Slashdot Mirror

Then again, if he looses it'll cost him a bundle anyway

I coudn't find "looses" in my dictionary, did you mean "loosens"?

George got it precisely right.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/lie

: to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive

The second definition is the relevant one and you are simply incorrect about the use of the word official.

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

A company cannot be an official. However, any authorized person at the company is one of the companies officials. They officiate over the Amazon marketplace and are supervising the conduct/morality of those shopping in the marketplace. Any author who doesn't abide by Amazon's morals will have their expression aka book, censored from the marketplace.

"def #1 because A) Amazon has no official capacity in any way"

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

Most telling is not the definition per say but the example of an official:

"A company official responded to our request."

An official is a person. Amazon is a collection of people, as well as a marketplace run by the same. It has officials. Amazon can't censor something but its officials can.

"and B) Amazon isn't extracting portions (interestingly, a much better case can be made for Walmart, as a prior poster mentioned). "

From the definition:

'...for the purpose of suppressing parts deemed objectionable...'

The definition doesn't require anything to be extracted, only suppressed. The definition only requires the objectionable parts be suppressed it doesn't specify that nothing else can be suppressed or removed along with it. A censor could read a speech and burn it to suppress the parts he found objectionable and satisfy the definition... or he could remove an entire book from the market in order to suppress the parts of said book he found objectionable.

It's their choice as to what they sell. It is also not censorship.

Yes, it is censorship. I know apologists for corporatism like to pretend that only the government can censor, but that's not what the word means: when a business says "this is objectionable" rather than "people won't buy this", that's censorship. (And in a self-publishing marketplace, "people won't buy this" doesn't matter.)

And that's not just my opinion, and not just a dictionary definition of the word -- Amazon's own statement describes their current actions as censorship: "Amazon believes it is censorship not to sell certain books simply because we or others believe their message is objectionable."

to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable <censor the news>; also : to suppress or delete as objectionable <censor out indecent passages>

-- http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/censor (verb)

Funny, Merriam-Webster thinks it means what he thinks it means. And yes, if you suppress or delete anything considered objectionable so your kids don't see it, you're censoring it.

Amazon is fully within their rights to censor it, and we're fully within our rights to call them out on it.

Is it censorship if your local grocery store doesn't carry the Oxford English Dictionary?

to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable <censor the news>; also : to suppress or delete as objectionable <censor out indecent passages>

-- http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/censor (verb)

Only if they looked at the dictionary and thought it was objectionable, which apparently you do.

An atheist is a person who is not a theist. Therefore, an atheist does not believe in the existence of god. An atheist doesn't have to believe in the non-existence of god.

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

Atheism means I don't know that there is a God. I don't claim that I know there is not.

Actually atheism means that you disbelieve there is a god. Agnosticism means that you can find no justification for either belief or disbelief in a god.

Atheism means I don't know that there is a God. I don't claim that I know there is not.

Actually atheism means that you disbelieve there is a god. Agnosticism means that you can find no justification for either belief or disbelief in a god.

No, I'm not making a strawman here. Go back to my first post in this thread, where I said that I had an issue with evangelical atheists.

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

Definition number 5:

marked by militant or crusading zeal : evangelistic

I have no problem at all with the majority of atheists, just as I have no problem at all with the majority of people who adhere to a religious belief. I do, however, have a problem with atheists who make it a personal crusade to get rid of all religion.

"Rare earths" aren't really that rare. There are many potential mining sites worldwide. They're sparse, in that huge amounts of rock have to be processed to get small amounts of metal.

Rare, in this case, is a relative term. You might play poker and rarely get a royal flush (1 in 649,740) but if you play a billion hands you'll get an average of 1539 royal flushes. You never go above the rare chance to get a royal flush but with a big enough sample size you are likely to end up with a lot of them.

The Earth is a HUGE sample size but that doesn't change the fact that the rare earths are, well, rare! Of course almost every element is rare in comparison to the most common element, hydrogen.

By the way, the Merriam-Webster Dictionary (which I take to be slightly more definitive than Sebastopol) disagrees with you:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gender?show=0&t=1293411085

"a : sex ...
Examples of GENDER
        Please state your name, birth date, and gender."

"gender (noun) 1 [count] : the state of being male or female : sex"

So your attempt to prove me wrong by arguing a minor semantic point is also sadly completely and utterly wrong. 'Gender' is extremely widely used as basically synonymous with 'sex', and only sometimes used as referring to the psychological construct.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/violence?show=0&t=1292690950

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/violence?view=uk

So now you can stfu, troll.

Here's some self-help. No need to thank me.

Easy, killer. If i'm not mistaken, under US law that could be considered libel.

You're not in a back room somewhere drinking beer with friends, you're posting on the Internet. /just sayin'

The world of Slashdot it will pass very.

The word is verily , you silly twit!

Fine, you really want citations? Here are some. Wow. If you look up definitions of "theory", you find that "theory" means "theory", even when (or especially when) talking about science.

This isn't hard. But it *is* stupid.

So, when you said, "I'm not going to readily accept a drastic and nonsensical redefinition of well-established words on the insistence of a poor thinker," the "poor thinker" bit was redundant, because you infer that from the fact that it's a "nonsensical redefinition."

Way to prove that you're not one of those pedantic douchebags I was complaining about.

This is exactly the same as the two definitions of "theory" we're considering. Colloquially, a theory is "a good idea."

No it's not. There are plenty of good ideas that aren't theories, and there are theories which aren't good ideas. The definition of theory, whether talking in science or colloquial, is something along the lines of "a speculative explanation" generally including the connotation that it has not been proven.

And the difference is, when we talk about "work" in physics, we're talking about a specific measurement which was derived in order to be able to quantify work. When I move a heavy box from point A to point B, I have done some "work". The physics definition is essentially trying to quantify that work. Regardless, there are other metaphorical uses of words that are very different from the original meaning, and all of that is fine. The problem is when you arbitrarily try to make up a new conflicting definition because you don't know how else to win your arguments and you're too petty to say "I don't know".

And this is the whole problem. In a stunning misuse of words, Creationists dubbed their theory "science". You apparently can't figure out a useful response, so you're employing an equally stunning misuse of language by redefining "theory" to mean "fact". If such poor argumentation works, then we'd be better off redefining "creationism" as "wrong" and being done with it. At least that way, we wouldn't be subverting scientific thought for the sake of petty political battles. Do you think "science" is still a field with validity if it is held captive to political motives?

sanctity
1: holiness of life and character : godliness
2a : the quality or state of being holy or sacred : inviolability
b plural : sacred objects, obligations, or rights

"Sanctity of diplomatic communications" is indeed an abuse of the word, but by dictionary definition, "sanctity of marriage" is perfectly correct.

I guess if one worships government, then diplomatic communications may well be sacred. However, in the US, most people worship only money.

Except it wasn't espionage, first because he did not leak the documents with the intent of harming the country. And second because Israel is our friend and can never hurt us no matter how many wars against their neighbors that they can't get along with they get us into.

Funny. Mostly because the dictionary definition of espionage is [...] the practice of spying or using spies to obtain information about the plans and activities especially of a foreign government [...]

Nowhere does it talk about how our friends can't spy on us, or how the information obtained must be harmful against us.

Recluse: you're understanding it wrong.
Well-known/fame (being of interest TO society) and recluse ( being disinterested IN society http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/recluse : marked by withdrawal from society) are completely orthogonal.

Arrogance is perfectly possible even if it is based on real accomplishment - it is based on how you behave in relation to other people and not what you have accomplished. If someone is looking down on a commoner for being a commoner, unlike his fine self, then he is arrogant no matter whether he has some merit that the commoner does not.

Or even better, since I misremembered which word they actually used due to AC's error:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/quashes

No, they meant quashed and got it right. The legal definition flows from the standard english one.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/quashed?show=0&t=1291432910

Wampus, I thought you were being cool to me, but it appears you're not being cool (others filled me in on your use of your "meme" (which is some stupid new trendy term, I don't interest myself in those, as I consider them the province of noobs or juveniles in any arena)).

"Meme" is even listed as "slang" in dictionaries of repute such as it is noted here by the Merriam Webster dictionary -> New Words & Slang http://nws.merriam-webster.com/opendictionary/newword_search.php ...

So, I look @ the 'bright side' here, and I learned a new "meme" today, even though it's juvenile b.s. and the province of trolls... and I watched you get modded down for your efforts.

APK

P.S.=> Nicest part is, in the end ? The /. community here took care of you for me (thanks /.'ers who modded me up here, & for all accounts like "taking out the trash" like wampus who likes trolling others apparently.)... apk

i was going to reply to you seriously, but, seeing this post of yours, proving that you do not now as single piece of shit, yet assert yourself as if you do and go about insulting others, even exhausted my tolerance and positivity for discussing with internet trolls, taking them as human beings they are.

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

learn shit, before you talk. witless idiot.

i wish you a nice day.

Totally! Because when I play with other randomly-matched, pseudoanonymous gamers online, I'm always stuck that they're universally thoughtful, polite people. Wow, from the noise everyone makes, you'd think that online gaming was dominated by immature, racist, sexist, homophobic, assholes who delight in trolling. I remember just yesterday playing against Neeg4hk1ll4h yesterday and seeing his swastika and thinking, "I appreciate it when a polite British young man* tries to spread the Buddhist word of peace." (* That he was a young man was obvious from his speech. I learned that he was British and polite when repeatedly offered me a cigarettes and bundles of sticks.")

Totally! Because when I play with other randomly-matched, pseudoanonymous gamers online, I'm always stuck that they're universally thoughtful, polite people. Wow, from the noise everyone makes, you'd think that online gaming was dominated by immature, racist, sexist, homophobic, assholes who delight in trolling. I remember just yesterday playing against Neeg4hk1ll4h yesterday and seeing his swastika and thinking, "I appreciate it when a polite British young man* tries to spread the Buddhist word of peace." (* That he was a young man was obvious from his speech. I learned that he was British and polite when repeatedly offered me a cigarettes and bundles of sticks.")

The definition of dictatorship does include a country being ruled by a small group of people, not only individuals.

Hence, and unless you're being pedantic, the dictator is that small group.

talk about democracy. we were just discussing how capitalism easily corrupts and dominates a democratic storefront

Part of Capitalism is free markets. Well free markets do not exist. The closest we've come to it was in America in the 1820s and '30s and it is what inspired Alexis de Tocqueville to write "Democracy in America". Of course there was the black mark on free markets called slavery.

Falcon

No, this is pedantic:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pedantic

My post to which you responded was not.

You are revealing WAY too much about your own intellect with your angry, uncontrolled ranting.

calling a software feature a "bug"

You seemed to have completely missed what is being discussed here, despite the extensive discussion over that exact subject. This isn't "bug" as in "software error". This is "bug" as in the following:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bug
"a concealed listening device"

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/bug
"a hidden microphone or other electronic eavesdropping device."

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/bug_4
"a very small device fixed on to a telephone or hidden in a room, that allows you to listen to what people are saying without them knowing"

a "web bug" is merely the web based version of an eavesdropping device.

So yes, the conversation is indeed ENTIRELY about only ONE form of the word....the form I just documented.

: a literary or musical work in which the style of an author or work is closely imitated for comic effect or in ridicule
: a feeble or ridiculous imitation
PARODY

You see to make a parody, requires creative effort, not merely copying other's work and making slight changes. the style is copied. The musical "Westside Story" is a parody of "Romeo and Juliet"; Lamebook is not a parody of Facebook.

From TFA:

This 2008-vintage notebook is powered by a 2.2GHz Intel Core 2 Duo processor

My server is powered by a Athlon64 3400+ you insensitive clod!

"2008-Vintage" just means it was made in 2008.

Alternative definitions are fun!

Evidently you don't know what a distributor is. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/distributor Apple is playing the part of a middle man and as such is a distributor. If apple didn't have a store and simply had links to the developers websites where you paid the developers directly then you would be right. Especially with a DRM system that stops all outside apps Apple is a distributor.

Self defense is valid because the other person is trying to take your life when he has no right to, and by doing so in that instance he forfeits his own right not to have his life taken by another.

Murder is defined as "the crime of unlawfully killing a person, especially with malice aforethought". Killing someone in legal self-defense is by definition not "murder". Perhaps you meant to use kill. Words have meaning.

cops are civilians.

Civilian:
2a : one not on active duty in the armed services or not on a police or firefighting force

But I get your point in that they aren't military. The problem is that the police have forgotten that in the "War on Drugs/Terror/Liberals."

Head over to the forums on "Officer.com" to hear some truly hair-raising smack talked by people we trust with guns and badges. We've tolerated a police culture that thinks of everyone out of uniform as -- officers' own words, mind you -- "sheeple," "peasants" and "children" for far too long.

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

Google TV enables access...

Looks like enable is one of those words that is its own antonym. The first definition from m-w.com is actual empowerment and the second potential empowerment. The Google statement uses the second definition. But the two definitions are as opposite as actual is from potential.

Oh wait, I'll just get modded -1 Troll by those who think I'm arrogant. Let me try this again in Slashdotese:

Google TV enables access...

Uh, no it doesn't...

What's an ar-cad-e?

It's the walkway between stores in a strip mall

So what specifically do you have a problem with? Always easier to slander other people than make actual arguments.

I thought I was being clear but I'll try again. You say:

FWIW, I don't have a problem with President Obama being on Mythbusters -- I mean, I think it's kind of stupid, but I'm not going to criticize him by saying he shouldn't be on a TV show or anything like that...

So, you don't have a problem with it and you're not going to criticize... but, you think it's stupid. But you're not going to criticize and you don't have a problem with it.

Criticize: to consider the merits and demerits of and judge accordingly

According to Merriam Webster you are criticizing. So which is it? Did you honestly not know what the word meant? Were you trying to be funny? Were you trolling?

But, I think that most people think there are different standards for the President versus a private citizen. I don't buy into many of the ideals of the presidency

You don't buy into these ideal yet, you mention them as if they were valid for the argument you are about to make. So which is it? Do you buy into these ideals? Are you making a simple logical fallacy? Are you saying that there are some ideals you adhere to but simply forgot to mention them and we have to guess? Are you trolling?

, but the president is supposed to be above partisanship, be a leader of both the country and the government--not just his own party, etc.

So, those are the ideals you adhere to? Let's see.

Of course that's rarely met, but it's an ideal. There are a lot of ideals, and some people view them differently. Reagan and I think Bush (for instance) always wore formal clothes (suit jacket) in the oval office, afaik.

So how does that meet your ideals? Are you trolling by any chance?

I'm not saying I care one iota about that, but people have very different ideas of what's expected of the president.

You don't care one iota yet, it's not one of your ideals, but are going to mention it. Are you trolling again?

I HAVE heard from even a lot of my liberal friends that at times they have been uncomfortable with some of President Obama's media appearances. ~shrug~

Since we've established that you don't care one iota about that, who would care except a troll?

Since you haven't shown that Obama doesn't adhere to your ideals, what point were you trying to make?

Now, if you weren't trolling - I honestly doubt it but one never knows for sure - then please take the time to read your post again from my perspective and, I'll assume, the perspective of the moderator as well then tell me again why you think your post shouldn't have been modded as such.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sentience
SENTIENCE
1 : a sentient quality or state
2 : feeling or sensation as distinguished from perception and thought

Dog qualifies.

http://oxforddictionaries.com/view/entry/m_en_gb0755520#m_en_gb0755520.005
sentient (sen|tient)
Pronunciation:/sn()nt/
adjective
        * able to perceive or feel things:

Dog qualifies.

hahahahahahahahahahaahaha! Hilarious. Look it up in a real dictionary (one with research staff, linguists, historians, etc) and your dog nor any other animal is sentient by their definition.

Perhaps next time you should look it up before you make an ass of yourself.

Some people are mentally wedded to a certain philosophical overview, and reject technology which use different philosophical overviews a-priori.

Definition of A PRIORI:

1a : deductive
1b : relating to or derived by reasoning from self-evident propositions — compare a posteriori
1c : presupposed by experience

The person you responded to has deduced that there is no merit whatsoever to chiropractic or accupuncture or homeopathy based on his experiences. Others have different experiences, and find value (some a little, some a lot) to these modalities.

Plenty of research has been done on acupuncture. Most of it is positive... But it's easy to be selective about the research one pays attention to...

HTH.

Apathy is the term reserved usually to more general behavior - to many aspects of life, not towards a particular subject. That's highly unusual usage from you.

Look, normally I don't attack those who clearly have learned English as a second language (given I'm a monolinguistic, myself, I prefer not to throw stones from my glass house), but in this case, I must correct you. Apathy is defined as.

2 : lack of interest or concern : indifference

Example:

"People have shown surprising apathy toward these important social problems."

Source.

Yes, "apathy" can describe an overall personality trait or behaviour, but it is more often used to describe an attitude toward something specific. In this case, your apathy toward the prejudice and hatred directed at American muslims, frankly, saddens and disturbs me.

You have to be consistent here and assume that if we accept that the tribulation is from God then surely we know that it's "continuation" is "ensured" by God too.

Ah, I see, so you surrender your free will to god. You presume that, because god places this difficulty before you, you should not challenge it or fight against it.

Sounds like a pretty shitty attitude to me.

It seems like, if god was placing an obstacle before you, it would be for the purpose of encouraging your growth by forcing you to overcome it. But no, apparently you would rather just bow down beneath the weight of your difficulties. Nice. How very noble of you.

It's been a word since 1970, longer than I have been alive by almost a decade. link

Ignoring the additional action then, I'd argue that knowledge alone of our actions before we do them would constitute an implication or illusion of free will, not actual free will.

Complete knowledge of our actions would mean nothing we do could change the outcome, because every adjustment we eventually make would have already been known of. This directly contradicts the definition of free will.

This brings the conversation to the illusion of free will vs actual free will, for whatever that's worth.

Perhaps He can see the candle burning from both ends... but He can also see all the candles.

On the other hand, supplements will only be helpful if someone has a deficiency of something in the first place.

The Daily Recommended Intake of a nutrient is the average amount that prevents a disease of deficiency. According to the guidelines, an average human needs 60 mg/day of Vitamin C to prevent scurvy.

But there is also a compelling argument that human bodies benefit from substantially more than the minimum intake. 2x Nobel Laureate Linus Pauling advocated megadoses of vitamin C to treat cancer, for example. The reasoning is that almost every other mammal synthesizes its own Vitamin C. Humans can't do this due to a genetic problem. If a human synthesized as much Vitamin C as a gorilla, the comparable figure would be on the order of 1000+ mg/day.

60mg vs 1000+ is a substantial difference. Other vitamins, minerals, amino acids, organic acids, and fats are therapetuic too. Omega 3's are commonly advised (but NOT commonly consumed). Vitamin B6 also comes to mind. A lot of research has been done about therapeutic uses of long-chain carbohydrates (polysaccharides, or "sugars that heal"), amino acids, etc.

Like I said earlier, the approach to healthcare used in the western world is more about concentrating wealth than maximizing health. I found Pearson & Shaw's life extension book (at a thrift store benefiting AIDS research - oh the irony :) in 2000 or 2001. It's a tome of information - several inches thick, iirc. They use everything - diet, supplements, prescription drugs - as long as there's a good rationale for doing so.

Rationale - lol. I just looked it up:

1: an explanation of controlling principles of opinion, belief, practice, or phenomena
2: an underlying reason

IMHO, treating "high blood pressure" with a pill that takes the blood pressure away ignores entirely the "underlying reason" the high blood pressure exists. Sure, sometimes you can't address the reason directly, but it seems to me that modern medicine doesn't even care about causes. Do you disagree? Please be specific. :)

Ignoring the additional action then, I'd argue that knowledge alone of our actions before we do them would constitute an implication or illusion of free will, not actual free will.

Complete knowledge of our actions would mean nothing we do could change the outcome, because every adjustment we eventually make would have already been known of. This directly contradicts the definition of free will.

This brings the conversation to the illusion of free will vs actual free will, for whatever that's worth.

That seems somewhat silly, and I actually think you're wrong about the semantics.

What a coincidence, I think you are (very) wrong about the semantics!

What does "America" mean?

From the New Oxford American (oh the irony!) Dictionary (emphasis mine):

America (also the Americas):
a landmass in the western hemisphere that consists of the continents of North and South America joined by the Isthmus of Panama. The continent was originally inhabited by American Indians and Inuits. The northeast coastline of North America was visited by Norse seamen in the 8th or 9th century, but for the modern world the continent was first reached by Christopher Columbus in 1492.
used as a name for the United States.

Note that the definition of the landmass precedes the definition of the USA. Similar precedence will be found also in Wikipedia, Merriam-Webster, and most other authoritative sources (admittedly not all, although all will acknowledge both meanings).

The most obvious answer (and ignoring the handful of towns around the world named America) is that it's an abbreviated form of "The United States of America."

Not obvious at all since the term America precedes the existence of the USA by over 270 years. In Waldssemuller's map the label "America" is well entrenched in the South American part of the generally unexplored territory (hint: third row, first column, near the top), and there was a reason for that (hint: first row, third column, right at the top: the guy who charted the South American coast but never visited North America). Even in much more modern maps that do include most of the territories the label America is placed next to South America (but probably only for layout reasons).

Of course, in the 1770's the people of a very small percentage of America gained independence and decided to call that small strip of land "The United States of America", a name as brain dead as calling a very small country in the middle of Africa "The Central African Republic".

Why is it brain dead? Because now Central African refers to either someone from that country, or from any other of the adjacent countries that by some criteria are located in the center of Africa. In fact, the case of the USA is even worse, as the new "America" wasn't even close to being near the center of the old America.

To what else could it possibly refer? [...] Likewise, if you're referring to both continents it doesn't make sense, because they -- the landmass as a whole -- is referred to as the Americas (pl).

The term "The Americas" was introduced into the English language precisely because of the conflict with the use of "America" to refer to the country.

It's possible that in a historical sense "America" (s) could be used to refer to the entire landmass, but this is most certainly not a modern usage. Deprecated!

Nope. As I showed you that definition of "America" is not only historical, but still in use. The fact that many Canadians and pretty much anyone from the rest of "The Americas" consider themselves "American" should clue you that the revisionist definition for the word is actually held by the minority worldwide.

So, if you were a Canadian it would make perfect sense to say you were either from North America or from the Americas. Neither statement is particularly useful nor descriptive but they would be accurate.

So when a German says he's fro

TFA doesn't have the word "secretly" in the headline -- that is the work of the Slashdot submitter. Your hatred is misplaced, unless you consider web sites that post summaries of actual journalism to be journalism.

From Merriam Webster:

Definition of JOURNALISM
1 a : the collection and editing of news for presentation through the media

GP did not target TFA specifically, it's obvious he meant the headline of TFS. Now is that really Journalism? Go ask a true Scottsman.

I hate emos about twice as much as they hate themselves.

LOL.