Slashdot Mirror

It is a homophobic law because it was a law that discriminted against homosexuality, even in private.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_turing#Conviction_for_gross_indecency

IANAL (no pun intended), but I don't think it is related to anal sex in particular but "gross indecency" between males:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_Law_Amendment_Act_1885#Section_11

Finally, about the word "homophobia". A word's meaning goes beyond its etymology. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/homophobia

Fail!

Flammable and inflammable mean the same thing.

It's spelled oversight.

First off, the fourth amendment border search exemption does not include correspondence, and only applies to people or cargo coming into the country, which was the reason for my pretzel logic comment.

It was the same people who wrote the constitution and signed or ratified it who did this. It isn't just one administration or one iteration of a court, it's something that has been here since the very first year our country has existed and used by all administrations since Washington.

I call BS. I think you pulled that out of your ass. Specifically established exceptions to the 4th amendment did not enter into law until the Rehnquist court. Please cite specifically any other legislation or rulings that establish exceptions. I'm thinking you can't.

The closest thing I can find to even come close to backing your claims is this:

Title 19 U.S.C. 482 and implementing postal regulations authorize customs officials to inspect incoming international mail when they have a "reasonable cause to suspect" that the mail contains illegally imported merchandise, although the regulations prohibit the reading of correspondence absent a search warrant.

This was even written by Rehnquist.

The constitution doesn't contain the word regulate. It contains the word regulated and in the DC gun control case, the ruling referenced that specific definition several times. I do not understand why you haven't even read the ruling yet think you are intelligent enough to make blatantly false statements about it which was contained in the ruling. Perhaps if you hang around ignorant people, you can appear smart stating your falsehoods, but we all have at least an Average intelligence here and you will be called on it.

FYI, the word regulated is the inflected form of regulate.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/regulated

When it comes to the DC gun case, Justice Stephens pretty much tore the ruling opinion apart with his dissenting opinion. Remember, this was a contested ruling. The right wing activists won 5-4.

He states things most eloquently:
"The preamble to the Second Amendment makes three important points. It identifies the preservation of the militia as the Amendmentâ(TM)s purpose; it explains that the militia is necessary to the security of a free State; and it recognizes that the militia must be âoewell regulated.â In all three respects it is comparable to provisions in several State Declarations of Rights that were adopted roughly contemporaneously with the Declaration of Independence.5 Those state provisions highlight the importance members of the founding generation attached to the maintenance of state militias; they also underscore the profound fear shared by many in that era of the dangers posed by standing armies.6 While the need for state militias has not been a matter of significant public interest for almost two centuries, that fact should not obscure the contemporary concerns that animated the Framers."

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZD.html

At the very least, no matter how much you say you think you know about civics and the law, I'm going to take a supreme court justices word over yours every time.

The bottom line is that Obama's only significant action concerning gun control up to now was to expand your rights.

I admit that statement was wrong. I definitely screwed the pooch on that one. I meant to say:

The bottom line is that Obama's only significant action as president concerning gun control up to now was to expand your rights.

I know history, civics and simply paying attention is not your strong point. But in this case, you really need to apply a smidgen of effort because even though you feel the need to support you positions with insults instead of facts,

Yes, I agree: the fear surrounding Three Mile Island is based more on Hollywood than physics. The article makes at least one other mistake:

Many scientists and environmentalists still distrust nuclear power in any form, arguing that it can never escape its cost, safety and waste problems.

How is that a mistake? Let's borrow from m-w.com for a minute, and let's select definition number one.

it's not true that many scientists oppose nuclear power.

Now, for the preceding statement to be true, the number of scientists that make up 27% of the population must fall short of the (admittedly loose) definition of many. Assuming the Pew Research Center uses decent polling methods, and pulling our numbers for the number of scientists in the USA (2,157,300) from the National Science Foundation, your statement equates to the following:

582,471 does not constitute "many."

Interesting hypothesis.

Did you ever wonder what "teen" means? Well, it just means ten, as it looks.

Um, no.

There's several usages for the word cult. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cult

One is, indeed: "a religion regarded as unorthodox or spurious; also : its body of adherents"

One is also: "a system of religious beliefs and ritual; also : its body of adherents"

Any system of belief, or religion, is a cult by definition. Whether or not it is the brainwashing, kool-aid drinking type, is based on it's individual merits (or psychosis).

Your comparison between a word that has existed independent of its proper-noun root for over 200 years, and using a racial stereotype to insult someone is absurd. See the distinction (if one exists in your mind) between racial and racist for further perspective.

Piracy is downloading and playing a game that is sold in stores without purchasing the game or any other software in question.

Webster disagrees: "3 a : the unauthorized use of another's production, invention, or conception especially in infringement of a copyright". But at this point, the discussion has fulfilled Layne's Law, and we can agree to disagree.

Excellent points. I'm not sure why you got modded down. I did, however, want to point out that when I said 'cheapening', I meant less value for the same amount of money. I think you took it to mean inexpensive, as in costing less money for the same amount of value.

See http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cheap

I meant definition 3a, not 1a.

Infamous

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

"He's so famous, he's in famous!" -- Three Amigos

Infamous

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Slander? Talking point?

Dude, in case you missed it, petroleum imports are a significant part of our trade imbalance, contributing to the movement of lots of capital offshore. That's not a "slander", it's a whole fucking shitload of our money.

On the use of military power to protect access to energy, again there are lots and lots of real asshole leaders in the world, constantly threatening their neighbors. But the only one the U.S. got all military with, was Iraq. Twice.

In 1952-1953, the U.S. helped Britain overthrow the elected leadership of Iran, mostly because they were getting uppity and nationalizing their oil. This isn't slander, it's a whole pissed-off country because the U.S. and Britain were fucking around with their society. For oil.

This was a slashdot comment. On word usage big guy, I cite definition 3 from a common online dictionary.

Energy research management is being managed with such monumental incompetence that somebody has to step in. Here is a quote from the preamble of the U.S. Constitution (citation): ... promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity....

The whole purpose of "the government" is to be instrumental in preserving our national security. Economic security counts too, and this society has been woefully inadequate in preparing for the days when petroleum either gets expensive or becomes a weapon of economic dominance.

Forget the flowery language. It's real goddamned simple: This country has blown a shitload of our capital and our international reputation to preserve access to petroleum resources. It's time to regain control of our own destiny by developing our own energy resources. The research that would have made this a much less painful process could have been done decades ago.

And your response is a perfect example of what I mean when I talk about entrenched interests screaming "socialism" to prevent us from coming to a broad consensus to prepare for conditions that will occur sooner or later.

For example, I cite the power of extractive and fossil energy interests in discouraging broad funding of research in distributed and/or alternative energy sources over the last 40 years.

Also, you don't seem to understand the meaning of the word "cite". ... When you "cite" something, usually it means you're going to provide a reference of some kind.

Let me introduce you to the concept of eloquence (2nd half of def 2). Very few pedants have any hope of eloquence. That said, GP did a nice job creatively making his point while using the word "cite" in a pedantically pure manner (see def 4). You simply are not fully aware of what "cite" means.

As for this post -- I'm being pedantic myself so do not look for it to be interesting or eloquent. This post is snarky -- something we have enough of in the world as it is, but I am posting it anyway because I don't have mod points to mod GP up ... he's at +5 anyway.

For example, I cite the power of extractive and fossil energy interests in discouraging broad funding of research in distributed and/or alternative energy sources over the last 40 years.

Also, you don't seem to understand the meaning of the word "cite". ... When you "cite" something, usually it means you're going to provide a reference of some kind.

Let me introduce you to the concept of eloquence (2nd half of def 2). Very few pedants have any hope of eloquence. That said, GP did a nice job creatively making his point while using the word "cite" in a pedantically pure manner (see def 4). You simply are not fully aware of what "cite" means.

As for this post -- I'm being pedantic myself so do not look for it to be interesting or eloquent. This post is snarky -- something we have enough of in the world as it is, but I am posting it anyway because I don't have mod points to mod GP up ... he's at +5 anyway.

Not that I'm defending Paris Hilton (I don't really care about her one way or the other), but since that's exactly how the word "heiress" is defined, she qualifies.

Whether or not she's an especially nice or admirable person is debatable, but this has absolutely no bearing her status as an heiress.

He should only have one right, the other would be left.

amen Not always used in a religious context, you impudent twerp.

4 : a person who illegally gains access to and sometimes tampers with information in a computer system

Just because something started out as a mistake, doesn't make it incorrect now. Try taking a look at the dictionary definition of "nauseous," as I would guess you would be one of those people who say that "I feel nauseous" is incorrect, while "I feel nauseated" is the only correct way to convey the feeling. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nauseous

Those who insist that nauseous can properly be used only in sense 1 and that in sense 2 it is an error for nauseated are mistaken. Current evidence shows these facts: nauseous is most frequently used to mean physically affected with nausea, usually after a linking verb such as feel or become; figurative use is quite a bit less frequent. Use of nauseous in sense 1 is much more often figurative than literal, and this use appears to be losing ground to nauseating. Nauseated is used more widely than nauseous in sense 2.

Note how 'the most frequently used' definition becomes the correct one? Language changes, and sometimes people just make honest word/grammar mistakes. Get used to it.

4 : a person who illegally gains access to and sometimes tampers with information in a computer system

Just because something started out as a mistake, doesn't make it incorrect now. Try taking a look at the dictionary definition of "nauseous," as I would guess you would be one of those people who say that "I feel nauseous" is incorrect, while "I feel nauseated" is the only correct way to convey the feeling. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nauseous

Those who insist that nauseous can properly be used only in sense 1 and that in sense 2 it is an error for nauseated are mistaken. Current evidence shows these facts: nauseous is most frequently used to mean physically affected with nausea, usually after a linking verb such as feel or become; figurative use is quite a bit less frequent. Use of nauseous in sense 1 is much more often figurative than literal, and this use appears to be losing ground to nauseating. Nauseated is used more widely than nauseous in sense 2.

Note how 'the most frequently used' definition becomes the correct one? Language changes, and sometimes people just make honest word/grammar mistakes. Get used to it.

By the way asswipe, if you are going to call me a cretin then you should hyphenate "feeble-minded" otherwise your insults about spelling don't mean anything but you do prove who the real cretin is.

Holy hell. How can a single person fail so hard?

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

While hard drive is a technical term lag is not. At least, not yet. And even in hardware, I would would describe it as layer agnostic.

In the old days, I hooked my PS1 up to a TV tuner. There was a ~500 ms lag between the sound/controls and what I saw on the screen due to the hardware/driver layer it went through. The term lag is also used in film to describe when sound/video aren't synced.

I think lag being an agnostic term describing a temporal disconnect between the controls and reaction on the screen. There's also the term "lag spike" for when you temporarily lose control of the game.

Whether the cause is sudden increase in network latency, packet loss, or your graphics card overheating is irrelevant for the usage of the term (but you can't find the cure without describing the symptoms.)

To a very high degree of correlation, the 'poor' aren't living in poverty because of a lack of money.

Really? Isn't the very definition of poverty based on having a lack of money?

: the state of one who lacks a usual or socially acceptable amount of money or material possessions

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

They lack money because they have make poor lifestyle decisions that RESULT in a lack of money. Things like failure to get an education (or worse reject the value of knowledge entirely), become a single parent, waste money on substance abuse or Xbox... but I repeat myself.

Or they (or a family member) get sick and have their life savings drained in order to pay the bills. Or they get into some sort of accident and get permanently disabled so they can no longer work. Or they have a mental condition that doesn't manifest till later in life so they lose their job and house and become homeless. Seriously, there are tons of different reasons that people become poor that have nothing to do with buying too many Xboxes.

Trying to be a know it all works better if you actually know it all.

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

At least not for the last 433 years.

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

* Main Entry: flaunt
        * Pronunciation: \flont, flänt\
        * Function: verb
        * Etymology: perhaps of Scandinavian origin; akin to Old Norse flana to rush around
        * Date: 1566

intransitive verb
1 : to display or obtrude oneself to public notice (a great flaunting crowd -- Charles Dickens)
2 : to wave or flutter showily (the flag flaunts in the breeze)

transitive verb
1 : to display ostentatiously or impudently : parade (flaunting his superiority)
2 : to treat contemptuously (flaunted the rules -- Louis Untermeyer)
synonyms

-- flaunt noun

-- flauntingly \flon-ti-l, flän-\ adverb

-- flaunty \-t\ adjective

usage
Although transitive sense 2 of flaunt undoubtedly arose from confusion with flout, the contexts in which it appears cannot be called substandard
(meting out punishment to the occasional mavericks who operate rigged games, tolerate rowdyism, or otherwise flaunt the law -- Oscar Lewis)
(observed with horror the flaunting of their authority in the suburbs, where men...put up buildings that had no place at all in a Christian commonwealth -- Marchette Chute)
(in our profession...very rarely do we publicly chastise a colleague who has flaunted our most basic principles -- R. T. Blackburn, AAUP Bulletin).

If you use it, however, you should be aware that many people will consider it a mistake.
Use of flout in the sense of flaunt 1 is found occasionally
("The proper pronunciation," the blonde said, flouting her refined upbringing, "is pree feeks" -- Mike Royko).

Gullible has been removed from the dictionary too.

And for you, dear sir, there is this

An engine made out of silver? Or just a generally excellent one? Ah, a Stirling engine.

More quality editing from Slashdot...

I was debating delving into a multi-point counter argument picking apart your grammatical fanaticism; however, I suspect that would only "delight" you further.
Yet one point stands above all else; for all intents and purposes neither you nor I know where the parent hails from. Whose to say where he/she lives there aren't different grammar rules than what you personally have determined in your head to be the be-all and end-all of grammar? Surely you aren't suggesting that the poster, I, or anyone else for that matter, engaged in a conversation, should always and forever use grammar that you personally like just in case you were to stumble across the conversation without regard towards the grammar that may be "correct" in our respective locals?

Your feelings of entitlement towards reading everything in a way thats most comfortable for you are unjustified and to be honest, excessive. Now, I'm sure theres a word for that; something that means "making unjustified or excessive claims or expressing an exaggerated worth or importance." Oh wait, here it is: pretentious

Um...

What's the past tense of 'loose'?

Funnily enough, the past tense of loose is loosed.
That said, the parent probably intended to use 'lose' instead. Bravo for pointing that out.

I suppose you meant this:

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

and not this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viola

I don't know how many times I have to explain it, but your character on World of Warcraft is not a cartoon. It's a character.

*sigh* And what's one of the definitions of "cartoon"? "3 : animated cartoon"[1]: "A motion picture that is made from a series of drawings, computer graphics, or photographs of inanimate objects (as puppets) and that simulates movement by slight progressive changes in each frame." [2]

Video games are a type of animation. A character or avatar in a video game can very much be called a "toon" by it's very definition. Just because you can't get over your association of "toon" with "Looney Toons" doesn't make the slang and term inappropriate. It just makes you look silly trying to claim such.

For further argument, cartoons are also not all of the classic "Looney Toon" style either. Regard many of the computer generated cartoons such as Final Fantasy or the recent Beowulf film. Certainly Cartoons, yet it's far from "Anvil dropping on people heads" fair.

It's your use of the word "toon" that needs to be modernized to the 21st century. I guess it's time for someone "explained" it to you.

I don't know how many times I have to explain it, but your character on World of Warcraft is not a cartoon. It's a character.

*sigh* And what's one of the definitions of "cartoon"? "3 : animated cartoon"[1]: "A motion picture that is made from a series of drawings, computer graphics, or photographs of inanimate objects (as puppets) and that simulates movement by slight progressive changes in each frame." [2]

Video games are a type of animation. A character or avatar in a video game can very much be called a "toon" by it's very definition. Just because you can't get over your association of "toon" with "Looney Toons" doesn't make the slang and term inappropriate. It just makes you look silly trying to claim such.

For further argument, cartoons are also not all of the classic "Looney Toon" style either. Regard many of the computer generated cartoons such as Final Fantasy or the recent Beowulf film. Certainly Cartoons, yet it's far from "Anvil dropping on people heads" fair.

It's your use of the word "toon" that needs to be modernized to the 21st century. I guess it's time for someone "explained" it to you.

Before I get off your lawn, let me leave you with these links. I've heard tell that languages, being intrinsically conventional, are allowed to develop new meanings for words, and sometimes even entirely new words. Of course, maybe languages weren't like that, in your day, so I can understand your anger-at-what-is-different/fear-of-the-unknown.

I suppose you complain that when someone ties a Bow in their hair that they didn't specify if it was a Compound or Reflex? I'm pretty sure they're using the third meaning of decimated.

Censorship
Function: noun
1 a: the institution, system, or practice of censoring b: the actions or practices of censors ; especially : censorial control exercised repressively

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

Censor
Function: transitive verb
to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable ; also : to suppress or delete as objectionable

http://mw1.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/censorship

What part of those definitions require that governments be involved again?

And no, just because it doesn't fit your needlessly restricted definition of censorship doesn't mean that it isn't censorship.

Censorship
Function: noun
1 a: the institution, system, or practice of censoring b: the actions or practices of censors ; especially : censorial control exercised repressively

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

Censor
Function: transitive verb
to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable ; also : to suppress or delete as objectionable

http://mw1.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/censorship

What part of those definitions require that governments be involved again?

And no, just because it doesn't fit your needlessly restricted definition of censorship doesn't mean that it isn't censorship.

Not according to these:

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

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

http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/venereal

If it is, it must be a very obscure reference. I doubt you'd be able to use it and convey the meaning you claimed.

See meaning (2). Even if a lawyer was working pro bono it'd still be unprofessional of him to turn up at court drunk.

I don't think that word means what you think it means. Given the context, I expect "gloating" or "crowing" or "celebrating" would've been a better fit.

Signed,
Your eight-grade English teacher

Main Entry:
        preen
Function:
        verb
Etymology:
        Middle English prenen, alteration of proynen, prunen, from Anglo-French puroindre, proindre, from pur- thoroughly + uindre, oindre to anoint, rub, from Latin unguere -- more at purchase, ointment
Date:
        14th century

transitive verb
...
3: to pride or congratulate (oneself) for achievement

Signed,
Merriam-Webster

How do you know you are reading it correctly when you don't know which letters are supposed to be there?

He knows.

Text messaging rewards speed over precision.

Spell checking is built into Slashdot. The Google toolbar. It's a free add-on for IE.

But reading a Slashdot post you'd never know it.

Perhaps because a spell check would flag too many of the geek's favorite neologisms like "M$ -" and wouldn't that be a crime?
   

Among different definitions, it does mean "having or marked by foresight and imagination."

And even if it didn't, common usage can change words' meanings, regardless of the dictionary. Because "gay" still means "happy," right? Right.

Words have meanings.

Indeed they do, and I direct your eyeballs to definition 1b.

Or, heck, this.

if you can't even spell "vette", I don't hold out much hope for your execution skills.

Is that a joke that's going over my head?

Merriam-Webster seems to have no idea what the fuck "vette" is.

On the other hand, Merriam-Webster does agree with his use of the word "Vet"

In other words: you're a moron. If you're not even smart enough to look stuff up before mouthing off, you shouldn't be giving advice.

if you can't even spell "vette", I don't hold out much hope for your execution skills.

Is that a joke that's going over my head?

Merriam-Webster seems to have no idea what the fuck "vette" is.

On the other hand, Merriam-Webster does agree with his use of the word "Vet"

In other words: you're a moron. If you're not even smart enough to look stuff up before mouthing off, you shouldn't be giving advice.

Whatever researchers may use it to mean, the majority of people will probably be inclined to use the dictionary definition, and the most common one, if you don't clarify:

1 a: capable of being seen <stars visible to the naked eye> b: situated in the region of the electromagnetic spectrum perceptible to human vision < visible light>

Wait. You're telling me that the majority of people will use definition 1a, and only 1a, without even considering 1b, even though 1b specifically and directly refers to the exact phrase being used -- "visible light"?

You're telling me that the majority of English speaking people do not ever consider the multiple definitions that nearly every word in our language has, and choose based on contextual clues what the most likely intended meaning is? I don't buy that for a second. You know why? Because just now, without even thinking about it, you automatically processed the word "buy" and based on the contextual clues chose meaning number 5.

This has nothing to do with people choosing the first definition from a dictionary as opposed to the second, because nobody was looking in a dictionary. This has to do with people not knowing a scientific term so common and non-obscure it's definition 1b in said dictionary.

So basically, if you mean "light in the visible spectrum", just say that. "Visible light" will be interpreted by most people according to the 1a definition of "visible", not the 1b definition. It comes first because it's common...

Okay, once again I'm surprised, and again I admit it must just be the fault of my perception.

I would never have guessed that people who have no idea what "visible light" means would find the phrase "light in the visible spectrum", or even just "spectrum" meaningful. I wouldn't have thought those people even knew that the stuff outside the visible spectrum was light. So you're telling me that people know that the colors in a rainbow and X-rays and radio waves are all the same thing, they're all light, but at the same time have no idea what "visible light" could mean? I really never would have expected that.

I guess this illustrates one of the difficulties of writing about technical material for a layman audience -- remembering what it was like to be a layman, and thus what a layman would understand, when that could have been a long time ago. As far as I can remember, I learned about the EM radiation spectrum that includes X-rays, radio waves, infrared, and the light our eyes are sensitive to along with the phrase "visible light" to describe the latter section of the spectrum in a single class session in high school physics. So it would never have occurred to me that you could expect your audience to know one and not the other.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/thru its an informal variant of through.

What you're not seeing is Google's strategic intent (I work for Google, but this stuff is public).

Google's goal is to commodify (reduce the marginal profit to zero) of everything that they don't make money on.

That isn't what commodify means!

Meriam-Webster definition of commodify:

to turn (as an intrinsic value or a work of art) into a commodity

Meriam-Webster definition of commodity (truncated):

...4: a good or service whose wide availability typically leads to smaller profit margins and diminishes the importance of factors (as brand name) other than price...

Emphasis mine in both cases.

What you're not seeing is Google's strategic intent (I work for Google, but this stuff is public).

Google's goal is to commodify (reduce the marginal profit to zero) of everything that they don't make money on.

That isn't what commodify means!

Meriam-Webster definition of commodify:

to turn (as an intrinsic value or a work of art) into a commodity

Meriam-Webster definition of commodity (truncated):

...4: a good or service whose wide availability typically leads to smaller profit margins and diminishes the importance of factors (as brand name) other than price...

Emphasis mine in both cases.