Slashdot Mirror

http://www.allaboutphilosophy.org/agnostic.htm - "many agnostics are "practical atheists,"".

http://www.allaboutphilosophy.org/atheism.htm - "There are two basic forms of atheism: "strong" atheism and "weak" atheism. Strong atheism is the doctrine that there is no God or gods. Weak atheism is the disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods. Weak atheism is often confused with agnosticism, the lack of belief or disbelief in God or gods, and skepticism, the doctrine that the absolute knowledge of God's existence is unobtainable by mere man."

(And http://www.merriam-webster.com/ only gives your definition under "broadly" - according to them, there is no primary term that can be used for those who simply don't believe in God.)

Several? Oh c'mon, three, tops.

several

2 a: more than one b: more than two but fewer than many

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

Aha, you have faith - the same mechanism for believe in pixies!

Only if you are a moron and don't pay attention to the rest of the statement. The mechanism is not in not believing, but in stating one over the other without any empirical or testable proof. I do not believe is not the same as there is no god or pixies. If you would have kept the comment in context, you would see that I didn't preclude the possibilities of a god or pixies, that I'm just not convinced they are here. That is agnostic and no atheist or apixies and doesn't involve faith at all- it involves not being convinced one way or the opposite. If I was to say either doesn't exist, then I would be reaching with faith because there is no evidence of that. There is only the lack of evidence showing they do and as we know, the lack of something does not prove something.

Well this is the point - few atheists go so far as to "exclude their possibility". Even for those who are strong atheists, they would still admit they'd change their mind if confronted with the evidence. So your point is a straw man, and no better than me jumping to conclusions about you "excluding the possibility of pixies".

Actually, all atheist do go so far as to exclude the possibility. Otherwise they would be agnostic which can easily be defined as in not knowing the existence or nonexistence of either. If they are jumping under a label in order to get in on a fad, then that is on them, not the definitions.

And no, it is not a strawman, it is the difference between two defined terms. You seem to be insisting that an apple should be called an orange just because you have done it in the past or know someone who has. That doesn't make it so, it makes incorrect label or name use. And yes, it is better then you jumping to conclusions over the possibility of pixies because I clearly stated that I wasn't denying their possibility where you ignored the statement and asserted I was. Also you will note that the conversation is about proper labeling because of the differences in terminology that is derived from actions or positions taken. Your jumping to conclusions was nothing more then being an ass in order to perpetuate an incorrect point.

No, that definition is not supported by any dictionary I am aware of.

Then you should get out more. It's within the first paragraph at wikipedia, In the context and spirit of the definition from Merriam Webster, and in philosophy circles.

Agnosticism means a belief that God's existence is unknownable. You can be agnostic and atheist, btw.

Actually, the term goes past a god or gods existences and refers to the ultimate knowledge in any particular subject. It is often used in terms of gods and is so in this conversation. And no, you can't be agnostic and atheist because the act of atheist is a known assertion(there is no god). It removes the unknowable portion of agnostic. How can you hold a position of not knowing something while asserting to know that same something doesn't exist or is untrue? Go ahead, work that out as a logic problem, -2+2=0, you have nothing, it doesn't work. Atheist assert they know, you can't hold a belief of not knowing while asserting you know. It just doesn't work. I'm sorry I shattered your world view and you might not fit into the popular groups anymore but that's just the logic working, not me. If you don't know there is a god well enough to believe in him, but leave the possibility open, you are agnostic. If you deny the existence of a god, you are atheist and making a definite assertion.

I believe that there are no gods because I see no evidence of them and I see no useful reason to assume that there are any.

FAITH 3: something that is believed especially with strong conviction

So apparently faith is not the anti-reasoning. Or else, you wish your foot was made of chocolate.

http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/atheism?view=uk
the belief that God does not exist. :

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/atheism
1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheism
2 a: a disbelief in the existence of deity b: the doctrine that there is no deity

And since you asked the personal question: I self-identified as atheist for decades until I had this debate and lost, discovering that atheism required a belief that an unevidenced god was also impossible.

I don't believe there is a god. I believe there is no evidence for one, and the flying-spaghetti monster is just as likely as there to be any god at all. I will be shocked if one exists.

But I can't prove a negative, and I would be believing without evidence (appealing to ignorance) to Believe there wasn't one rather than simply not believe there was.

examine the wording

atheist
"noun: one who believes that there is no deity" (Merriam-Webster)

atheism "can be either the rejection of theism, or the position that deities do not exist." (Wikipedia)

atheist
"1571, from Fr. atheiste (16c.), from Gk. atheos "to deny the gods, godless," from a- "without" + theos "a god" (see Thea)." (Online Etymology Dictionary)

atheism
"derived from the Greek word atheos, using the Greek prefix a- (an- not, without) ... derived from the Greek word theos (a deity...)" (MyEtymology)

etc.

Quit it, it's ought. Ought means zero as well as naught, but to abbreviate a year, you would say ought, not naught. Gawd look what you made me write.

"Aught" and "naught" both mean zero, and either are acceptable in any context. "Ought" implies an obligation. Using "ought" as a variant of "aught" is archaic.

Quit it, it's ought. Ought means zero as well as naught, but to abbreviate a year, you would say ought, not naught. Gawd look what you made me write.

"Aught" and "naught" both mean zero, and either are acceptable in any context. "Ought" implies an obligation. Using "ought" as a variant of "aught" is archaic.

Quit it, it's ought. Ought means zero as well as naught, but to abbreviate a year, you would say ought, not naught. Gawd look what you made me write.

"Aught" and "naught" both mean zero, and either are acceptable in any context. "Ought" implies an obligation. Using "ought" as a variant of "aught" is archaic.

Quit it, it's ought. Ought means zero as well as naught, but to abbreviate a year, you would say ought, not naught. Gawd look what you made me write.

"Aught" and "naught" both mean zero, and either are acceptable in any context. "Ought" implies an obligation. Using "ought" as a variant of "aught" is archaic.

That your sample is skewed towards mediocrity?

Any balanced sample of the population would be skewed towards mediocrity, that's kind of what mediocre means.

(sorry for being prissy and didactic but I can honestly say you started it)

look here:

http://dictionary.reference.com/dic?q=mediocre

1. of only ordinary or moderate quality; neither good nor bad; barely adequate.
2. rather poor or inferior.

Also look here:

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

  "of moderate or low quality, value, ability, or performance : ordinary, so-so "

    Despite the etymology involving the root "med", the generally accepted usage of the word "mediocre" in fact tends towards "inferior" rather than "mean" or "average".

See subject-line above, & this data:

http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:7u5zusUtjUIJ:https://thesource.ofallevil.com/presspass/events/novlaunch/events.mspx+%2299.999%22+and+%22NASDAQ%22+and+%22Ken+Richmond%22&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

NASDAQ

Spokesperson: Ken Richmond, Vice President of Software Engineering

Situation:

Largest U.S. electronic stock market
Replacing aging Tandem systems
Wanted to update system for real-time trade summary, risk management and broker clearing

Solution:

MDDS: Market Data Dissemination System (composed of Windows Server 2003 + SQLServer 2005)
5K txs/second, 100K queries/day
Running on SQL Server 2005 with database mirroring for high availability

Benefits:

Enterprise availability
Scalability to handle 8 million new rows of data per day
Lower total cost of ownership
Real-time reporting
Developer agility

KEYWORD, LISTED AS A BENEFIT NO LESS, is "Enterprise Availability", by Ken Richmond of NASDAQ no less (who also was quoted as saying Windows Server 2003 + SQLServer 2005 did the job for NASDAQ PERFECTLY) here:

WIKIPEDIA "HIGH AVAILABILITY" DEFINITION PAGE (which lists 99.999% no less) -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_availability [wikipedia.org] [wikipedia.org]

Need more?

"ENTERPRISE AVAILABILITY"/"HIGH AVAILABILITY" definitions (from various sources):

"for the high availability enterprise servers (99.999% availability)" -> http://www.linkedin.com/pub/omar-gadir/8/162/219

"Device techniques for high availability For years, enterprise network equipment providers strived to deliver 99.999% availability which is the standard major telecommunications companies deliver. This type of reliability is desirable and it s expected when it comes to phone service. If enterprise networks are to support IP phones, they too must deliver similar availability" -> http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:kMTHFHnbIpwJ:www.alcatel-lucentbusinessportal.com/support/includes/doclink.cfm%3Fid%3D7369+%22Enterprise+Availability%22+and+%2299.999%25%22&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

----

"We saw an early demonstration of Snapshot Isolation and knew this was the solution we needed to run queries against real-time data without slowing the delivery of trading data. It has worked perfectly for us" - Ken Richmond, vice president for software engineering, market information systems at NASDAQ.

FROM -> http://www.microsoft.com/casestudies/Case_Study_Detail.aspx?CaseStudyID=49271 [microsoft.com]

As far as the word "PERFECT"?

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

perfect

Main Entry:

1perfect

1 a: being entirely without fault or defect

----

The terms PERFECTLY and ENTERPRISE AVAILABILITY? They BOTH equate to 99.999% uptime (the "Fabled '5-9's'" , of uptime)... period!

APK

P.S.=> Enjoy... the proof's all here, as well as in my other postings on this subject, & completely legitimate + verifiable... apk

See subject-line above, & this data:

http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:7u5zusUtjUIJ:https://thesource.ofallevil.com/presspass/events/novlaunch/events.mspx+%2299.999%22+and+%22NASDAQ%22+and+%22Ken+Richmond%22&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

NASDAQ

Spokesperson: Ken Richmond, Vice President of Software Engineering
Situation:

Largest U.S. electronic stock market
Replacing aging Tandem systems
Wanted to update system for real-time trade summary, risk management and broker clearing

Solution:

MDDS: Market Data Dissemination System
5K txs/second, 100K queries/day
Running on SQL Server 2005 with database mirroring for high availability

Benefits:

Enterprise availability
Scalability to handle 8 million new rows of data per day
Lower total cost of ownership
Real-time reporting
Developer agility

KEYWORD, LISTED AS A BENEFIT NO LESS, is "Enterprise Availability", by Ken Richmond of NASDAQ no less (who also was quoted as saying Windows Server 2003 + SQLServer 2005 did the job for NASDAQ PERFECTLY) here:

WIKIPEDIA "HIGH AVAILABILITY" DEFINITION PAGE (which lists 99.999% no less) -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_availability [wikipedia.org]

Need more?

"ENTERPRISE AVAILABILITY"/"HIGH AVAILABILITY" definitions (from various sources):

"for the high availability enterprise servers (99.999% availability)" -> http://www.linkedin.com/pub/omar-gadir/8/162/219

"Device techniques for high availability For years, enterprise network equipment providers strived to deliver 99.999% availability which is the standard major telecommunications companies deliver. This type of reliability is desirable and it s expected when it comes to phone service. If enterprise networks are to support IP phones, they too must deliver similar availability" -> http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:kMTHFHnbIpwJ:www.alcatel-lucentbusinessportal.com/support/includes/doclink.cfm%3Fid%3D7369+%22Enterprise+Availability%22+and+%2299.999%25%22&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

----

"We saw an early demonstration of Snapshot Isolation and knew this was the solution we needed to run queries against real-time data without slowing the delivery of trading data. It has worked perfectly for us" - Ken Richmond, vice president for software engineering, market information systems at NASDAQ.

FROM -> http://www.microsoft.com/casestudies/Case_Study_Detail.aspx?CaseStudyID=49271

As far as the word "PERFECT"?

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

perfect

Main Entry:

1perfect

1 a: being entirely without fault or defect

----

The terms PERFECTLY and ENTERPRISE AVAILABILITY? They BOTH equate to 99.999% (the "Fabled '5-9's'" , of uptime)... period!

APK

P.S.=> Enoy... the proof's all here, as well as in my other postings on this subject, & completely legitimate + verifiable... apk

-i think the two of -us differ in opinion. Look it up, it's viruses.

"You see - in real enterprise environments, we use quantifiable numbers as metrics." - by _Sprocket_ (42527) on Friday July 03, @11:40PM (#28577479)

I think the guy I quoted below, Ken Richmond, vice president for software engineering, market information systems at NASDAQ, is in a "real enterprise environment" that probably dwarves whatever you're on in terms of transactions per minute @ the very least...

----

"It also highlights the fact that you're desperate to find something to replace the 5 9's quote that has failed to support your argument" - by _Sprocket_ (42527) on Friday July 03, @11:40PM (#28577479)

Last time I checked, per Merriam Webster's dictionary above? PERFECT = without flaw, flawless etc. et al (That's 100%, & that is greater than 99.999%)

----

"But please, don't let that shake you from your delusions" - by _Sprocket_ (42527) on Friday July 03, @11:40PM (#28577479)

Don't let the guy I quote below, Ken Richmond, vice president for software engineering, market information systems at NASDAQ, shake you from yours via his testimonial, that only supports what I wrote, as perfect IS PERFECT...

(Personally, I think you are just another "Pro-*NIX" penguin waddling after me now, lol, chanting to yourself "We HaTe WiNdOwS..." who can't handle the fact that Windows Server 2003 is doing a great job @ NASDAQ!)

APK

P.S.=> For your re-reference:

"We saw an early demonstration of Snapshot Isolation and knew this was the solution we needed to run queries against real-time data without slowing the delivery of trading data. It has worked perfectly for us" - Ken Richmond, vice president for software engineering, market information systems at NASDAQ

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

perfect

Main Entry:

1perfect

1 a: being entirely without fault or defect

(Even to the point of saving money for NASDAQ no less...)

APK

P.S.=> I see NASDAQTRADER calling it less than pefect @ 99.999%, but I see the folks @NASDAQ who built & use it say it's perfect... 100% perfect. I guess THAT doesn't mean 99.999% uptime? NOT! apk

See my subject-line above & this quote "We saw an early demonstration of Snapshot Isolation and knew this was the solution we needed to run queries against real-time data without slowing the delivery of trading data. It has worked perfectly for us" - Ken Richmond, vice president for software engineering, market information systems at NASDAQ

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

perfect

Main Entry:

1perfect

1 a: being entirely without fault or defect

APK

P.S.=> I see NASDAQTRADER calling it less than pefect @ 99.999%, but I see the folks @NASDAQ who built & use it say it's perfect... 100% perfect. I guess THAT doesn't mean 99.999% uptime? NOT! apk

You mean those fancy clubs that would never allow Cretans like us to bask in the glowing light of their intellectual presence?

Oh, you're from Crete? I'm not, so I suppose I must be allowed into the fancy clubs... :-)

I think the word you're probably looking for is "cretin", i.e. "a stupid, vulgar, or insensitive person : clod, lout" (Merriam-Webster). "Cretan", properly capitalized to boot as it is in your comment, means "someone from Crete".

But if you are indeed a Cretan, then I suppose I must be a cretin. Doh!

Cheers,

Since the coining of the term predates Looney Tunes, I suspect it has little to do with the way Taz moves.

"ALSO says no to web browsing?" I got that right? Absolutely no intent to misrepresent for the purposes of arguing the man, not the message?

Yes. The reason I worded it like that is because of the title of this article.

Well, maybe that is what you meant. But the moderators don't seem think so any more than I do.

Well, right now I'm looking at a +5 Interesting, so at least some of them agree with me.

And, no he absolutely does not "quite literally says no" - the link you posted did not have him saying "no" at all, just explaining that he uses another method on a system other than his computer.

Hm, let me get this straight... A few posts above, you compare me to George Bush for pointing out the fact that I didn't actually attack/insult RMS, and now you're the one whose splitting hairs with language? The post I linked has Stallman saying "...I do not browse the web..."; if someone said to you "I don't smoke pot", it would be fair to say that that person "says no to pot."

Look up the word literal, and you will find my usage perfectly acceptable. But you're probably one of those people who goes around whining that "the U.S. is a republic, not a democracy." I've wasted way too much time responding to you, though, so don't expect any more replies. If you want to try and substantiate your conspiracy theory, you're free to read through my other posts in this thread, and my comment history on /. Good luck.

Is it really to much to ask them not to kill their own citizens in the streets and abduct them from their homes for torture & potential death?

Short Answer: Yes.

Long Answer: If you have to ask the above question then I suggest you re-read the definition of "Tyranny" http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/tyranny.

I suspect that your original question was rhetorical, but look at the bright side. At least there are reports of arrests of Mousavi and Co. rather than just disappearances (although I'm sure those are happening also).

The sad truth is that in most of the rest of the world, revolution is the only effective means for a change of government. The advantage of Democracy (so far at least) as practiced in places like the U.S. is that it allows for changes in government to take place without the nasty "war-like" side effect that most revolutions entail. The down side is that changes are USUALLY slower to take place.

I hope that:

1) Iran transitions into a government that truly reflects the wishes of its people without bloodshed (alright, that moment is past. Without the need for FURTHER bloodshed).
2) The wishes of its people are for a government that will interact with the rest of the world in the tolerant and open fashion that the rest of the world has come to expect from most modern countries.

Right, you intentionally used an archaic word that nobody uses in that sense and which only definition comes from the Webster of 1913 and that most dictionaries don't even list. Even the Meriam-Webster doesn't list it anymore. Not to mention that the definition you found doesn't make any sense for the word in the sentence you said.

Good trolling, but here's what really happened : http://lol.i.trollyou.com/LOL-I-TROLL-YOU.png

Or to put it into words, you said idiocracy when you meant idiocy because of the movie, I laughed at you, so you went looking for a rare and obscure definition that would make you look less like a moron, you had a good laugh thinking you'd get away with it. Yeah, nice try, honestly, but you're still the moron who confuses such a common word as idiocy with a neologism from a movie.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nerd an unstylish, unattractive, or socially inept person So, as you see a nerd cannot be one of the "cool" kids. So, try again.

Obscure may not mean what you think it means. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/obscure 2: not readily understood or clearly expressed. Computers, Science (In general), D&D, all these are not readily understood, unless you are in the proper setting, like a university, or the IT department. Definition 1;b is funny, when thinking about the stereotypical nerd. b: shrouded in or hidden by darkness .

According to the dictionary (which I linked to) and popular usage,

In that case, that dictionary has the definition wrong.

Here's mine:

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

From http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/steal :

steal transitive verb 1 a: to take or appropriate without right or leave and with intent to keep or make use of wrongfully.

Sounds like an accurate use to me.

You do know what the terms "profession" and "professional" mean, right?

Indeed I do, and so does the dictonary.

In other words, you're a moron.

Perhaps you should read meaning 1 c (2) in the above link: "exhibiting a courteous, conscientious, and generally businesslike manner in the workplace".

You can then reflect on the fact that words have more than one meaning, and some people derive amusement from mixing them up.

Do you work in military intelligence?

From what I gather the whole 10 Fold, 3 Fold, was more about the progressive thickness of cloth in relation to the number of folds

That's an...interesting theory, but I can't find anything to support it. My M-W dictionary says the phrase goes back to the 12th century (so it has nothing to do with making planes of any type), and clearly states that "tenfold" means ten times, so your suggestion that it "really" means 2^10 is simply false. My own guess is that this ancient phrase has more to do with "in the fold" (where you find sheep, or perhaps wolves) than with cloth, but I can't prove that either.

From what I gather the whole 10 Fold, 3 Fold, was more about the progressive thickness of cloth in relation to the number of folds back in the war when we made planes out of canvas.

tenfold

There ain't no such beast as legitimate telemarketing.

Main Entry:
        1 legitimate
[...]
3 a: accordant with law or with established legal forms and requirements

I think the word you're looking for is "ethical", or, possibly, "nice".

Spelt is fine in British English Spelt (2) (www.merriam-webster.com)

I'm pretty sure he doesn't mean "rigorous" in the math sense of the word (or even the dictionary definition now that I look at it). Most likely it is just used as a synonym for "a lot of work."

That said, it sounds to me more like a course that teaches you what calculus can do, not a course in how to do calculus. It is of different value, but not necessarily less, especially for people taking calculus for different purposes.

So, the argument is that an informal term like "prof" really has a strict formal definition? And that even the term professor has a definition that is narrower than the dictionary definition?

I think the only people who are going to buy that are the ones looking for a reason to get a bug up their ass.

So, the argument is that an informal term like "prof" really has a strict formal definition? And that even the term professor has a definition that is narrower than the dictionary definition?

I think the only people who are going to buy that are the ones looking for a reason to get a bug up their ass.

First of all, I assume you mean liable and not libel.

Second, what are the liability risks? Sexual Harassment comes to mind, but this would be primarily focused at the individual who accessed the adult content, unless the company elected to not take action to stop the harassment once reported. Negligence or "fostering an environment" are the most likely risks.

Third, how do you mitigate these risks? The primary method is to enact a company policy prohibiting employees from accessing (or possessing, distributing, or creating) adult materials in the workplace or using company resources, and then require each employee to sign a letter of acceptance of this policy as a condition of employment.

What else is required beyond the policy to mitigate liability? Enforcement. Not filtering, but appropriate and consistent disciplinary response to each infraction. Failing this opens a company up to liability for failing to protect its employees from sexual harassment.

Filtering is an added factor that demonstrates a company's commitment to enforcing its sexual harassment policies. But, as we well know, filtering is not difficult to bypass. Just because an employee can find a way to circumvent the filtering does not mean the policy forbidding this activity is no longer in effect. It is the policy itself, and consistent disciplinary action for offenders, that mitigates the risk of liability.

First of all, I assume you mean liable and not libel.

Second, what are the liability risks? Sexual Harassment comes to mind, but this would be primarily focused at the individual who accessed the adult content, unless the company elected to not take action to stop the harassment once reported. Negligence or "fostering an environment" are the most likely risks.

Third, how do you mitigate these risks? The primary method is to enact a company policy prohibiting employees from accessing (or possessing, distributing, or creating) adult materials in the workplace or using company resources, and then require each employee to sign a letter of acceptance of this policy as a condition of employment.

What else is required beyond the policy to mitigate liability? Enforcement. Not filtering, but appropriate and consistent disciplinary response to each infraction. Failing this opens a company up to liability for failing to protect its employees from sexual harassment.

Filtering is an added factor that demonstrates a company's commitment to enforcing its sexual harassment policies. But, as we well know, filtering is not difficult to bypass. Just because an employee can find a way to circumvent the filtering does not mean the policy forbidding this activity is no longer in effect. It is the policy itself, and consistent disciplinary action for offenders, that mitigates the risk of liability.

Phagocyte doesn't have to be verbed, it is a verb already. Have a good day Sir.

No, extragalactic is a specific term that means outside of OUR galaxy, not outside of any galaxy.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/extragalactic
http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_/extragalactic.html
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/extragalactic
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/extragalactic
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/extragalactic
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extragalactic_astronomy

Also, WTF is a "vicegerent"?

It's the guy who becomes gerent after the incumbent gerent is shot.

All kidding aside, "gerent" and "vicegerent" are words, no matter how much it looks like someone typoed "regent":
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gerent
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/gerent
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/vicegerent
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/vicegerent

Also, WTF is a "vicegerent"?

It's the guy who becomes gerent after the incumbent gerent is shot.

All kidding aside, "gerent" and "vicegerent" are words, no matter how much it looks like someone typoed "regent":
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gerent
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/gerent
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/vicegerent
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/vicegerent

I usually try to keep my inner grammar nazi in check, but I just can't resist. My colleague, the other anonymous coward grammar nazi, is correct. The phrase you meant to use is indeed "other than". You're just plain wrong. You've managed to misspell a word in your sig. Move on, my friend, move on. You're just not going to win many of these arguments.

(I can't believe I have to do this...) http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/inhuman

dilute???

I think you mean delude. Or perhaps you're just delusional.

dilute???

I think you mean delude. Or perhaps you're just delusional.

Note the Oxford English Dictionary on ironic: "happening in the opposite way to what is expected, and typically causing wry amusement because of this."

Although perhaps not quite as pleasing to anglophiles, Merriam-Webster also supports this sense for irony:

3 a (1): incongruity between the actual result of a sequence of events and the normal or expected result (2): an event or result marked by such incongruity

I guess you're right. After all, it just takes a small movement to get people to mispronounce a word or a name and before long, EVERYONE is doing it. http://www.merriam-webster.com/help/faq/pronounce.htm

Repeat after me!

J-E-S-U-S spells "Hey Soos" not "Jee Zuhs"

Yet another hick comes along long long ago and it just sticks and ruins it for everyone. And it's not like people don't know at some level that "Jee Zuhs" isn't a mispronunciation. Every time they meet or reference a hispanic person named "Jesus" they automatically pronounce his name correctly just as they almost always pronounce "jalapeno" correctly... even when they don't know what the tilde-N is supposed to sound like.

I like truth to be true for as long as possible. I am absolutely certain that what I think is the truth isn't completely true and some of it is probably way-fucking-wrong. But I am willing to update what I think is truth when new and better truth comes my way...especially when it is supported by evidence and stuff like that. (please... no evidence can be based on feelings..."search your feelings... you know it to be true...")

Anyone ever realize that maybe Texas should succeed?

I bet Texas already thinks they are successful. Did you mean secede? http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/secede

"nee rackable" is incorrect. nee

According to Merriam Webster, it is correct usage of the word. See definition two.

if there's ever a flood you can use the thing for a serf board

No doubt it would come in very handy for beating back the influx of alien-zombie peasants.

the problem is that people use the word cult incorrectly

All religions are cults

• 1: formal religious veneration
• 2: a system of religious beliefs and ritual
• 3: a religion regarded as unorthodox or spurious

For the negative usage, a cult (item 3) is any belief that is different than yours

Google might very well have been a reference to googol, but the first time I heard of it I thought it was much more like ogle or goggle and I know I'm not alone (perhaps a statistically meaningless sample, but not a solitary one). So it might have a reference to all the massive number of webpages available through their service but I thought it was more that you could look at the web through their service.

That being said, whether I'm right or you are (or perhaps both), it has some reference to what the service does. Bing on the other hand is just the name of a roommate I had in college.