Slashdot Mirror
Domain: merriam-webster.com
Stories and comments across the archive that link to merriam-webster.com.
Comments · 2,335
-
Re:No Gurantee Against reimplentation
paraphrasing != plagiarism
-
Re:No Gurantee Against reimplentation
paraphrasing != plagiarism
-
In case....
-
In case....
-
In case....
-
In case....
-
Thanks
-
Thanks
-
Thanks
-
Re:So the Religious Right is Humpty Dumpty?"Funny, in biology abortion is defined as the termination of a pregnancy. There are spontaneous abortions (miscarriages) and induced abortions. Induced abortions may be classified as therapeutic, elective or criminal.
A zygote in a Petri dish is not part of a pregnancy. Without a pregnancy, you cannot have an abortion. It's patently obvious that the attempt to classify the discarding of unused IVF zygotes as "abortions" has nothing to do with the facts, and everything to do with political posturing to an ignorant public. This resembles Humpty Dumpty redefining "glory" to suit his whim of the moment; it debases the very purpose of language, which depends on agreed-upon meanings."
Funny, I've never encountered such words as "therapeutic" "elective" etc. in biology. Neither have I encountered the word "abortion" and nor was I able to find it defined in any biological glossaries turned up by google. Could it be that you are referring to a medical term?Why yes! Yes it is! Here is the actual medical definition, if you're interested.
Not that that's remotely relevant. You know full well what the poster was referring to in its political context. He was talking about an abortion of an embryo. Yes, that is not "an abortion". It is an "embryo abortion." You look can up the words embryo and abortion individually in a standard dictionary if you need to figure out what that means. I apologize that no one has created a specialized medical term to refer specifically to the destruction of IVF embryos. Aside from the mindless pedanting of folks such as yourself, I really don't think there is need for one. Thank you English language for being adaptable.
Now that we have that covered, way to subsitute a silly side tangent for a rebuttal. He was arguing that the destruction of these embryos constitutes a more dilemma for those who believe these embryos to constitute human life (he generalized them under the religious right). But I guess in the excitement of your etymological condescension you forgot to address the actual argument.
Well, here's a term that is defined by biology: "life'. Living things have these properties: they have a metabolism, they are homeostatic, they respond to stimuli, they reproduce (better stated, they are a product of reproduction: a sterile breed is obviously still considered to be alive), they grow and develop. Embryos are de facto considered to be alive. I certainly hope we don't have to argue that.
They also obey another rule from biology: the rule of biogenesis. Under this rule we recognize that dogs beget dogs, cats beget cats, and humans beget humans. Humans do *not* beget some creature that is not human that later becomes a human.
It follows that embryos are living humans. And the crux of the point you chose to ignore is whether these 'living humans' who are not necessarily conscious at this point still count. For the "religious right" (to borrow from an earlier generalization) it seems the belief tends to be that this is so.
"If you mean that it's an issue (and a problem) that a large part of the American public is taking a highly-emotional political position based on what amounts to a large number of partial truths and outright falsehoods, then you begin to understand."
If that's true, you have certainly failed to demonstrate that here. And as a side note, you aren't helping with politicization."Your problem is that the facts are opposite the stance you appear to be backing."
Certainly agressive with the rhetoric, aren't we?
If by "facts" you mean your personal spiel about the definition of abortion, well, tersely put, you haven't proven anything. And definitions aren't facts, they are rather arbitrary artifacts of human communication.
If by facts you mean the science related to the issue, you are again rather misguided. There is not, nor ever shall be, a -
Re:Hooray for dumbing down?
-
Re:Irresponsibility
I was under the impression that diseases are caused by micro-organisms.
A disease could be caused by micro-organisms. But other than that, you are uninformed. Learn more here.
For instance: autoimmune disease. Pretty hard to have one of those according to your definition unless you yourself are a micro-organism. -
Novella vs. Novelette
If I look up Novelette in Merriam Webster it links to the definition of Novella. Is this some way of the Hugo staff giving 2 awards for short stories or is it a sideways proof that Sci-Fi as a genre is more suited to 20-30 pages of prose and that when it hits the 300-400 page region it is less saleable to the general public?
-
Re:How many times?
English is so rich a language, in fact, that we naturally learn it as a meta-language instead of directly as a language. This is how we are able to decode the meaning of slang phrases that we've never heard before...these phrases strike a chord with us because they evoke imagery that is indirectly or obliquely referred to by phrasology with which we're already intimate. Even when expressing ourselves to audiences of unsurpassed erudition, we ought always sedulously eschew unmitigated hyperverbosity, obfuscatory redundancy, and munificent prolixity.
Sure, you may have understood the last half of that increasingly dense paragraph, but it took a lot of work on your part didn't it? So what are we after: communication or correct but unnatural verbiage? You must remember that language evolves...though I will concede that it does not evolve as well if we do not participate in it.
I go for a middle-of-the-road approach. I expect that people should know the common, everyday words because these words lend themselves to actually enhancing your clarity of thought. It's true--you actually become smarter in immeasurable ways by knowing the difference between "their" and "there", "loose" and "lose", "your" and "you're". People who misuse these kinds of words send a valuable message to their readers: I'm an idiot, I can't handle the simplest aspects of my native tongue (foreigners are forgiven their trespasses in this regard), don't pay attention to what I say but instead feel sad for me. I'm more forgiving with things like "octopuses" vs "octopi" (both are valid), "viruses" and "virii" (only the former--not all words ending in "-us" are created equal), mainly because these people are cute and they amuse me in their quest to impress us with their creative applications of Latin etymology.
Less amusing to me is when dictionaries disagree. It turns out that Merriam-Webster has decided that "noo-kyuh-ler" is valid...though they note that it is a pronunciation (pronOunciation? ha! homework for you) "disapproved of by many", it still made it in as a secondary (and yes, this was M-W's policy at least as far back as 1997, long before Bush Jr.). Dictionary.com notes the usage without elevating it to the status of the proper. Many people don't realize this, but these linguistic decisions are taken by an annual meeting of professors and language experts at Oxford University. Occasionally the results of these meetings can be very surprising--the last one of these meetings was about six weeks ago, and they removed a word (due to underuse) which I had always considered untouchable: "gullible". So give the on-line dictionaries a chance to catch up, but searches for this word will go unresolved in few months' time.
sev
-
Re:Give smallpox to script kiddiesSeriously. Tell them it's 1337 and they'll be famous. After a little while... no more script kiddies.
And after a little while more, no more script kiddie families. And no more script kiddie neighbors. And so on
-
Lavy=form of tax
To be fair, I often wondered at the difference. A levy is more-or-less of form of taxation... so it's more a specific type of tax:
Levy (Dict)
Levy (thesaurus)
Levy
Most dictionaries seem to agree that a levy is actual the imposition of a tax (imposing a tax, as opposed to the tax itself). That being said, as a noun it is more-or-less a synonymn to a tax -
Re:This guy is fair
I agree 100%. The US should set up a committee to investigate this un-american unpatriotic behaviour.
This should firstly investigate people that don't spell right. -
Re:Ignore AOL users as subhuman.Comeuppance.
(Just informing, not trying to be a jerk.)
-
Re:Caves now have internet connectivity?
(...)the parent poster is a gullible apologist for terror(...)
Well then would you say Sir Isaac Newton is an apologist for plane crashes ?
"Caves now have internet connectivity?" -- arf arf arf very funny... it is not!
It is funny that you, aligned with GWB at the top of the world, fail to see the meaning of the word "hero". Look it up in Webster -- there it says a hero is, among other things, "one who shows great courage". I say, the one in the cave shows more courage than the one with the microphone, the tv stations, and the monopoly on the story telling. Because, after all, the first is a man with limited resources and a few loyal friends, while the second commands a military force built with more resources than all others in the planet taken together. And don't tell me about being noble, when one is trading the blood of his own people for oil and profits.
It is sad that you, just like so many
And to think that, just a few years ago in Reagan's Era, the Soviet Union was the evil empire... Tell me, do you trust CNN to cross-check your government's moves ? Do you trust your government to let you think on your own ?
Forgive me if I post AC. I am not in a cave, you see. -
Re:Flattered or angry?
You forgot to fix plagiarism.
-
Re:Ipod Killer?
It's not going to get adapted.
I'm sure you mean adopted
I personally use 160bit AACs for most everything.
Gee, you're neat, may I touch you? -
Re:Ridiculous!
No he was not making up the term. Here is an article about womens chess.
BTW, Atleast in India, we still have english anachronisms from british times well preserved. A head-mistress of a school is the woman in charge of the school and not somebody who walks around with a whip. and webster seems to think so too.
-
Re:Off Track
-
Re:try looking the definition a lie upActually, Merriam-Webster does allow direct links. You can use it in the default Firebird keywords too, it's under the keyword "webster".
Or, for Mozilla users, "http://www.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionar
y ?book=Dictionary&va=%s"Although admitably they use POST by default. But the individual words linked from definition to definition give away the secret to directly linking to a given definition.
-
Re:how can people fall for it... again
virii That's right, virri isn't a word, it's VIRUSES. Thank you Mr. Pseudointellectual.
-
Re:Snowcrash?
http://www.merriam-webster.com/wftw/00jan/012800.
h tm
Now that the Y2K bug is -- well, not exactly a thing of the past, but no longer quite as prominent a news item as it once was -- we've decided to turn our attention to a different sort of bug: the bug (computer or human) known as a virus. Specifically, we're interested in knowing whether you should refer to more than one virus as virii.
Latin-lovers and viral votaries alike know that the noun virus is a borrowing from Latin. In that tongue, a virus (pronounced WEE-russ) is a venom, a poisonous emanation, a slimy liquid, or a stench. In fact, when virus first slithered its way into our language in the late 16th century, it named a "venom emitted by a poisonous animal."
The word's Latin ancestry has given some English speakers the idea that the only logical way to pluralize virus is to replace the terminal -us with the letters -ii . This idea seems especially popular among folks who are referring to more than one computer virus. But before you catch the bug for that new spelling, consider this: the notion that Latin words ending in -us must take an -ii plural is a flat-out fallacy. In fact, there is no evidence that any plural form of the classical Latin virus was ever recorded; some lexicographers even suspect the Latin virus was a mass noun (and thus needed no separate plural).
In addition, when you look at the historical record of English usage, you find viruses, not virii, as the established plural. So although virii has turned up upon recent occasions, that word is far from standard. -
Re:repeat after me
Alternately, you can listen to the entire telemarketer's proposal, act interested, and when they ask to transfer you to the "business manager" to complete the sale, say you're not interested, and hang up. It's rather rude to the telemarketer, but think of how many people you saved having to listen to their spiel...
Wow! You are a regular philanthropist -
Re:Seriously though
I'll reply point by point.
"You know what, fine, All censorship is evil, now lets get rid of those rulings that indicate that porn is only available to the over eighteens, this is obviously censorship, while we're at it why don't we"
I wouldn't call it censorship. Censorship is the complete quieting of expression. For a more complete definition, here's a link directly to an entry in Merriam-Webster.
"remove all programme classifications as well, thats got to be censorship because people won't watch if its a certain rating. Also"
No, that's not censorship. That's setting a standard. That's where we should stop, though.
"while we're at it lets take away the idea that society as a whole, through government can set a minimum standard to which the societies"
The minimum standard should NOT be government mandated. It is not the job of the government to make sure minors aren't watching objectionable material. Parents need to take MORE responsibility in raising their children.
"members are expected to comply, because that is obviously censoring their freedom of expression."
Yes, it is limiting their freedom of expression. I do not want to live in a world of sheep (no pun intended). I want to live in a world where the individual is free to express themselves. If they do so in a totally unacceptable way (child pr0n, for example), then yes their behavior needs to be corrected.
"See censorship is not all or nothing, it is a gradual thing, at one"
You haven't made that case, imo.
"end you have no censorship, anything goes, whether its watching a blow job on the nightly news or renting a snuff video from your local"
As long as the parent is willing to be responsible for what it is their children are watching, I have no problem what's on tv. As for snuff video's, I'm not exactly sure what they are. There is a difference between censorship and allowing/disallowing acceptable behavior.
"store, at the other we have the stalinist states which controlled everything that you heard or saw in the media, neither of these are good, we need to strike a balance between the right of the individual to freedom of expression and the right of the society to expect certain minimum standards to be adhered to."
Welcome to Soviet [Your Country Here]. -
Re:Seriously though
I'll reply point by point.
"You know what, fine, All censorship is evil, now lets get rid of those rulings that indicate that porn is only available to the over eighteens, this is obviously censorship, while we're at it why don't we"
I wouldn't call it censorship. Censorship is the complete quieting of expression. For a more complete definition, here's a link directly to an entry in Merriam-Webster.
"remove all programme classifications as well, thats got to be censorship because people won't watch if its a certain rating. Also"
No, that's not censorship. That's setting a standard. That's where we should stop, though.
"while we're at it lets take away the idea that society as a whole, through government can set a minimum standard to which the societies"
The minimum standard should NOT be government mandated. It is not the job of the government to make sure minors aren't watching objectionable material. Parents need to take MORE responsibility in raising their children.
"members are expected to comply, because that is obviously censoring their freedom of expression."
Yes, it is limiting their freedom of expression. I do not want to live in a world of sheep (no pun intended). I want to live in a world where the individual is free to express themselves. If they do so in a totally unacceptable way (child pr0n, for example), then yes their behavior needs to be corrected.
"See censorship is not all or nothing, it is a gradual thing, at one"
You haven't made that case, imo.
"end you have no censorship, anything goes, whether its watching a blow job on the nightly news or renting a snuff video from your local"
As long as the parent is willing to be responsible for what it is their children are watching, I have no problem what's on tv. As for snuff video's, I'm not exactly sure what they are. There is a difference between censorship and allowing/disallowing acceptable behavior.
"store, at the other we have the stalinist states which controlled everything that you heard or saw in the media, neither of these are good, we need to strike a balance between the right of the individual to freedom of expression and the right of the society to expect certain minimum standards to be adhered to."
Welcome to Soviet [Your Country Here]. -
Re:The Oxford English Dictionary
-
is this a joke?Slashdot is now teaching us the English language? Yeah, right.
I hope that Slashdot articles continue to improve in the areas of spelling and grammar. The last few months have seen noticeable but inconsistent improvements.
As for online dictionaries, I paid the ~$30 per year to get access to http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com/. It's worth every penny. No paper dictionary or other online dictionary beats it for either speed or thoroughness. I guess the OED would be more thorough, but I'd argue that that is not just a dictionary, but an encyclopedia of the language. The Unabridged MW also has WAV files, so you don't have to learn yet another pronunciation key system.
-
Re:hope the ddos'ers enjoy jail
You know, since 9/11/2001 it seems that every attack of any kind has been labled an act of terrorism.
Those who start these DDoS attacks are seen less like your standard fare and labled TERRORISTs. I don't see them creating terror. Perhaps we should all take a look at this definition of terrorist from Merriam Webster:
One entry found for terrorism.
Main Entry: terrorism
Pronunciation: 'ter-&r-"i-z&m
Function: noun
Date: 1795
: the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion
- terrorist
- terroristic
Usama and his bunch are terrorists.
The people responsible for this attack are more akin to electronic warriors. Whether or not they are right in their methodology OR targets makes them no more and no less. Yes, they are criminals, but I really don't think any such attack against any company that experiences so many can be called a "random act of terror". It's more like a concerted effort to destroy said company.
Had they issued some sort of demand with a threat of physical violence, I'd change my opinion, but as it stands the people responsible are criminals/warriors. -
Re:I am not owned by a company.
If I were in a more cynical mood, I would suggest that you contact a lawyer and see if "balls to the wall" was evidence of a sexually hostile workplace.
Actually, etymologically speaking, "balls to the wall" has no sexual connotations. -
What a great word!
Nice use of the word 'Sisyphean'! For those of you who do not know the definition of Sisyphean:
Sisyphean \sih-suh-FEE-un\ (adjective) : of, relating to, or suggestive of the labors of Sisyphus; specifically : requiring continual and often ineffective effort
Example sentence: No one works at the Happy Burger for very long, so it's a Sisyphean task for the manager just to keep the place adequately staffed.
Did you know? The legendary Corinthian king Sisyphus annoyed the gods with his trickery. As a consequence, in Hades he was condemned for eternity to roll a huge rock up a long, steep hill, only to watch it roll back down. Sisyphus' story is often told in conjunction with that of Tantalus, another king who offended the gods and paid the price in Hades. Tantalus was condemned to stand beneath fruit-laden boughs, up to his chin in water. Whenever he bent his head to drink, the water receded, and whenever he reached for the fruit, the branches moved beyond his grasp. Thus to "tantalize" is to tease or torment by offering something desirable but keeping it out of reach -- and something "Sisyphean" (or "Sisyphian," pronounced \sih-SIH-fee-un\) demands unending, thankless, and ultimately unsuccessful efforts.
BTW, 'Sisyphian' is Merriam-Webster's word of the day today.
-
More to do with the definition of "Addict""What pisses me off is that people think I am an Internet addict."
Well, you are. The problem lies not in the fact that you're an addict, but that people don't seem to realize what an addict is.
According to the Merriam Webster Dictionary, to addict oneself to something is "to surrender (oneself) to something habitually or obsessively". An addict (the noun) is simply a "devotee".
People are addicted, in the strictest sense, to all kinds of things -- chocolate, the morning paper, stamp collecting, C programming.
The word, however, has a pernicious pejorative use as someone who devotes him/herself to something to the point of causing him/herself (or others) harm. This is convenient to people who are disturbed at what someone does -- they can label them an "addict" and suddenly that person loses the right to do what they are doing.
This mechanism is most evident in American attitudes toward drugs and drug addicts. (Many of whom do injure themselves and others for their addictions; many, however, do not.) However, the same thing is at work all over our society.
Some of the most effective members of society have been addicts -- some things can only be accomplished by obsessive devotion to a cause. Addiction, by definition. Ted Williams was addicted to hitting baseballs. Most of the people in public office -- heaven help us all -- are addicted to politics. (As opposed to fair government addicts, whom I would gladly elect.)
But it doesn't have to be an obsession. It can simply be a habit. I'm an email addict, by that definition; I check to see if there's something new all day, whenever I think about it. I'm not obsessed about it; it's just easy to check, and keeps me up-to-date on correspondence. So I've cultivated the habit. If I weren't addicted to email, a lot of people would be irritated that I didn't do something for them in a timely manner.
Next time someone calls you an "internet addict", ask them if they have a favorite TV show. Or if they enjoy their job. Or if they're married. Show me someone totally unaddicted to something, and I'll show you someone with no hobbies, no passionate attachments, no connections to anything -- someone, in short, with real problems.
phil