Slashdot Mirror

a process of change in a certain direction
a process of gradual, peaceful, progressive change
gradual development
any sort of progressive development

HAND

Wrong. Evolution has several definitions:

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

to devote or surrender (oneself) to something habitually or obsessively. ie. addicted to gambling

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

Most people devote a great deal of their time socializing and thus become comfortable socializing. It's part of normal human development. We are social creatures. I tend to think that addiction starts when it causes problems in your life.

The problem is few have studied the long term impact of not learning how to socialize with someone without a LCD screen and a Internet connection. I could potentially see problems arising because not learning how to socialize only makes someone feel even more alienated.

Can you see the potential downward spiral that could apply to this situation that is typically reserved for drug abuse?

It appears that language has evolved (or rather devolved) once again. I looked it up last year and "ethics" and "morals" were two separate things; ethics was a code of conduct ("It is unethical for a govenmnet employee to accept a gift of over $n, it is unethical for a medical doctor to discuss a patient's health with anyone unauthorized).

The new Miriam Webster seems to make no distinction.

As to Wikipedia, it is not an acceptable resource for defining the meanings of words. Looking to wikipedia when a dictionary is better suited is a waste of energy.

Wikipedia's entry on cataract surgery still has no mention of acommodating lenses. Any time someone adds the CrystaLens to wikipedia, somebody edits it out. Too newfangled for wikipedia I guess, they only just came out five years ago (there's one in my eye right now).

Morality may have gone out of style, but as it's needed they apparently brought it back under a more secular name. So now that "ethical" now means what "moral" used to mean, what word can we use for what used to be "ethics", such as the aformentioned doctor breaking HIPPA rules (ethics) which would not be immoral or unethical for me to do?

Of course uncyclopedia has no ethics, but it does have morals, virtue, and medical malpractice.

Well it seems that Soulskill is keeping up with his Bible reading...

Joking aside, here's the definition.

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

For what it's worth, I took the test just now and got 100%, but I find a few things about it questionable: First, there are several questions that I'm not sure really fall under the definition civics. Second, several of the questions are of a theoretical rather than factual nature and I got the distinct impression that the test makers were pushing a specific (libertarian/conservative) ideological agenda. Maybe my impression was incorrect; I haven't had a chance to look up the group yet.

The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines civics as, "a social science dealing with the rights and duties of citizens." Most of the questions deal with the structure of our government and the history of that structure, so they can reasonably be said to fall within civics. But consider the following questions:

13) Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, and Aquinas would concur that:

25) Free enterprise or capitalism exists insofar as:

27) Free markets typically secure more economic prosperity than government's centralized planning because:

30) Which of the following fiscal policy combinations would a government most likely follow to stimulate economic activity when the economy is in a severe recession?

31) International trade and specialization most often lead to which of the following?

Number 13 is a question of philosophy (or, if you like, history mostly far preceding US history). Questions 25, 27, 30, and 31 are questions of economics. I suppose you could include economics as part of civics, because it's important to governance, but on that rationale you could start including all sorts of things, like statistics. Also, the answers to the questions are largely theoretical in nature. While there may be a consensus view amongst economists, they don't really admit clear empirical answers due to the complexity of disentangling the various influences in macroeconomics. On the topic of how best to stimulate economic activity, there are various different schools of thought that advocate different approaches and have enjoyed popularity at different times.

The other point was more a vague feeling I got that the questions were pushing an agenda. The survey picks out "religion" as one of the constitutional rights, rather than "freedom of religion". It asks for the attribution of the phrase "wall of separation" between church and state, and highlighting that this is not from the constitution (even though it is from one of the framers) is a favorite past-time of those who advocate a larger role for Christianity in government. Questions 27 and 31 praise free trade criticize centralized economies. And answering one of the questions "correctly" points out that federal disaster aid is not guarantied by the constitution (relevant to disagreements over the aftermath of hurricane Katrina). It's not really pronounced and may be just coincidence, but I'm curious if anyone else got this feeling. I'll have to look up ISI and see if I've guessed correctly. In any case, it occurred to me that you could use the press release to get the general public to take it and use it as a push poll, stating your opinions as the "correct answer" or selecting factual information in such a way as to give the appearance for support of your argument.

I believe it's from Webster's 2nd or 3rd Unabridged.

I just checked their online unabridged version and it doesn't come up. (I pay for a subscription.) Perhaps someone could check Oxford's to see if it is there?

The word you've entered isn't in the Unabridged Dictionary. Click on a spelling suggestion below or try again using the search box at the top of this page.

straight to the planets surface

You mean tangential to the orbit. (Not being pedantic here: just trying to be helpful.)

the circle-velocity would still be the same

This is where that book over-simplifies... you'd have to apply a precisely calculated force to change angle and not velocity (i.e. magnitude of the velocity vector before and after the force)... Lv1 != Lv2 and |v1| == |v2|. Giving something an arbitrary push, even if you pushed it tangential to your orbit, would probably change both angle and linear velocity, which would change the eccentricity of the orbit – and the orbital period would change (that's how long it takes to make a full orbit). Different orbital period = you'll never get it back, because although your orbits will both return to this point, you'll be there at different times.

Note that I said "never" get it back. That's a bit over-simplistic as well: theoretically, after enough orbits, you'll both pass that same point at the same time. However, practically speaking, this will either (1) take an impractically long time, perhaps hundreds or thousands of orbits since your velocities won't differ by much, or (2) never happen because either your orbit or that of the spacecraft degenerates (and it'd probably be your orbit...) before you meet at the same place at the same time.

Unless we want to!

If you do an excellent job, I'm happy to throw a few bucks your way. I do it at the barber's all the time. If I dig my haircut, he gets a few extra bucks. If he mails it in, I walk out with my change instead.

But the point is that is my choice. Not tipping him does not screw him, because it isn't expected anyway. When he gets it, he gets what we call a bonus, which is what tipping IS, no matter how many people try to twist it into something else ( http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gratuity ). It's extra, unexpected, pleasant, but most certainly NOT to be counted on.

If you allow the system to assume the tip will be given and lower your pay accordingly to avoid paying you at the appropriate rate, then that really is your problem.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fail%5B2%5D

Main Entry:
2fail
Function:
noun
Date:
13th century
1 : failure --usually used in the phrase without fail
2 : a failure (as by a security dealer) to deliver or receive securities within a prescribed period after purchase or sale

Right. Which of those two uses was this again?

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fail%5B2%5D

Main Entry:
2fail
Function:
noun
Date:
13th century
1 : failure --usually used in the phrase without fail
2 : a failure (as by a security dealer) to deliver or receive securities within a prescribed period after purchase or sale

Its a similar problem to something like Nursing, in the other direction. At my graduation, the CS group sat right behind the nursing group. There's lots of comments at how the CS group was 80% male. There were no comments at how the nursing group was 97% female.

I've always suspected the name for the profession was a major logjam here. A silly logjam I'll grant you, but it's still there. Can't we come up with a term for the profession with appropriately obscure Latin roots that means "takes care of sick people"?

No, but verbiage is.

video is not a verb.

It's not a delusion if other people also believe it?

No, it's not. How do you define normal? How do you define abnormal? Generally speaking if 75% of your society believes something, you are abnormal if you do not. In the last few decades we are slowly moving toward believing that the wide range of human conditions are all normal, but different from one another. Normal is getting a make-over, so to speak. Delusion:

2 a: something that is falsely or delusively believed or propagated b: a persistent false psychotic belief regarding the self or persons or objects outside the self that is maintained despite indisputable evidence to the contrary ; also : the abnormal state marked by such beliefs
(http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/delusion) emphasis is mine

It's only delusional when 'normal' people do not believe what you do, or there is "indisputable evidence to the contrary" which clearly makes you wrong. In the world of mankind, any religion with enough believers becomes that "indisputable evidence to the contrary" if you do not believe as they do.

Point: At one time, those who thought the world was not flat were considered delusional. Those who thought left handed people were 'ok' were thought delusional. When the majority or 'normal' people say you are delusional, then that's the verdict.... unless you can prove them indisputably wrong. With religion you cannot prove them wrong, so they remain 'normal' despite complete lack of evidence to show they are right.

In this case, popularity wins. The definition you reference is not politically motivated to not anger the religious. That is simply how it works.

Selfishness, by definition, is pursuing your own happiness to ends which are a detriment of others.

Bullshit. That's honestly the stupidest fucking thing I've heard in months. Show me the definition of "selfish" that requires you to do harm to other people.

It's not in the definition Merriam Webster uses. And it's not in Wiktionary's definition. And it's not in the definition at reference.com.

Seriously, how do you people come up with this bullshit? Fucking idiots.

If you're doing something to make yourself happy, you're being selfish. Whether it's altruistic or not.

See 3.
See 1.
See 1.
See 2.

Stop trying to be pedantic. It's obnoxious when you're right, and you're not anyway.

"America" has been an acceptable shortened name for "The United States of America" for well over 200 years. On the other hand, I've never heard anyone collectively refer to North America and South America as "America", even though this too would probably be correct.

Words can have more than one meaning. Would you make the same argument about Australia?

Merriam-Webster would appear to disagree with you.

http://media.merriam-webster.com/soundc11/v/vexati02.wav

Doesn't sound like a latin word, and at least one dictionary says that its European based from around 1500 which is well after latin was still a spoken language.

But WTF do I know?

It depends where the court falls on the legal definition. The dictionary definition is unclear, but half of them state publication (which a single letter isn't)

a written or oral defamatory statement or representation that conveys an unjustly unfavorable impression b (1): a statement or representation published without just cause and tending to expose another to public contempt (2): defamation of a person by written or representational means (3): the publication of blasphemous, treasonable, seditious, or obscene writings or pictures (4): the act, tort, or crime of publishing such a libel

(From http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/libel with my emphasis)

Defamation is the generic term for libel and slander, one of which is written and one of which is spoken. Also, while it wouldn't be applicable in the UK, the US courts apparently think that it must be published (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation#cite_ref-5). There is a similar statement about the English law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation#England) but there's not citation to back it up.

As for it going to a shared flat/house, that's your fault for letting someone else open your mail. If it goes to the wrong address entirely then they are (I believe) breaking the law by opening your mail as it is not addressed to them, so again it isn't the ISP's fault.

Reference: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/skein

Whether they wear a turbine,...

I for one WELCOME our new engine-part-clad overlords!

PS Perhaps you were referring to this slightly more conventional bit of headgear?

Whether they wear a turbine,...

I for one WELCOME our new engine-part-clad overlords!

PS Perhaps you were referring to this slightly more conventional bit of headgear?

failing
is
a word

For the same reason that Merriam-Webster has removed gullible from the dictionary.

partisan: 1: a firm adherent to a party, faction, cause, or person; especially: one exhibiting blind, prejudiced, and unreasoning allegiance

IMO the word partisan is almost worthless if it just means that you have a preference in an outcome, because the only subjects about which someone won't have a preferred outcome are things that aren't worth caring about. Being partisan is all about how your preference affects the things that you do. In my mind a media source is partisan if their preference for an outcome colors its reporting of related stories (such as if you bury or spotlight stories based on who they're about), or if they have a special vested interest that is coloring their choice of preferred outcome (their parent company benefiting from the outcome or their viewer niche being dependent on their taking a certain stance).

I don't watch or listen to the BBC enough to know if it meets my definition of partisan, but I don't agree that the fact that they may be pro-Obama means that they're necessarily partisan.

And will this effect DNS servers that are currently in use

They can't be effected if they are already in use.

I did, and it does, and "general use" is applicable to the English language. Check the first (original) definition of "nice"... next time you say something's "nice", keep in mind that you're using a profaned definition of the word that has come into "general use" and therefore is considered acceptable.

It would seem that the commentary provided with the definition provides a literary point of view rather than simply the definition, though I will concede that some may intend it as such. I have always known the definition to be, as stated earlier, that the presented text was an accurate representation of the original. Both the Mirriam-Webster and American Heritage dictionaries make refernce to that meaning, without inclusion of any suggestion of a virtual sneer. From http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sic%5B3%5D: " intentionally so written --used after a printed word or passage to indicate that it is intended exactly as printed or to indicate that it exactly reproduces an original ".

oeI(TM)

Good god, who trademarked boobs?

heresy: 2 a: dissent or deviation from a dominant theory, opinion, or practice b: an opinion, doctrine, or practice contrary to the truth or to generally accepted beliefs or standards
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/heresy

And yes, even Slashdot has weakened and now we see images in articles. Soon there will be mp3 soundbites (most probably ogg vorbis or flac just to be difficult) and a social network where we can all get to know one another. Wouldn't that be fun?
I'm feeling a little woozy... I think I'll lie down somewhere.

This should at least get you started. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/kph KPH is a valid abreviation for kilometer per hour so the conversion rate is roughly speaking 1:1.

"Stadiums" is perfectly acceptable unless you are talking about the Greek measurement for length. I don't think I've ever heard anyone say "sports stadia".

From Merriam Webster
From Oxford

I think you misunderstand the use of the word in the post you replied to.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/priceless
(See #2)

I like the way MW has a joke for Singleton. If you look up other words [merriam-webster.com] with a single definition it doesn't say "one entry found".

Actually, it does.

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

singleton
One entry found.

Main Entry:
sin*gle*ton
Function:
noun
Etymology:
French, from English single
Date:
1876
1: a card that is the only one of its suit originally dealt to a player
2 a: an individual member or thing distinct from others grouped with it b: an offspring born singly <singletons are more common than twins>

I like the way MW has a joke for Singleton. If you look up other words with a single definition it doesn't say "one entry found".

It reminds of the definition of recursive in the hacker's dictionary.

http://www.ccil.org/jargon/jargon_33.html#TAG1486
recursion /n./

See recursion.

Clearly both are an attempt at meta humour.

Apparently it is: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/qwerty

The king decries it!

I do not think that word means what you think it means.

Perhaps you meant this word?

The king decries it!

I do not think that word means what you think it means.

Perhaps you meant this word?

Burglarized
Burglarized

There, I correctized it for you...

That you did.

Ummm, no. It IS a violation. But that violation of separation is in no way "interference". Is this somehow hard for you to understand?

Perhaps this will help you.

It comes from their hoity toity way of referring to themselves.

"I'm not an artist! An artist just paints a painstakingly realistic and beautifullandscape. I'm an artiste! I splatter paint in a haphazard way, revealing raw emotions."

Seriously, though, how hard is it to look it up?

(The short answer: French.)

Why exactly is it a problem of the GIMP devs that you speak no proper English? I think the number of people who have seen the English-language version of Pulp Fiction and remember some character from it this vividly is greatly overestimated.
In fact I have, and I didn't. Is there even confirmation that the GIMP devs knew about the usage in the movie?

I stand by what I said. In this instance, I'm saying that they need an entirely new branch of methods and study to verify that a human's on the other end. They've gone so far down that path that it's harder for a human to read it than a computer.

Maybe he meant the alternate spelling "amuck" (citation) and misspelled that. You know, the way "a lot" somehow becomes "alot" here on teh intarwebz.

Or maybe he's just confused. Perhaps this is a new eggcorn?

Maybe he meant the alternate spelling "amuck" (citation) and misspelled that. You know, the way "a lot" somehow becomes "alot" here on teh intarwebz.

Or maybe he's just confused. Perhaps this is a new eggcorn?

Ubuntu would be unusual to find in the 2001 search database, yes. Vista? Not so unusual.

Ok, maybe you were joking, but tenet was not the part of his post that was wrong/confusing, but it was wrong/confusing in yours:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/tenet
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/tenant