Slashdot Mirror

"Stanches", yay; "Staunches", nay.
See http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/stanches

...which is why I linked to the Merriam-Webster entry on theory. You're referring to the entries 1 through 5 and 6c, but apparently {disagree with OR view differently} 6a and 6b.

Why?

I'm just suggesting that those that posit that ID isn't a "real" theory instead try using "not verifiable at present" instead; they might find a few more ears.

That's assuming that all theories can be tested. Or, to put it another way: If you can't test it, is it a theory? According to Merriam-Webster, yes. Inference points towards your disputing that. Is this the problem in a nutshell?

I generally share your annoyance at the misuse of words.

However, you can be an open source fundamentalist, and it might be exactly what he meant. A fundamentalist is someone who stresses strict and literal adherence to a set of basic (fundamental) principles (see Merriam-Webster's second definition - the one that doesn't specifically refer to modern American Evangelical Christianity). So, an open-source fundamentalist would be a person who stresses strict adherence to the basic principles of "open source." I suppose what principles those are is somewhat debatable, but if they include the idea that all software should be open source (or at least a preference that it should be if not a mandate), then his use of "fundamentalist" could be appropriate, if what he means is that they advocate strict adherence to these principles.

A "fanatic," on the other hand, is a person "marked by excessive enthusiasm and often intense uncritical devotion." An "open-source fanatic" would be someone who is very enthusiastic about open source, and is uncritically devoted to it, not necessarily someone who advocates strict adherence to its basic principles.

Exactly.

However, since you're pointing out flaws in others' vocabulary, I hope it will not be rude of me to point out a flaw in your own: an open source fundamentalist without the hyphen between open and source would be a "source fundamentalist" who is open. With the hyphen, "open-source" modifies fundamentalist. Without it, "open" modifies "source fundamentalist."

I generally share your annoyance at the misuse of words.

However, you can be an open source fundamentalist, and it might be exactly what he meant. A fundamentalist is someone who stresses strict and literal adherence to a set of basic (fundamental) principles (see Merriam-Webster's second definition - the one that doesn't specifically refer to modern American Evangelical Christianity). So, an open-source fundamentalist would be a person who stresses strict adherence to the basic principles of "open source." I suppose what principles those are is somewhat debatable, but if they include the idea that all software should be open source (or at least a preference that it should be if not a mandate), then his use of "fundamentalist" could be appropriate, if what he means is that they advocate strict adherence to these principles.

A "fanatic," on the other hand, is a person "marked by excessive enthusiasm and often intense uncritical devotion." An "open-source fanatic" would be someone who is very enthusiastic about open source, and is uncritically devoted to it, not necessarily someone who advocates strict adherence to its basic principles.

Exactly.

However, since you're pointing out flaws in others' vocabulary, I hope it will not be rude of me to point out a flaw in your own: an open source fundamentalist without the hyphen between open and source would be a "source fundamentalist" who is open. With the hyphen, "open-source" modifies fundamentalist. Without it, "open" modifies "source fundamentalist."

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fail Main Entry: 2fail Function: noun

They claim a 60 billion dollar loss - but I would pose this question: how can you lose something that you never had?

entrust

1: to confer a trust on; especially : to deliver something in trust to

FYI run a muck is wrong. There is no muck. It's run amok.

1. True, 'bated' is a word in and of itself

2. I take it you never heard of this company? http://www.merriam-webster.com/

3. It's not the old spelling, it is the correct spelling.

4. Just because the writers for the Simpsons decides to make up a word doesn't make it so.

5. Stop being a festizio

Spaell it right aesshole, aend stop aecting like ae pretentious faeggot!!

Abuse of words like "unique" is commonplace in these days of grammar ignorance, but this article really does excel. The trouble is, I can't decide if it was deliberate irony on behalf of the author, or just plain ignorance.

Is that the same kind of ignorance that comes from not knowing what a word means, or were you trying to win some kind of award for creative use of the term irony?

It seems for English speakers, uniqueness is not binary.

I'm puzzled by the thought that it should be.

Let's see what my old friends George and Charles Merriam and Noah Webster have to say on the subject:

"Many commentators have objected to the comparison or modification (as by somewhat or very) of unique, often asserting that a thing is either unique or it is not. Objections are based chiefly on the assumption that unique has but a single absolute sense, an assumption contradicted by information readily available in a dictionary. [...] In modern use both comparison and modification are widespread and standard [...]"

Quick, go, before the NSA hacks this one out!

Once released, an ex-con is once again able to move about and to vote.

Actually, Necrobruiser (611198) has a good link that shows that this is not always the true.

Your analogy is fallacious

It cannot be because "right" = "privilege". A little reflection or pondering on this topic will probably confirm this for yourself. (in fact, all the comments from this thread prove this as they're all arguing the same thing but changing the term).

Voting is a right, and it's also a privilege. The confusion is when the GP implied that they cannot be the same thing, when in fact, they are. It actually through me for a loop for awhile as well until I went and double checked the facts. (Magna Carta, France's Human Rights Declaration, and the definitions of right and privilege). So the point is, there is no point to try and argue the difference, because there actually isn't any except those self defined by oneself. And one cannot argue points if one is using a different, personnel, definition of a term than the other.

In the end, we're all just arguing semantics.

the moderators who modded you up are clueless.

The moderators are, in fact, cluefull given that they probably understood the same before I ever did.

Cheers,
Fozzy

Why is it the socially accepted norm that the guy has to be the initiator and the girl gets to be the decider?

A barista is the person who makes coffee at a coffee shop. Merriam-Webster defines it.

Sorry... I just like the word!
Thwart, Thwart, Thwart, Thwart, Thwart, Thwart,
There is also Thwarter too! :)

Main Entry: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary

Pronunciation:
        \thwort\
Function:
        transitive verb
Etymology:
        Middle English thwerten, from thwert, adverb
Date:
        13th century

Actually, I meant just what I typed ;)

Liberal had a meaning prior to politics - specifically - lacking moral restraint.

It's sort of funny that liberal is seen as a pejorative. Or at least a "high reaction" type of word. . .

Wrong, try Next.

Wrong - read what the GP poster typed - "Netx", not "next".

Here, I'll make it easy for you ...

Netx technology, please.

...keep ignoring that "whoosh" sound overhead ...

Wrong, try Next.

A movie is not data! Geez how dense are some people?!

No, not censorship at all. Heavens no.

Are you simply calling on people to limit themselves, completely absent any laws or FCC enforcement? If so, my apologies, I misunderstood. I strongly support your right to call for people to limit their own language.

However, this article is about FCC enforcement. And you call not being exposed to these words a "right," which presumably should be protected by law. If you think the FCC should be restricting what private companies broadcast and enforcing those restrictions through fines, you are absolutely pro-censorship. censorship: the institution, system, or practice of censoring.. censor(ing): to suppress or delete as objectionable.

I'm asking for civility, which is the right to not be assaulted by obscene images, and the morass of profanity on a public medium.

You have no such right. Freedom of speech is a right, protected by the first amendment to our constitution. That freedom includes freedom for those who assault us with garbage. It sucks, but the trade off is that you know the government won't decide that your political or religious beliefs are obscene and silence you.

No, not censorship at all. Heavens no.

Are you simply calling on people to limit themselves, completely absent any laws or FCC enforcement? If so, my apologies, I misunderstood. I strongly support your right to call for people to limit their own language.

However, this article is about FCC enforcement. And you call not being exposed to these words a "right," which presumably should be protected by law. If you think the FCC should be restricting what private companies broadcast and enforcing those restrictions through fines, you are absolutely pro-censorship. censorship: the institution, system, or practice of censoring.. censor(ing): to suppress or delete as objectionable.

I'm asking for civility, which is the right to not be assaulted by obscene images, and the morass of profanity on a public medium.

You have no such right. Freedom of speech is a right, protected by the first amendment to our constitution. That freedom includes freedom for those who assault us with garbage. It sucks, but the trade off is that you know the government won't decide that your political or religious beliefs are obscene and silence you.

That's meaning #1 but meaning #2 is the way that people use it nowadays.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/factoid

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

It's not a "misspelling," it's a recognized and widely accepted shortened form and has been around (so the Merriam-Webster people say) since at least 1824.

And frankly, the word "perk" is what most people would see or hear; I see "perk" (meaning a boon) in all sorts of formal (legal, business) and journalistic writing, far more often than even "perquisite." Perhaps the most obvious being The Perks of Being a Wallflower.

Welcome to English, where word origins are not necessarily reflected in spelling.

1: an act of robbery on the high seas; also : an act resembling such robbery
2: robbery on the high seas
3 a: the unauthorized use of another's production, invention, or conception especially in infringement of a copyright b: the illicit accessing of broadcast signals

if they think that the use of racial slurs defines racism then they need a wakeup call

3 a: to create a representation of; also : to form an image of b: to represent symbolically

If 'unfettered access' is a literal quote from their advertising, I think you could make a strong case that even throttling violates their commitment. After all, real fetters don't immobilize you, they just slow you down...

it's a common tenant in systems security that anyone with physical access and sufficient time can disable or otherwise bypass any security system.

I think the word you're looking for is "tenet".

Addiction is defined by physical dependence on a substance, and withdrawal symptoms. You can get addicted to heroin. You can't get addicted to the Internet, BlackBerries, or WoW. These compulsive behaviors are only bad if they are annoying to the person who is examining the behavior. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/addiction

It's ludicrous that you think stipulating health warnings on devices is Ludacris.

While the oil companies are doing very well, most the oil money is going to oil-producing countries, such as Dubai/UAE. The oil companies have to pay market price for the oil they don't produce themselves.

It's one thing to carry out a coup d'état, and quite another to run your conquered country into the ground after you've taken power. Bush & Company will get their due someday... It's hard to see how we'll get there from here, but of this I'm certain.

nether-the-less

I think that's just your definition.

From http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/vaporware:
a computer-related product that has been widely advertised but has not and may never become available

From wikipedia:
Vaporware is a software or hardware product which is announced by a developer well in advance of release, but which then fails to emerge, either with or without a protracted development cycle. The term implies unwarranted optimism, or sometimes even deception; that is, it may imply that the announcer knows that product development is in too early a stage to support responsible statements about its completion date, feature set, or even feasibility.

The courts have held that indecent material is protected by the First Amendment and cannot be banned entirely. It may, however, be restricted in order to avoid its broadcast during times of the day when there is a reasonable risk that children may be in the audience.