set of tax breaks, while at the same time their robber baron masters took the last round of tax breaks and instead of creating jobs, just plain hoarded or wasted it [huffingtonpost.com]? I doubt it.

Somewhat inciteful (I don't care if it's not a word). There are plenty of arguments to support what you're saying without using the tone you chose.

Politically, the true answer usually lies in the middle, but we're stuck having to choose between laissez-faire, robber baron capitalism and near-total socialism instead of having the option of something sane. Sad, isn't it?

In the end you all say about the left is 'near-total socialism', but you do not admonishthem nearly as much as republicans.

America refers to a country.

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

You see, there are three definitions of "America", and only one fits what you claim to be the only one.

If you're interested in the mechanics of the history of the word, "wifman" used to mean "male person", which parallels "woman" much better, but is confusing next to "wife". "Were" (as in werewolf) was also a term used for a male human.

I've quite enjoyed your measured and rational writing style throughout this thread, but found I must respond to the above misunderstanding (possibly typo?).

The word woman comes from the older wif "woman, female" + man "person", as mentioned on Merriam-Webster's page, among others. This use of wif is mirrored in the modern German word Weib , likewise meaning "woman".

FWIW, another example of the use of were to mean "male person" is wergild , and it may also be useful to note that were is essentially the same word as the Latin vir , whence we get very male modern English words like virile .

(N.B.: Will Slashdot *ever* get around to supporting Unicode? This laziness is quite appalling for a purported geek site. The i in wif above should have a macron over it, but Slashdot refuses to render these, whether inserted as text: "", or as entities: "". Commander Taco et al should frankly be embarrassed that the best they can do for user input scrubbing is simply to remove anything outside of a small superset of ASCII.)

Cheers,

If you're interested in the mechanics of the history of the word, "wifman" used to mean "male person", which parallels "woman" much better, but is confusing next to "wife". "Were" (as in werewolf) was also a term used for a male human.

I've quite enjoyed your measured and rational writing style throughout this thread, but found I must respond to the above misunderstanding (possibly typo?).

The word woman comes from the older wif "woman, female" + man "person", as mentioned on Merriam-Webster's page, among others. This use of wif is mirrored in the modern German word Weib , likewise meaning "woman".

FWIW, another example of the use of were to mean "male person" is wergild , and it may also be useful to note that were is essentially the same word as the Latin vir , whence we get very male modern English words like virile .

(N.B.: Will Slashdot *ever* get around to supporting Unicode? This laziness is quite appalling for a purported geek site. The i in wif above should have a macron over it, but Slashdot refuses to render these, whether inserted as text: "", or as entities: "". Commander Taco et al should frankly be embarrassed that the best they can do for user input scrubbing is simply to remove anything outside of a small superset of ASCII.)

Cheers,

If you're interested in the mechanics of the history of the word, "wifman" used to mean "male person", which parallels "woman" much better, but is confusing next to "wife". "Were" (as in werewolf) was also a term used for a male human.

I've quite enjoyed your measured and rational writing style throughout this thread, but found I must respond to the above misunderstanding (possibly typo?).

The word woman comes from the older wif "woman, female" + man "person", as mentioned on Merriam-Webster's page, among others. This use of wif is mirrored in the modern German word Weib , likewise meaning "woman".

FWIW, another example of the use of were to mean "male person" is wergild , and it may also be useful to note that were is essentially the same word as the Latin vir , whence we get very male modern English words like virile .

(N.B.: Will Slashdot *ever* get around to supporting Unicode? This laziness is quite appalling for a purported geek site. The i in wif above should have a macron over it, but Slashdot refuses to render these, whether inserted as text: "", or as entities: "". Commander Taco et al should frankly be embarrassed that the best they can do for user input scrubbing is simply to remove anything outside of a small superset of ASCII.)

Cheers,

Weightiest is a real word and the use is valid.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/weightiest (2b)

A. What? Look up the fifth definition of vein and read the summary again.

B. Humour is subjective. Plenty of undergraduates still worship crap that some realised was childish in grade nine. Sounds like someone's had a bad day.

Have you ever been there? No? I guess that's why you're an expert on it now.

First, you imagine Israel as a post-apocalyptic wasteland with daily suicide bombings. Then you build a whole fantasy world based on that imagined reality. Then you call other people morons.

You should read this: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/irony

I said typically, not as a prerequisite.

OK... You insist on typically, I'll then go with PERIOD. HA! We are going to nitpick it to death, I assume?
Personal gain is not a prerequisite to be labeled a snitch - period.

And no it's not a meaningless swear word. When someone is a snitch we all know it. When someone isn't a snitch thats not as easy to determine and there is disagreement there. But there is no general disagreement, Judas was a snitch.

ALL swearwords are meaningless. If you don't believe me, ask George Carlin what "cocksucker" USED to mean. Or ponder about the connotations of "motherfucker" when the same is used as a praise.

As for "we all know"... Did you too get your telepathy hat from Santa or did you have to make your own?
I never could find that unicorn dust, so I had to be good for an entire year.
Luckily, I had an accident and had to spend a year in bed. Comatose. But it was worth it.

Oh and yeah. It can be a bitch to prove a negative.

Accuracy is important in the english language.

Oh is it now? In English language? Accuracy? Really?
Did you also get the "Doesn't Count For Me" nipple-ring from Santa?

Snitch is a slur? What about traitor? The breach of trust is part of it, but also the level of damage. Judas got Jesus killed, he's a snitch pure and simple

Besides traitor being a completely different word, it is kind of a legal term. You know... as in being on trial for treason - not "for snitching".
And Judas was not "a snitch" cause he got Jesus killed.
He was a snitch cause he informed Jewish and Roman authorities on Jesus' location AND cause he then pointed JC out.

BTW, if we are to believe that he really was God-become-man - it was more like a suicide. You know... like buying a truck, leaving it in neutral with breaks off on a steep surface - and then going to sleep with your head in front of the wheel.

It is a completely subjective decision by the labeler who and for what exactly will be labeled a "snitch".

So your argument is that snitches do not exist? I'm confused. What is your argument? And how do you see Judas if not as a snitch?

Jolly good! Another irrelevant thesis. Possibly even a red herring.
But hey... I have some paint that needs drying so...

NO. I am saying that the one throwing around labels is the one who decides who is a snitch and who is a traitor.
As for Judas... When did I mention Judas? And what do you have against adult Jewish men, who probably didn't even exist, kissing each other in public?
You some kind of a Nazi homophobe?

See? THAT'S how you beg a question with a straw man!

But testifying and being a witness isn't the same as snitching.

It is to the people who decide to call you a snitch. Same shit. Worse. You snitched on them.
What the fuck do they care if you testify or bear witness or your moral or other standing on the subject. You snitched.

The classical definition of a traitor is someone who was a member of the gang who became a witness.

No. You are again talking about snitching here. A traitor is something else.

Or if you want you can go back to Christ and Judas was the snitch. But yes there are gang members out there who see anyone who opposes them as a snitch, but not everybody uses words they don't understand in a way which is least accurate. Snitching can only apply if they are your comrades. A rival gang or random civilian testifying against you is not a snitch in anyones mind but yours, but Judas is a snitch in virtually everyones mind, and someone who is disloyal to their group is a snit

No. "Controlling the borders" is what "siege" means.

Occupation means to control the actual area. No soldiers on territory pretty much equals no occupation.

Shachar

No. "Controlling the borders" is what "siege" means.

Occupation means to control the actual area. No soldiers on territory pretty much equals no occupation.

Shachar

I beg to differ.

Origin: 1535–45; ( Middle French ) Medieval Latin devolution - (stem of devolutio) a rolling down, equivalent to Latin devolut( us ) rolled down (past participle of devolvere; see devolve) + -ion-

Not only is it a word meaning "to roll down" or "roll back" dating back almost 500 years, it can also mean to de-evolve. This is not a word has been made up recently as an opposite to evolution in the Darwinian sense.

Sources here and here.

Errr... Nop, you're wrong on that one http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/evolution Evolution: c (1) : a process of continuous change from a lower, simpler, or worse to a higher, more complex, or better state

I know you're making funny, but the real thing is interesting as well. :) According to Merriam-Webster, first use was in 1724, origin unknown; definition: "to obtain especially by devious or irregular means". So it's misused in the original comment. SNAFU is from WWII. ;)

I knew that SNAFU was from WWII, but I didn't know what a snaffle was, I assumed it was a derivation, I stand corrected. thanks.

Some folks think it is derived (somehow) from the noun 'snaffle' which is a type of bit used for training horses. I'm not sure how that works, but perhaps because with a snaffle bit you can lead a horse away from its owner more easily?

But can you make it drink?

I know you're making funny, but the real thing is interesting as well. :) According to Merriam-Webster, first use was in 1724, origin unknown; definition: "to obtain especially by devious or irregular means". So it's misused in the original comment. SNAFU is from WWII. ;)

Some folks think it is derived (somehow) from the noun 'snaffle' which is a type of bit used for training horses. I'm not sure how that works, but perhaps because with a snaffle bit you can lead a horse away from its owner more easily?

That definition is cited as referencing "The Free On-line Dictionary of Computing, (C) Denis Howe 2010 http://foldoc.org/" whoever that is.

And Mr. Howe seems to have taken liberties with the root word of base, which means "the fundamental part of something." http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/base

Moreover TFL says "This change should not affect any existing users of Skype for Asterisk," which doesn't conflict with your cited definition.

In other words, all your base are belong to me.

I don't think you really understand the concept of safety.

Let's clarify then:

• From Merriam-Webster: Safety: the condition of being safe from undergoing or causing hurt, injury, or loss
• From Wikipedia: Safety is the state of being "safe" (from French sauf), the condition of being protected against physical, social, spiritual, financial, political, emotional, occupational, psychological, educational or other types or consequences of failure, damage, error, accidents, harm or any other event which could be considered non-desirable. Safety can also be defined to be the control of recognized hazards to achieve an acceptable level of risk.

The Wikipedia definition is closer to what you are saying, except that the failure at Fukushima isn't considered to be acceptable. They not only lost reactors but also had radiation leaks beyond expectations (not to mention they lied about it too).

Both of the examples in your post are still valid trademarks. If you googled it (def: to use the Google search engine to obtain information about, you'd quickly find this out.

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

Willful execution by electricity is only one of two valid definitions.

Says who?

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/antenna
shows antennae as the first plural listed (which usually means it's the preferred one). Strangely, the two other definitions have antennae *repeated* as the plural in the definition.

I put salt on food I eat, and I have not died any time recently from it. Perhaps I am trying to point out that toxic isn't the right word to use?

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

Freedom does not equate anarchy. In an orderly society you have rules and there are limits to what you can do. Speech is a powerful tool and can be used to express yourself, but also can be used to humiliate, torture, and create chaos when used properly. It's not hard for an adult to scar a child for life with the mere use of words. This is why speech has limits drawn out by law.

You can voice discontent with your government without being shoot, you can write songs with obscene language without being jailed, or write books about the most obscure and twisted of sexual fetiches without being stoned to death. That is where your free speech lies.

There is a horrible misconception in the youngest generations (and sometimes it survives to a select few older individuals) that you can't have freedom without complete anarchy without realizing that such a thing is impossible. In a world of anarchy the stronger sets the rules, for all purposes ending the anarchy nearly as fast as it's declared. Even your voice can easily be taken away by individuals with stronger voice. Remove all laws that limit speech and anyone with the resources can slander you and convince the world that you must be jailed, your tongue cut and eventually electrocuted without ever needing evidence to back it up, all he will need is his charisma, money or power to surpass your own.

We need rules. If we don't have rules, the bullies will impose their own. This applies to speech as much as it applies to guns.

the spanish-American War which was fermented

I think the word you're looking for is fomented, unless the NYC papers of record discovered a way to create alcohol from war....

-AC

Care to elaborate on the difference between geek and weirdo?

Hint: Here is what Merriam-Webster has to say about the topic.

and Here is what Merriam-Webster has to say about the term Weirdo... they're different terms and those in TFA more closely resemble "weirdos" what's your point?

Care to elaborate on the difference between geek and weirdo?

Hint: Here is what Merriam-Webster has to say about the topic.

and Here is what Merriam-Webster has to say about the term Weirdo... they're different terms and those in TFA more closely resemble "weirdos" what's your point?

Care to elaborate on the difference between geek and weirdo?

Hint: Here is what Merriam-Webster has to say about the topic.

A group is a unit

Bullshit. You can group any entities, a group doesn't have to have structure a group does NOT have to be a unit.

The 'vastly different' quality is that a group is more intrinsically defined, whereas a collective is more extrinsically defined (a 'collection' of people with a common trait, i.e. their objective).

Rubbish, stop using words that you clearly do not understand the meaning of, you're arguing things you don't understand. You can argue they aren't an organisation but arguing they are a collective and not a group is idiotic because while a group is not a collective a collective most definitely is a group. So, just to be clear a collective is a group if you're saying Anonymous is a collective then you are saying they are a group.
In fact webster's fucking dictionary proves you wrong you retard.

Odd, I see it. Appz is a "leet" plural of App which is itself a shorthand form of application. Another example on that page is warez, which is a "leet" shorthand plural form of software.

Merriam Webster definition of App which points at 1987 being the first use (I'm sure it was used before that).

Wrong. Senators are supposed to represent their state. Representatives are supposed to represent their constituents.

Unless I missed a memo and the Senators are all now versions of the Lorax and speak for the trees for the trees have no tongues I'm pretty sure by representing "their state" it means they represent the people in their state, who authorized the senator to act as an agent on their behalf by voting them in, thereby making them: constituents.

Almost, an IQ test is the best way to tell how well you will do on an IQ test. Obviously, this will be self-evident to anyone who has taken an IQ test or looked up 'self-evident' in the dictionary, http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/self-evident. Beyond the obvious, it is the quickest way to see if you can join Mensa (score 135 or better). As for everything else in life, the IQ test may tell you how big your blade is, but it will never tell you how sharp.

I think you need to investigate the definition of the word may.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/may?show=1&t=1303413953

I think there's a fancier name for the ancient tradition of giving unappealing things a more appealing name. As far as I can tell, this "reality 2.0" has been around for all of recorded history.

For those who didn't see the whoosh....
Remorse Remorse Remorse

I beg to differ.

Sorry, it just always drives me nuts when people fail to realize that schools paid for with tax dollars are not "free".

you're an idiot hung up on an arbitrarily picked definition of "free", at least one of which fits my use, so bugger off

Are you drunk, or just unable to read? Scroll back up, and read my comment carefully. Sound it out if you have to. It's ok if your lips move - nobody can tell, online.

So ya got none and you are just trolling instead of trying to make any valid points.

It most certainly was not. It was a collection of English words strung together using a drunken version of Italian, or possibly French grammar. Either way, it was completely incomprehensible.

I told you I could dumb it down for you if ya need it. Just ask.. There is nothing wrong with asking for help when you need it. Here, I will even paraphrase it for you. There is no genetic record you were speaking of. We can leave it at that because it appears you get lost easily.

Wrong again!

Then please, by all means, what were you trying to say then? Because words have meanings and the ones you string together appears to mean that you will not believe God dun it, even if it is true.

Wow. Ok, you're either drunk or epically incompetent. Please, go over to the Miriam-Webster website and look up the word "hypothesis".

I bet your parents would be absolutely fucking thrilled if you were one tenth as smart as you think you are. I think they probably have already gotten over the shame that must be required for raising you. here. read the damn definition yourself and tell me where me asking you a simple what if God did do it was me doing any of that.

You see, definition 1a is a : an assumption or concession made for the sake of argument. I did neither, I asked you to do it.

definition b is b : an interpretation of a practical situation or condition taken as the ground for action I did neither and did not ask you to.

definition 2 is : a tentative assumption made in order to draw out and test its logical or empirical consequences. We aren't testing anything, I just wanted to see what you would say.

Definition 3 is the antecedent clause of a conditional statement which is likely the closest stretch to anything close to it being a hypothesis, but it's still not applicable to this.

So either put up or go troll somewhere else. You are wrong and it's that simple.

Faith is expected without justification and is expected to endure regardless of what facts may come to challenge it.

Sounds like youre trying to create a distinction where the dictionary doesnt see one (based on first and primary definitions from multiple dictionaries):
Wikipedia-- Faith is the confident belief or trust in the truth or trustworthiness of a person, concept or thing.
Reference-- confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.
MerriamWebster-- allegiance to duty or a person : loyalty

None of those indicate "enduring regardless of what facts may come to challenge it"'; the best you can get from any of those is "trust for that which has no evidence" (which is a far cry from "trust regardless of any evidence").

watch this:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/video/0006-slang.htm

your problem is not the inclusion of slang in the dictionary, it's the inclusion of slang in everyday culture. the dictionary is just there to document it

That's cachet.

http://mw1.merriam-webster.com/thesaurus/freeloader
"a person who is supported by or seeks support from another without making an adequate return"
Please tell me how the use of that term was incorrect.

By your definition, somebody could take a photo of me, publish it in the media so everybody can see it, and I'd be able to call the whole world a bunch of freeloaders.

You'll be right once you can show us what the app's author is doing to support pirates that he isn't already doing with existing customers.

http://mw1.merriam-webster.com/thesaurus/freeloader
"a person who is supported by or seeks support from another without making an adequate return"
Please tell me how the use of that term was incorrect.

Look it up. Google is a verb: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/google

Look it up: Google is a verb.

FTFY in two different ways.

Look it up. Google is a verb: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/google

Look it up: Google is a verb.

FTFY in two different ways.

Look it up Google is a verb http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/google

foil noun

Definition of FOIL
1 : very thin sheet metal <aluminum foil>

Curses foiled again.