Slashdot Mirror

Not everyone agrees with you.

'Liberal' shares a root with 'liberty' and can mean anything from "generous" to "loose" to "broad-minded." Politically, it means "“a person who believes that government should be active in supporting social and political change."

...

Liberal is commonly used as a label for political parties in a number of other countries, although the positions these parties take do not always correspond to the sense of liberal that people in the United States commonly give it. In the US, the word has been associated with both the Republican and Democratic parties (now it is more commonly attached to the latter), although generally it has been in a descriptive, rather than a titular, sense.

It's an old Carlin riff, and it goes:
Why Do We Park in the Driveway and Drive on the Parkway?
And, there is an answer here:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/drive-parkway-park-driveway-history
As for "freeways", they are something that denoted the lack of a fee or toll to use...
Oh, and I STILL want my flying car too!
Then I'll fly past the (gridlocked) expressway and park on the roof...

Despite the apparent misconception, "Republic" and "Democracy" are not mutually exclusive. You can, in fact, have a democratic republic.

(although most of the states with the phrase "democratic republic" in their official name put those words in to hide the fact that they were actually neither).

Some links: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/05/13/is-the-united-states-of-america-a-republic-or-a-democracy/

  https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/republic

your mod was not alive, hence you did not kill it

In English, words sometimes have more than one meaning. Here is meaning 2 from Meriam-Webster:

kill verb \ kil \
Definition of kill
transitive verb
...
2. a :to put an end -to kill competition - a change that could kill our chances for success
b :defeat, veto - killed the amendment
c :to mark for omission; also :delete - kill a quote
d :annihilate, destroy - kill an enemy

It's almost as if Trump is incredibly corrupt and giving massive amounts of money to his friends and supporters for doing nothing.

Drain the swamp was not about getting rid of lobbyists and corrupt deals. It was always about getting rid of competent government employees. That's why just about everyone he's nominated for cabinet jobs are literally anti-qualified (FFS Rick Perry campaigned on eliminating the DoE and now he's the DoE secretary). Bannon fully admitted it too when he (illiterately) said the goal is the "deconstruction of the administrative state."

I guess if you think Netflix is "tech" then you are (not) even worth responding to

I'm just going to assume the not there. Additionally, you're totally missing the point with the DVD thing from Netflix. 10 years ago, the "best" model for distribution was snail mail and now it's streaming. That's didn't happen because someone changed their business model, it happened because we made a lot of advancements in Internet speeds and reliability of delivery via the Internet.

What you are talking about is "models" not "tech". You probably think Siri is "AI" too.

Having read that, you should really take a look at this. I have a strong feeling that it applies here.

"tit" (slang) dates from the 1920s, though "titty" comes from the 1700s. But the use of the word "tit" to mean "anything small" comes from the 1500s or earlier. So tits were just small birds, and tits didn't become boobs until recently-ish.

The word you're looking for is "teat". Its origins date back to the 12th century

https://www.merriam-webster.co...

As a writer, you should know the expression is trial by.

Trial by [fire|combat|stupidity] is the idiom.

Just thought you might want to learn something today.

I suggest you get a dictionary for the definition of trial and stop trying to be a failed literary critic.

a test of faith, patience, or stamina through subjection to suffering or temptation; broadly :a source of vexation or annoyance

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/trial

The term is "rife".

https://www.merriam-webster.co...

Florida is not a territory or a nation, hence you cannot be a "citizen" of it

So you don't know about state citizenship concept in the US ?

at least not in the same sense that you can be a citizen of the US or of Puerto Rico

You can't be a "citizen" of the United States in the same sense that you can be a citizen of Puerto Rico. Which is different from the sense one can be a citizen of the United Kingdom. Every citizenship is different - entailing different rights, duties and values.

If you try to base an argument on using the term "citizen" this way in two different ways, then you are committing the fallacy of equivocation.

Amazing! Pot, kettle, black ? Consider your words "As an American, I am not a citizen of Puerto Rico. "

American : Only the third definition is about a person and the nation United States. (Others are about the language and the persons+continents). This definition defines "American" also as "U. S. citizen". So put together, your statement becomes :

"As a U. S. citizen, I am not a citizen of Puerto Rico"

Which is the identical fallacy you named.

One would think a pedant would be aware that the word octopus originates from Greek and wouldn't use Latin pluralization rules on it.

https://www.merriam-webster.co...

But who am I kidding? Pedants are rarely aware of anything other than their desire to make themselves feel smart by correcting others, even when they're wrong to do so.

There's no standard definition of "free speech". Morally speaking, it means whatever you want it to. Everyone gets to claim they're exercising free speech, and everyone else gets to disagree with them, and no one is right. But legally speaking, laws and courts in different countries have defined it different ways, and those definitions almost never come down to, "the right to say anything you want, in any context, without restriction." It's not that yelling fire in a crowded theater is a form of free speech we restrict. It simply is not an exercise of free speech. Freedom of speech does not include the right to harm people by saying things you know are false. When the government punishes you for doing it, they aren't limiting your freedom of speech in any way. They're punishing you for doing something that (according to the law) is not free speech.

Here's how Webster defines freedom of speech: "the legal right to express one's opinions freely". dictionary.com calls it: "the right of people to express their opinions publicly without governmental interference, subject to the laws against libel, incitement to violence or rebellion, etc." According to Wikipedia it means: "the right to articulate one's opinions and ideas without fear of government retaliation or censorship, or societal sanction." Notice what all of those have in common. Freedom of speech is the right to express your opinions (and ideas and beliefs). If you honestly believe something, you have the right to say it (though we sometimes might restrict that right if it conflicts with other rights). But if you don't believe something and you intentionally lie to hurt someone or con them out of their money, that's not free speech.

New slang usually isn't in the dictionary unless you have a really big one. Scrabble rules dictate that you have to agree on the dictionary in advance. Hence my friends not letting me play caries. Before I play Scrabble with friends again, I'd better get myself an unabridged OED.

Brains aren't machines.

Machine: a living organism or one of its functional systems

It's not the most complex thing we know because it's part of a larger system which adds more complexity.

Pedantic. Admittedly, so is this entire thread.

...please keep in mind that these are ancient sayings...

Except it isn't ancient. The first known use of "bête noire" dates to 1805. So it is "black beast".

... roughly 63 cents for every customer whose data was potentially exposed in its recent security breach.

A customer is someone who purchases a commodity or service. The vast majority of those put at risk by Equifax's fuckup were in no way "customers". Unless they were capable of purchasing EVERYTHING using cash, or opting out of mainstream society and living off the grid altogether, they had no true choice in the matter of whether or not their personal data was under Equifax care. Calling them customers implies that they were partly responsible for their misfortune because in having chosen to deal with an irresponsible vendor; the fact is that they are simply victims of a too-powerful company's careless disregard for its responsibilities and obligations.

You are wrong obviously,

https://www.merriam-webster.co...
(see second definition)

"something to which one has a just claim: such as
a :the power or privilege to which one is justly entitled"

You're using a politically slanted version of the word which isn't accurate.

Why not use the ACTUAL definition of the word instead of a synonym which seems to be an attempt to discount my position? Because the actual definition backs my position?

Spiritual
1 : of, relating to, consisting of, or affecting the spirit : incorporeal spiritual needs

2 a : of or relating to sacred matters spiritual songs
b : ecclesiastical rather than lay or temporal spiritual authority lords spiritual

3: concerned with religious values

4: related or joined in spirit our spiritual home his spiritual heir

5a : of or relating to supernatural beings or phenomena
b : of, relating to, or involving spiritualism : spiritualistic

As is commonly the case, the highly-upvoted snark about legacy language is dead wrong. It's already in Webster's:

2: not adequately guarded or sustained : unsafe an insecure investment

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/insecure

(Side note: "The only modern dictionaries that trace their lineage to Noah Webster's are published by Merriam-Webster.", Wikipedia.)

Instead when you use a word like "guys", you get blocked. I'm just stupified by the bullying behavior of Mozilla's employees: https://mzl.la/2gu5521

Lol, that thread is freaking great. A contributor asked about the status on a two year old feature request and makes the mistake of using "guys" when referring to a collective group and get three responses about his use of "gendered language" and his responses marked as abusive and off-topic. And the icing on the cake is that guys is considered non-gendered by both Mirriam-Webster and Oxforddictionaries. As for the feature request itself, still in an unknown status. Honestly if that is how they react to every perceived slight, I can see why Firefox is struggling.

...Most of the world buy their goods from there, we're sending our money to China en-masse, immense amounts of it, the wealthy there, are in turn getting out of the country and picking up the premium property around the world.

Most of the money leaving China is the result of graft by government/Party functionaries or those taking advantage of their connections with same.

This is the actual reason why most of those folks are in such a hurry to get their money and themselves out of China. The ones who've made their dosh legitimately are under no such compulsion.

-Z.

posting anon because I've moderated in this thread

https://www.merriam-webster.co...

It's not that often that a non-native speaker gets to teach a native speaker a new word, I guess.

You'd expect someone that speaks very passionately about movies and video games to watch or play them.
Therefore, the fact that they don't is unexpected.

In other words, the actual situation is opposite of the expected one - aka, Irony.

When I say "google it" people know I've suggested they look 'it' up online. It's well understood. I *could* say it lots of other ways... why should I?

No... When you say "Google it" people only will know that you suggested to ... well.. Google it,

Which by definition means "to use Google"

When someone asks you for a kleenex, would you hand them a glass of water? NO! Because, you know, words have meanings.

Yes, there may be some ambiguity, but that's why we can use dictionaries and such stuff to make sure everyone means the same.

But these companies have an army of lawyers who would send cease and desist letters to newspapers and other organizations when they use brandnames generically. Xerox used to be very aggressive about it.

They have to. At least over here it's not general, widespread generic use that can make you loose your brand, but you have to proof that you took appropriate action to defend your brand.

I wonder if there is a way for Google to find people using the word "google" in a generic sense.

At least they tried.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/...
https://www.heise.de/newsticke...
http://www.literaturcafe.de/go...

And if you want, you may look up the official definition of "to google"

https://www.merriam-webster.co...

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/non%20sequitur

Like the other hand waiving responses, James Gandolfini was never a "sex symbol". And if his success (tied to a single TV show) means there aren't unrealistic expectations for men, Roseanne being the biggest show on TV must also mean there aren't any unrealistic or age related expectations of women.

First, there have been no reported deaths from this infection as per the article, so how exactly is this deadly? Dangerous, potentially deadly? So, please, lets title these articles responsibly. The remainder of this post is not meant to bash the parent, just to define terms and clarify concepts. My opinion is at the end.

Not a doctor, but there is only a little overlap between antibiotics and antifungal medications.

The term antibiotic covers both anti-bacterial agents (e.g. penicillin) used against bacteria, and anti-fungals (e.g. fluconaole/Diflucan), and technically, they also refer to anti-virals (e.g. aciclovir), but in the most common use, antibiotics refer to antibacterials, and never to antivirals. There are no medications that treat both bacteria (prokaryotes [no nucleus]), fungus (eukaryotes [true nucleus]) simultaneously; yes, bleach (sodium hypochlorite) can destroy both, but internal use is discouraged [and as referenced in the wikipedia article, your body's neutrophils (a type of white blood cell - cells that fight infection) uses hypochlorous acid as an antimicrobial . So.....yes and no. [sorry that kept getting longer and longer]

This stuff is resistant to Diflucan (I'm not trying to spell the generic name correctly right now),

Flu con a zole - that's not too hard....Talimogene Laherparepvec...that's hard. :-)

which is often handed out with much less oversight than antibiotics.

Ummm, no. You can get pretty powerful topical antibiotics and topical antifungals over the counter. Fluconazole is an oral antifungal that still requires a prescription (at least in the US and other "responsible" countries).

Any bio-female could probably get a few doses for a yeast infection without seeing their doctor; calling in and asking is all most require since it is a common ailment.

It is a common ailment, but it is also a true infection that can be cultured and proven, and usually requires treatment. (I don't want you to poo-poo this aliment :-), pretty miserably for those afflicted), and unless there is a well established relationship between physician and patient, an exam is required (and strongly encouraged to rule out other more dangerous diagnoses).

The problem is that many primary care doctors have been told that C. albicans (the common human strain) can not become resistant. I was told the same, only to be corrected by a very indignant Tropical and Infectious Disease specialist who had seen that first line drug become useless in a few cases.

I see fluconazole resistant candida albicans frequently (reported 7% resistance rate), but I work at a tertiary care referral center, so YMMV. Never been under the illusion that it could not become resistant. Every organism (meaning microbial species) given enough time and opportunity can become resistant to just about anything.....The only thing that microbial organisms will never become resistant to is fire, well heat anyways (shout out to the the post below).

But this doesn't mean we need to panic and shut down Madagascar. There are other classes of drugs, like the old standby nystatin, and other families of antifungal medications in the larger azole drug category. This should be treatable if caught early. The danger is that drugs like nystatin can not be absorbed so

From Merriam-Webster:

Much has been written on they, and we aren’t going to attempt to cover it here. We will note that they has been in consistent use as a singular pronoun since the late 1300s; that the development of singular they mirrors the development of the singular you from the plural you, yet we don’t complain that singular you is ungrammatical; and that regardless of what detractors say, nearly everyone uses the singular they in casual conversation and often in formal writing.

You also used to be plural, but they and you became acceptable for singular use around the same time, 700 years ago.

The "majority" argument is hypocritical. Discrimination happens against individuals, not groups. When you discriminate, you are taking traits which tend to be true for a group, and assuming it applies to an individual who belongs to that group. You are pre-judging them based on the stereotype (hence, a prejudice), rather than judging them based on their individual traits. Whether that group is a minority or majority is irrelevant. The only thing that matters is whether or not you're assuming a group stereotype is true of an individual.

e.g. Blacks on average commit more crimes per capita than other races. That's factual. But if you use that to assume an individual black you've just met is a criminal, that's discrimination.

Likewise, white males on average have historically discriminated against other races. But if you use that to assume an individual white male is a bigot, that in itself is discrimination. You're guilty of the very offense you're accusing the white male of - you are a bigot.

Now you can too!

He knows, but you don't. Learning English as a foreign language isn't easy, but maybe if you dedicated less time to trolling you would further your progress.

Since you've never had a girlfriend, you might not know that women can be just as randy as men.

Definition of hoard
: a supply or fund stored up and often hidden away a hoard of cash

Ether is ethereal? Whodathunkit?

2a : lacking material substance

That's not a given, else there'd be no need for severability clauses.

With that sort of business acumen, it's amazing you are on the old side of middle-aged, living in a studio apartment with a manga collection.

Middle age is between 45 and 64. I'm only 47. That puts me on the young side of middle age. Now get off my virtual lawn, Millennial!

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/middle%20age

You trusted Google? What the heck are you thinking?
fascism
noun fascism \fa-shi-zm also fa-si-\

a political philosophy, movement, or regime (such as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition

First off, wow, you're being an ass.

Second off, instead of bashing me as Some Guy On The Internets, put on your critical thinking cap, read the source text, and educate yourself.

I'll even make it easy for you and copy out the relevant section from page 26 (bolding mine):

Article VII Section 1 SECTION 1 TAXATION. The power of taxation shall never be suspended, surrendered or contracted away. All taxes shall be uniform upon the same class of property within the territorial limits of the authority levying the tax and shall be levied and collected for public purposes only. The word "property" as used herein shall mean and include everything, whether tangible or intangible, subject to ownership.

So for Washington state law, as relates to the state Constitution, "property" would include income.

If your beef is with the word "levy" instead, again, read the source text. You'll find that the word "levy" is used in the more general sense of "to impose or collect by legal authority; the imposition or collection of an assessment". See the Merriam-Webster entry if you'd like.

Search the text of the Constitution itself, and you'll find collocations like the one in the blockquote above, where "taxes" are "levied". Notably, this is not the same thing as a federal IRS levy, which is what you seem to be thinking about. It's important to recognize that different branches and levels of government sometimes use the same terms in different ways.

Cheers,

Hmm, standard: something established by authority, custom, or general consent as a model or example

Yea, I am pretty sure the term applies MORON.

one affected with pedophilia

Source: https://www.merriam-webster.co...

sexual perversion in which children are the preferred sexual object; specifically : a psychological disorder in which an adult has sexual fantasies about or engages in sexual acts with a prepubescent child

Source: https://www.merriam-webster.co...

Now the latter is certainly a criminal act according to the laws of most civilized nations. What about the former? If the fantasies involve material that involved child abuse, illegal as well. But what if it doesn't? Punish people for their thoughts alone?

one affected with pedophilia

Source: https://www.merriam-webster.co...

sexual perversion in which children are the preferred sexual object; specifically : a psychological disorder in which an adult has sexual fantasies about or engages in sexual acts with a prepubescent child

Source: https://www.merriam-webster.co...

Now the latter is certainly a criminal act according to the laws of most civilized nations. What about the former? If the fantasies involve material that involved child abuse, illegal as well. But what if it doesn't? Punish people for their thoughts alone?

No. See meaning 4.

https://www.merriam-webster.co...

You did not cite a dictionary for a "definition".

Dude, you can have your own opinions, but you can't have your own facts. I cited Princeton's Wordnet — an online dictionary. I'm still waiting for your citation of any resource, which defines "Fascism" as anything like "there are upper class/ruling class and one or several lower classes".

And I did ask for this definition twice already. This is the third time. And yet, you would not.

All controversial speech is political, because of human nature: we try to suppress what annoys, disgusts, or offends us.

Okay, but that requires a definition of "political" that's likely a lot more broad than most people think of. All controversial speech is SOCIAL -- I'll grant you that. But yelling an insult at your neighbor is not (by most people's definitions) a "political" act. It may be offensive to your neighbor and to other people who hear it, but that doesn't automatically make it "political."

Political, according to standard dictionary definitions has something to do with government. Insulting your neighbor (even in a rather offensive way) because you don't like the color of his shirt has nothing to do with the government.

It's grammar nazi time! Pay attention to the correct forms:

The consumerS gets what they want or The consumer gets what HE wants

It's grammEr nazi time! Pay attention to the correct form: The consumerS get what they want.

It's grammar, not grammer.

-- spelling nazi :-)

Heuristics are algorithms.

Not according to my profs in school. A key part of the definition of algorithm was that it was guaranteed to terminate. It may take a long time, but it was guaranteed to return an answer someday. A heuristic doesn't have a guaranteed stopping condition, just a time limit that the caller is willing to wait for the most optimal solution.

I believe this to be the typical definition of algorithm, not just a specialization for computer science. Note that the Merriam-Webster definition includes a particularly key phrase: in a finite number of steps. Heuristics keep cycling, gaining ever more refinement with no guarantee of ever finding an endpoint.

Grammar nazi fail:

: his or her : his, her, its —used with an indefinite third person singular antecedent
anyone in their senses — W. H. Auden

https://www.merriam-webster.co...

Notice that the Merriam-Webster defintion of their specifies that it can be used with "an indefinite third person singular antecedent". In the example by W.H. Auden, this is the word "anyone". But the phrase "anonymous reader" refers to a specific reader. I would not regard "anonymous reader" as being indefinite. Therefore, this use of "their" is inappropriate.

Grammar nazi fail:

: his or her : his, her, its —used with an indefinite third person singular antecedent
anyone in their senses — W. H. Auden

https://www.merriam-webster.co...

TBH, I'd thought the only used for "hanged" was for the judge's black cap condemnation : "you will be hanged by the neck until dead." But just to annoy people, I'll mix them about a bit more.