Slashdot Mirror

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

hope this helps.

Well, I would hardly lazily use my initials and year of birth If I was particularly concerned. As for the rest, others have dug far deeper with nefarious intent and still without much concern on part, even direct in person stuff and active digital intrusions. As for the personal insults, it's the internet, so what's new, overall, pretty lame but hey worth a shot I suppose if you are into that but that's just your nature, your guilt expressing itself upon others, viewing the negatives in yourself as being expressed by others. Retired http://www.merriam-webster.com..., pretty accurately describes my current state of lack of need or desire for employment. So I am not sure what you are intending, as for potential desire, sure I suppose being paid a lot for doing a little is always a thought to be entertained, if you are intending to imply that my retirement is impermanent for some reason.

I thought it was a misspelling of dodgycoin.

Or perhaps it refers to Italian politicians.

Out of all of them, I think I'd put my faith in the mutt.

No that is not the definition of racism.
http://www.merriam-webster.com... .
and here
http://www.oxforddictionaries....
Really aiming at is not the same as excluding? So a college aiming at recruiting white people is not racist?
If you exchange the word non-white for non-black, non-hispanic, and or non-asian it is without a doubt that it would be seen as a racist statement so it is racist.
You're are making up your own definition that fits your worldview, show me a definition from a reputable source aka a dictionary that is used in universities that support your statement. Even with your definition Prince by way of his fame and money is part of a power structure so it would still apply. Targeting a specific race and or races is racism and it does not matter if that targeting is to do something good or bad for them. Supplying money to help low-income inner city schools is a great idea and yes it would tend to help minorities the most and that is fine. I will say that I live in South Florida and while there are some inner city areas that need help the rural areas often have large populations of low income people of all races and they are often overlooked.
And for all I know Prince was told it was to help low-income kids and the head of the program is the only one to blame for the racist statement about the project.

Seems perfectly acceptable (I'm in the US, born and raised). To those under 13, it's restricted. Try not to overcomplicate things.http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/restricted

The dictionary lists 'green' as a verb as well, so that seems to be an old usage (consider also, "browning" as a term used while cooking).

Many common color words can be used as verbs. In addition to green and brown:

Ed's cheeks purpled.
He had put on weight and grayed somewhat.
The paint yellowed with age.

We use "redden", rather than "red", probably because of the potential for confusion with "read". "Black" is often verbed as "blacken", but I've also seen it used as a verb without the "en" suffix, or alternatively as "blacking". "Blue" is less common as a verb, except in reference to the bluing of metal, but it's not so rare as to be considered incorrect.

There's definitely nothing wrong or unusual about "greened".

The dictionary lists 'green' as a verb as well, so that seems to be an old usage (consider also, "browning" as a term used while cooking).

sew chaos

sew
verb \s\
        : to make or repair something (such as a piece of clothing) by using a needle and thread

sow
verb \s\
        : to plant seeds in an area of ground
        : to cause (fear, doubt, etc.) to affect many people

sew chaos

sew
verb \s\
        : to make or repair something (such as a piece of clothing) by using a needle and thread

sow
verb \s\
        : to plant seeds in an area of ground
        : to cause (fear, doubt, etc.) to affect many people

If your only solution is to let them starve, then their solution will be to kill you and take your money.

Along with food, I used the money I got for doing my JOB, to buy guns.

Bring it.

When the personal attack is based on a group-attribute, it's an attack on the whole group.

1) An actual attack on an entire group may or may not be "hate against that group" - it's fairly possible to attack an entire group without actually hating that group. For example, affirmative action laws target particular groups for exclusion and yet are not considered bigotry.

and even if point 1) above was not true (which it is)...

2) An individual attack based on characteristics particular to a certain group in no way implies hate for all members of that group. It's why we are able to called people "dickheads" without being accused of misandry. It's why we are able to call people bitches without being called "misogynists".

Which leads me on to point....

3) Misogyny: 1. hatred, dislike, or mistrust of women, or prejudice against women.

You'll have to squint really hard to turn what is basically "This individual is PMSing" into "hatred, dislike, or mistrust of all women". To be honest, you're well into over-sensitive territory if you read "PMS" the same as "nigger", "chink", etc...

Well then, you can't claim feminists speak for all women either.

Well then, you can't expose yourself in public and expect to get away with it.

[no that has no relevance to your point, but your point had no relevance to mine either given that I did not make such a claim]

You also realise that according to that poll, 82% are actually feminists, but seem somewhat confused on the definition.

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

Since the definition of a woman is an adult human female and female has a specific biological definition that does not involve how one identifies you may want to be a little more polite with explaining these new definitions. I looked up trans-man in a dictionary and they had no definition for it. http://www.merriam-webster.com...

I have now decided we should just use male and female and stick with the biological definition since that is without any human bias or interpretation.

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

Am I insane because I identify as a woman?

Ok, sorry, let me clarify this a bit. You are not "insane" — that's a loaded term anyway. But you do have a delusion:

a belief held with strong conviction despite superior evidence to the contrary

(That "superior evidence", in this case, is your "biological sex".)

Either that, or, maybe, you have a lighter disorder of pseudologia fantastica.

I'm sorry, but I'm not buying into this subtle differences between "being" and "identifying as". For a man to "identify as" woman is just as (if not more!) delusional (or fraudulent) as for a White to identify as Black. Your "bilogical sex" makes you a man, by definition — which destines you to M-labeled bathrooms, whatever you are wearing.

it depends if you're talking about sex or gender

Nonsense. "Sex" and "gender" are interchangeable synonyms, the latter employed purely to avoid the erotic connotations of the former, when discussing things like grammar. Your attempts to differentiate between these terms may itself be symptomatic of the delusion.

Swaab and others have demonstrated sexual dimorphism in the brain

Any references to "scientific papers" can not, unfortunately, be given much credence — because of how sensitive a topic this is politically. For example, imagine that same "sexual dimorphism in the brain" argument used to justify the wage-disparity between sexes. Heck, you don't even need to imagine, just consider the fate of one L.H. Summers.

So, you are claiming, that some organs of your body disagree with others in identifying your sex (brain vs. genitalia)? Even if that were true, you are "fixing" the wrong organs... Which is, of course, your choice — just do not demand, the rest of society changes the language (and bathrooms) to accommodate it.

Product != unprocessed. Produce specifically refers to fruits and vegetables. Grains, for instance, can be unprocessed but still are NOT produce. I would also say that butchered meat that has not been modified by adding water, brine or preservatives also qualifies as unprocessed. I think the general understanding of 'processed' implies cooking, smoking, pickling or other modification by the addition of chemicals.
http://www.merriam-webster.com...

ahem

Full Definition of electrocute
        transitive verb
      1 : to execute (a criminal) by electricity
      2 : to kill by electric shock

Notice that the definition of electrocute involves dying? When you say "mild electrocution", you're saying "mildly dead", which doesn't really make a lot of sense.

You're welcome to use the word as you want, of course (that's one of the fundamental things that makes English a living language) but when someone else is using the word, you need to be aware of the dictionary meaning of the word or communication suffers.

That having been said, electricity takes the path of least resistance. The only way the path between the tines of the fork will be through your heart or the nerves that drive your heart will be if the fork has been stabbed into your heart or your spine or, I suppose, just the right bit of your brain. In all three cases, you have much bigger and more lethal problems than the minuscule amount of current between the tines of the fork.

If you had read the link, you would have known that humanity traditionally used linseed oil to preserve wood. But after the paint industry figured out how to use petroleum distillates for their stains, linseed Oil magically transformed itself into flaxseed oil, and was marketed as "essential".

Obesogenic is a regular word that is found in the dictionary: http://www.merriam-webster.com...

From Mirriam Webster

Full Definition of manifold
1 a : marked by diversity or variety
      b : many
2: comprehending or uniting various features : multifarious
3: rightfully so-called for many reasons
4: consisting of or operating many of one kind combined

The poster's mistake was to use an adjective rather than the adverb "manifoldly" or an adverbial phrase such as "in manifold ways."

FYI: definitions of scull and skull.

FYI: The definitions of scull and skull.

TIFTFY

FYI: definitions of scull and skull.

FYI: The definitions of scull and skull.

TIFTFY

FYI: definitions of scull and skull.

FYI: The definitions of scull and skull.

TIFTFY

FYI: definitions of scull and skull.

FYI: The definitions of scull and skull.

TIFTFY

FYI: definitions of scull and skull.

FYI: definitions of scull and skull.

No it is not.

That is how an insurance company may define it.

But perhaps the "full definition" convinces you: http://www.merriam-webster.com...

...let me explain it to you:

From the dictionary:

Mysogyny: a hatred of women.

Google provides this definition: dislike of, contempt for, or ingrained prejudice against women.

Absolutely *nothing* in his post fits these definitions. At no point did he say he disliked women, nor did he disparage women in any way. He stated that the women he has met do not show passion for his field of work. Passion-for-work isn't necessarily vice nor virtue. Many people react that he is too passionate, and would be better off being more like the women he has observed, thus what he said is construed (by that audience) as complementary towards women (for their more appropriate work-life balance). Regardless of how one interprets the OP's own passion, the fact remains: he said nothing hateful towards women.

You are looking for excuses to over-react.

From the dictionary:

Artificial Intelligence:
1
: a branch of computer science dealing with the simulation of intelligent behavior in computers
2
: the capability of a machine to imitate intelligent human behavior

Did you catch that? simulation. imitate.

A simple brute-force chess-playing algorithm absolutely qualifies by this definition. It is an enterprise of mimicry, not recreation!

People keep saying "this isn't AI, this still isn't AI" as if the engineers are claiming to have created life in a lab. That isn't what the goddamn word means.

This is artificial intelligence. It is simple, task-specific artificial intelligence, but that is covered by the definition.

See, e.g., this explanation. Octopodes is apparently British English.

That's not at all what a bait and switch is.

I dunno. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bait%20and%20switch a sales tactic in which a customer is attracted by the advertisement of a low-priced item but is then encouraged to buy a higher-priced one seems pretty much what I wrote, since the core-only Linux-version will be cheaper than the full-featured Windows version.

Merriam-Webster begs to differ:

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

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means....

Yes, I would say the same reasoning applies, with the same conclusion. I would say that any attempt to portray one side as right, but not the other side, would be evidence of a double standard being applied. And rightfully so - the justification for this double standard is the fact that the FBI's authority is based in popular support in a democratic state, and presumably your hypothetical armed group's authority is not.

You're using the term "double standard" in a way that might be technically correct, but is highly misleading. You are, essentially, trying to claim here that it might be okay to use a double standard. This runs counter to the way you employed the term throughout this thread, which had a distinctive negative connotation.

For an objective understanding of what I mean, please check out how the term is defined in Merriam Webster dictionary. Your use complies perfectly with the definition #2, but not with the simple definition, meant to give the gist of things. The term carries a negative connotation, and saying that a double standard would be rightfully employed here is simply a contradiction in this context.

Now, it is possible that this double standard is justified (though I don't think so), but I haven't seen that argument raised.

I'm going to guess that that is simply because none of the people reading what you said understand the term the way you mean it. Even if your use is technically correct, it's still not progressing the conversation.

Regarding the retaliation point, it is objectively factual that Israel has stated [some non-negligible proportion of] their attacks on Gaza are a response to their perception of Hamas' rocket/mortar fire, tunneling, or other hostile actions, and it is objectively factual that Hamas has stated [some non-negligible proportion of] their attacks on Israel are a response to their perception of Israel's continued exercise of de-facto sovereignty over historically non-Israeli territory.

So now the side's statements are enough to establish undisputed facts about their actions? Please show me the dictionary that supports that proposition.

Regarding the targeting point, it is objectively factual that Israel does not abstain from violence despite knowing its weapons lack the precision and accuracy to guarantee absence of collateral damage, and it is objectively factual that Hamas does not abstain from violence despite knowing its weapons lack the precision and accuracy to guarantee absence of collateral damage.

1. It is not undisputed that Hamas is not targeting civilians.
2. Surely, it is legitimate to consider a side's deliberate, as policy, use of its own citizens as shields when evaluating this point
3. Even assuming we ignore (as you seem to) the first two points, it is legitimate to evaluate willingness to pull the trigger of a weapon in the context of exactly how inaccurate it is.

All the above are legitimate reasons to use a single standard in order to deem one party's actions as justified and another as not while employing the same standard.

Regarding the warnings point, it is objectively factual that Israel drops leaflets warning people in Gaza of their intent to commit violence against their perceived enemies, and it is objectively factual that Hamas has explicitly included in its charter language warning people in Israel of their intent to commit violence against their perceived enemies.

Again, it is legitimate to consider the specificity and proximity in time of the warning to the action warned about when evaluating its applicability. You don't seem to, but claiming that this is the only valid interpretation is simply absurd.

Now, don't take any of what I just said a

Get back to us when you get that relative pronoun thing down, faux Grammar Nazi.

Mindfulness is a dictionary word.

If Buddhadhasa Bikkhu didn't object to it being used in the title for one of his books, perhaps you might wish to reconsider your position.

I'll let "whiplash" address your remaining error.

"Recent criticism of the use of myriad as a noun, both in the plural form myriads and in the phrase a myriad of, seems to reflect a mistaken belief that the word was originally and is still properly only an adjective. As the entries here show, however, the noun is in fact the older form, dating to the 16th century. The noun myriad has appeared in the works of such writers as Milton (plural myriads) and Thoreau (a myriad of), and it continues to occur frequently in reputable English. There is no reason to avoid it."

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

monetize transitive verb

"3 : to utilize (something of value) as a source of profit"

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

A republic means that an individual has rights, in spite of what removal of those rights might mean to the benefit of the whole.

A republic is simply a country with elected representatives in its government. There is no guarantee of individual rights in a given country simply because it is a "republic".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
http://www.merriam-webster.com...

A pew survey, hmm, http://www.pewtrusts.org/en/ab... and straight from there We work hand-in-hand with donors as we conceive and execute projects and these people control Phew surveys. You have no idea what half of Americans want and even less after reading a Phew http://www.merriam-webster.com... Survey (double value meaning, phew I am glad the survey I worked hand in hand with produced the results I wanted or phew this survey stinks, if fact both at the same time).

I'll bet anything you like more than half of the American population have no idea what so ever of what is going on at all and would not care and would emphatically try to ignore you if you tried to explain it to them, not that they would understand, no matter how hard you tried.

Gates obviously 100% supports the hack because I don't know, his major investment operating system is 100% dedicated to opening a back door into all of us, all of the time, Bill's message fuck you and your privacy more money, more power now and into the future, a future where every possible politician is subject to extortion over secret misbehaviours in their childhood and teen years. Total power and total control for the keepers of your secrets and it won't be you, you'll just become a victim of your secrets both real and digitally created, but created well because they can accurately slot into your real life and you can not disprove, they know you can not disprove them.

As a free person, my secrets are mine and no one else's and fuck anyone who thinks different.

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

I don't think that word means what you think it means.

I tried Googling "homonyms for polacks" but struck out.

You might start here.

It means from each according to their abilities and to each according to their needs.

Jeebus H. Fucking Kerist no it most certainly does NOT. For the love of The Flying Spaghetti Monster PLEASE go buy a fucking dictionary.

Mark this date, KGIII, you're going to hear me (semi) agree with a talking head at Fox News (are they still a talking head if on the radio?): I'm not generally a fan of lame duck* presidents doing anything too significant in their final days (although he has almost a year left, so it's hard to say if he qualifies yet - hence the 'semi-agree') as they have very little accountability and tend to do things they previously would not have done (pardoning their friends, etc). In this particular case, we have a constitutional law professor*** who seems to have no problem ignoring the constitution when it is convenient for him to do so selecting a SCOTUS ... in an ideal world, I'd prefer to wait for 'the next guy' but as this is not an ideal world (and whoever 'the next guy' is, we're not apt to be doing much better & quite possibly much worse) ... all I can say is ugh.

I can't stand Fox News - and I am quite conservative, both fiscally and socially** - so I don't see myself listening even for amusement, but I almost agree with part of what they said.

* I suspect you knew the definition of lame duck and were being funny, link was in case I was wrong

** (Warning, I'm going to stray off topic here) Something I have never shared on Slashdot before is that I'm a Mormon. I'm certainly not ashamed of this, but we're not always a very popular group & I've never wanted a troll of my own (though I have read your thoughts on the matter & am no longer concerned if I gain one), so I've previously kept it to myself (no worries, readers, now that I have mentioned it you know - I'm not going to try to convert anyone here :)). Most people know enough about us to know that we tend to be very conservative - and I am no exception - but for me, it is very important that I not seek to legislate my own morality. So while I abstain from alcohol and drugs, I am in favour of legalizing marijuana (for example). I'll likely never take advantage of it's legality (not for recreational use, anyway), but from what I have read, it's less harmful than alcohol & making that illegal didn't go over too well last time :)

You might guess my view on homosexuality (though good chance you'd be wrong - I believe all sexual activity [hetro or otherwise] outside marriage to be wrong), but I feel it is none of the government's (or military's) business. I'd personally like to see the government get out of the business of marriage altogether (and have an analogue that did roughly the same thing re: taxes, benefits, etc) and let consenting adults be consenting adults. While my own Temple marriage to my wife is very precious to me, it's significance is not universally applicable. My sister's (non-LDS) marriage to her husband is equally precious to her. I have friends that were married civilly that likely feel the same way about their marriage (sorry, it has never come up in conversation, but I feel it is safe to say). I'm ok with (well, more than ok, I would vehemently support) a church (any church, not just mine) not performing a ceremony in a way they feel is contrary to their doctrine, but to withhold the legal benefits based on morality? I do not think a thing should have both religious and legal significance (pretty much ever - things like Sharia law are worrisome to me). These are two different applications, let's have two different vehicles (that are not incompatible, so one can avail them selves of either, both or neither).

At the end of the day, I am accountable for my actions and not the actions of others. I don't see morality as necessary in the law past the golden rule as 'my right to swing my fist ends where your nose begins' - not because it's morally wrong for me to strike you (unprovoked, self defense

You don't even know what the word "depiction" means, do you?

Well, someone doesn't. verb depict \di-pikt, d-\ "to show (someone or something) in a picture, painting, photograph, etc." http://www.merriam-webster.com...

Next you'll tell me that I don't Photoshop pictures, and don't Google for reasons why dictionaries also reference GPS as a portable or vehicle mounted device used for navigation.

which it is.

In every dictionary I found by Googling.

Google, "what is GPS"
 
Googling just "GPS" will guide you to purchase a device.
 
I like the short definition of GPS , it is a special form of stupid.
 
A better analogy is: We refer to our phones as cameras, because we use them almost exclusively for sending dick pics. Same thing for GPS, we use GPS to help navigate our dicks to a desired location. Now, imagine what will happen when we give our phones/cameras GPS? Yes, you know where this is going..

Let's consult a dictionary .

Mold: a cavity in which a substance is shaped.

Mould: A chiefly British variation of mold

saying someone can't speak is not censorship?
http://www.merriam-webster.com...

You morons are so inclined to redefine words when they judge your various beliefs to be bad that it renders you collectively incoherent and frequently situationally illiterate.

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

YOU don't get to redefine words. AC gave you the definition of spam, unsolicited commercial email. You don't get to claim it is something that it isn't just because you want to use the word where it doesn't belong.

Actually, they are very similar...

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

Actually, they are very similar...

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

So grammar nazi, you think you know ?. Well, you have no idea.

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

flammable

flamb()l/

adjective: flammable

        easily set on fire.

        "the use of highly flammable materials"

As for Flamma, its latin and is a verb there. Go ask them.

Why Do Flammable and Inflammable Mean the Same Thing?

There is a fairly clear reason for why both these words carry the same meaning: the prefix in- does not always function as a negative prefix.
Sometimes (and this is one of those times) it serves as an intensifier. It’s fairly obvious how this could lead to problems.

Surprisingly, both flammable and inflammable coexisted peacefully in English for hundreds of years before anyone decided to do something about it. Inflammable is the older of the two, with recorded use as far back as 1574. Flammable begins to appear in 1655, when Margaret Cavendish described oil as being “hot burning and flammable” in her Philosophical and Physical Opinions. One of the reasons there was little confusion about these words is that flammable was used much less often than inflammable.

But in the 1920s the self appointed, eagle-eyed language nazis of the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) realized that many people were viewing the in- in inflammable as a negative prefix, and were at risk of consequently incinerating themselves at a much higher rate than was desirable. The NFPA advocated to have flammable used exclusively for warning labels (such as are found on mattresses, oil cans, and other things that will catch on fire if you put a match to them), and managed to slightly nudge our language toward a more sensible path. Though in the recent past flammable is used more often than inflammable, this pair still incites controversy—and clueless fools would want to look ignorant.