Slashdot Mirror

Hello.

> preposition ending. i know.

Ending with a GRATUITOUS is bad. "Where is Bob at?" means exactly the same thing as "where is Bob?", so you shouldn't add "at" to the end, as it serves no purpose.

http://blog.oxforddictionaries...

What do you mean? It's in the name; it's Olympic-sized. https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/us/olympic-sized

Learn how to scroll down and you wouldn't fail so epically. It still means both.

https://en.oxforddictionaries....

It's in the Oxford dictionary, run by the English. Seriously, though, you couldn't even be bothered to look it up before commenting?

How ironic:

"epicly stupid".

https://en.oxforddictionaries....
http://www.merriam-webster.com...

Sorry, to ask again: do you mean 'generator' as in https://en.oxforddictionaries.... aka a dynamo?
Or do you mean something completely different?

A generator, I repeat it, a dynamo, basically lasts for ever ... .Why you believe otherwise is beyond me.

No idea what you want to say with the links, the first link completely supports my standpoint.

The second link does not look credible. It makes no sense that UK wind farms drop down in performance an german ones don't. Especially the claim that they drop to 1/3 of original performance, how should that even physically make sense?

Well, as it turns out, "unthaw" is actually a word, and in North America, it means the same as "thaw" when it's used as a verb (as you did). When used as in the sentence "you can cook prawns from frozen by plunging them, unthawed, into boiling water", it means frozen. I hereby retract my snark. Credit to Oxford Dictionary.

Race is not ethnicity. Less than a 100 years ago irish and italians were not considered "white" while some asians were considered ambiguously white.

In fact, the definition of race in OED includes:

1.2 A group of people sharing the same culture, history, language, etc.; an ethnic group.

1.3 A group or set of people or things with a common feature or features.

I'm sure all of these facts are like water on a ducks back to someone using the racially archaic "Mohammedan." But to anyone else reading along who isn't a total racist asshole, now you have a fact based counter-narrative.

So there's a noticeable tidal change once every 24 hours from the sun?

Yes. There's even centuries old names for these effects, spring and neap tide.

Just because you can't see it now doesn't mean that sailors centuries ago couldn't see it.

What you see is motion of the oceans and tectonic plates that match the period of the moon's position.

The Moon's position relative to the Sun.

So there's a noticeable tidal change once every 24 hours from the sun?

Yes. There's even centuries old names for these effects, spring and neap tide.

Just because you can't see it now doesn't mean that sailors centuries ago couldn't see it.

What you see is motion of the oceans and tectonic plates that match the period of the moon's position.

The Moon's position relative to the Sun.

In the 1930s.

You don't like that word? I don't see any problem with it, seems like it was used correctly.

Air combat?

Bingo. For example, Oxford dictionary has this to say about fighter jets:

A fast jet-powered military aircraft designed for attacking other aircraft:

The reading comprehension problem I'm having is with your twist on the definition, not the definition itself.

No, you clearly didn't understand what the phrase "intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own" means. This is evidenced by your contention that the lack of the word "race" in that statement means intolerance of someone's beliefs on race could not be considered bigotry.

The definition I posted was copied from dictionary.com. Let's try another source. "bigotry: Intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself". Not having intolerant opinions, but actually being/acting intolerant.

The is a reason we have different words for discrimination, racism, and bigotry. Bigotry is not accepting your views on race could be wrong. The actual beliefs on race themselves are what could be considered racist. It just so happens someone could not be racist without also being a bigot unless they are never introduced to the idea they could be wrong.

You're right. Here's the dictionary definition of "bigotry": "stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own."

Reading comprehension fail. The definition refers to the intolerance found in someone's creed, belief or opinion, not intolerance about someone else's creed, belief, or opinion.

The reading comprehension problem I'm having is with your twist on the definition, not the definition itself. The definition I posted was copied from dictionary.com. Let's try another source. "bigotry: Intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself". Not having intolerant opinions, but actually being/acting intolerant.

Racism:

1. Prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one’s own race is superior:
a program to combat racism

1.1 The belief that all members of each race possess characteristics, abilities, or qualities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races:

Language is fluid, and there is certainly a push to consider policies to fight racism as racist themselves, but that is not the traditional definition. And it is not a useful change because it only seeks to protect the privileged of certain groups by preventing attempts to level the playing ground for underrepresented groups. If your new definition became the new norm there would be no need for the word racism since all discrimination would be racism. You are only trying to use the word to inflame the discussion.

Oxford Dictionary says you are wrong

It's not a typo, it's a dialectic/idiomatic difference in spelling.

I was not criticizing Barbra's spelling, I was commenting on her likely regional bias on the nature of "unions", since my original comment specifically called out U.S. road paving done by state employee union workers in U.S. states.

For more spelling differences, the Oxford English dictionary notes general rules here: http://www.oxforddictionaries....

You'll note that labour/labor is one of their example words.

Your personal definition of the term is apparently different to Wikipedia's and the Oxford Dictionary's.

Do you feel like sharing what you believe it means, or would you rather continue yelling about your lawn?

It was completely clear from context I was speaking metaphorically.

And it's clear from context, that I thought your metaphor was overblown puffery with no place in a rational discussion by looking at it logically rather than with touchie feelie metaphor.

Again, $12/hr is not quite a bit of money.

It doesn't have to be a lot of money. The expenses you mention shouldn't be that expensive in the first place. It's not Uber's place to fix that either.

And finally, what's the point of this observation? Even if we were to accept that these items need to be as expensive as they are, it still doesn't change that your labor is not that valuable to the people looking to get a ride. Someone has to pay for that stuff, and if it's not your passengers, then who? Uber doesn't have massive revenue coming from somewhere else other than ridership that they can cover their would-be employees with.

My take here is that every single one of the expenses you mention has outpaced GDP for decades (retirement through health care expenses). That's not sustainable even if we chose to throw the wealth of the world at the problems. Instead, we should be looking at the institutional flaws that create that huge level of inflation in important human wants.

What _preceeded_ the Dark Ages was the collapse of Rome. What _caused_ them was conservativism used to prevent the working class from taking the wealth and privilage of the ruling class.

Funny, that's not the definition of conservatism.

Commitment to traditional values and ideas with opposition to change or innovation:

or

The holding of political views that favor free enterprise, private ownership, and socially conservative ideas:

Maybe we have better things to do with our time than redefine the English language just to win arguments on the internets, kay?

No, because a few libtards managed to put the breaks on "Austerity" and the madness and lies it represents.

Funny how Norway or Sweden don't have to do "austerity" despite practicing fiscal restraint for generations.

Colors it how? I think I was pretty clear that I'm against this individual, or any individual, deciding for themselves how a case should go without the benefit of due process, and acting on it. If that wasn't clear before then I am stating it now. I'm making no claims about being impartial, I am stating unequivocally that I think this was a negative action.

Further, I don't know where you're getting your definition that vigilantism requires violent action but Oxford says no it doesn't.

go to Paradise [...] sent to Heaven

I always thought, Heaven and Paradise are interchangeable synonyms. Indeed, the dictionary seems to concur...

I must admit that I don't really understand why people act like they _know_ what happens after death

Clearly, you aren't religious. If you were, you would've known too. Religion — pretty much by definition — is not Science. Dogma is taken on faith, not because a reproducible experiment confirms it.

I suppose, the approach simplifies life greatly...

Oxford dictionary tends to disagree:
http://www.oxforddictionaries....
(too lazy to link)

Sigh. http://blog.oxforddictionaries...

"But the claim that decimate should be used to mean naught but to 'put to death (or destroy) one of every ten' has deeper problems than that. For it is not at all clear that this punitive sense is indeed the earliest definition of the word...

"So given that these two meanings of decimate appeared almost simultaneously, why are we so obsessed with assigning the punitive meaning to the word? A likely answer is that people are falling prey to what is known as the Etymological Fallacy, a tendency to believe that a word's current meaning should be dictated by its roots. Unfortunately for the etymological purists, decimate comes from the Medieval Latin word decimatus, which means 'to tithe'. The word was then assigned retrospectively to the Roman practice of punishing every tenth soldier."

Please take your argument to Oxford...

1 Kill, destroy, or remove a large proportion of: the inhabitants of the country had been decimated

1.1 Drastically reduce the strength or effectiveness of (something): public transport has been decimated

2 historical Kill one in every ten of (a group of people, originally a mutinous Roman legion) as a punishment for the whole group: the man who is to determine whether it be necessary to decimate a large body of mutineers

Although I suspect you won't get very far with it there.

According to the Oxford English dictionary, decimate meaning to kill 1/10 is something of an urban legend. You can read it for yourself here.

http://blog.oxforddictionaries...

you've never seen a modern combine if that's what you think.

a modern combine is an incredibly complicated piece of machinery controlled by a computer that automates dozens of tasks into a single machine while managing the process entirely, a large amount of combines these days are fully autonomous. (yeah farmers got self driving shit LONG before it was cool)

The term "robot" as definied as:
  "1A machine capable of carrying out a complex series of actions automatically, especially one programmable by a computer:"
    - http://www.oxforddictionaries....

those farm robots are more robot than this crappy pizza robot is.

Fixed that for you.

You didn't. You only made it more specific. It is perfectly fine without the bold part.

None of the common dictionary definitions for "steal" mention depriving the original owner of anything.

Firstly, both Cambridge and Oxford specifically define the primary definition of the verb 'to steal' as an action in which an object is taken without intending to return it. Secondly, I was arguing that most people would consider the meaning of this word to roughly equal the dictionary definition (which happens to coincide with the legal definition in most if not all countries). Unless you can point me to a credible study that show the majority of people share your view, I think that is a fairly safe assumption. The redefintion you adhere to is a relatively recent invention by media industry lobbyists.

The fact that someone is familiar with the accepted meaning of words does not mean they've been brainwashed by the media industry.

Indeed. In fact, it suggests that someone has not been brainwashed. However, when someone denies the accepted meaning and tries to spread a redefinition invented by the media industry, it certainly does mean precisely that.

That you subscribe to a non-standard definition suggests that you've been engaging in a practice commonly referred to as "drinking your own bathwater."

Well, I hope you enjoyed your bathwater.

These are cars: https://www.google.ca/search?q...
These are aircraft: https://www.google.ca/search?q...
These are flying car: https://www.google.ca/search?q...

If you are still confused, here's some definitions.
Car: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... http://www.oxforddictionaries.... http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Aircraft: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... http://www.oxforddictionaries.... http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Flying car: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

I fail to see where the term 'car' is being used to refer to something that flies.

These are cars: https://www.google.ca/search?q...
These are aircraft: https://www.google.ca/search?q...
These are flying car: https://www.google.ca/search?q...

If you are still confused, here's some definitions.
Car: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... http://www.oxforddictionaries.... http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Aircraft: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... http://www.oxforddictionaries.... http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Flying car: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

I fail to see where the term 'car' is being used to refer to something that flies.

http://www.oxforddictionaries....

Yes.

Most reasonable people could come up with a list of the types of content they feel should be banned; when governments get involved then it becomes censorship, even if we agree with what is banned.

You're wrong here. Censorship can also be carried out by private entities. References: ACLU, Oxford dictionary, Encyclopedia Britannica, Wikipedia.

I simply disagree that is censorship. Private organization's can chose what they want to say and how, simply because they chose not to speak is not censorship since it is a personal choice; I only consider it censorship if a governmental body prevents them from speaking.

Most reasonable people could come up with a list of the types of content they feel should be banned; when governments get involved then it becomes censorship, even if we agree with what is banned.

You're wrong here. Censorship can also be carried out by private entities. References: ACLU, Oxford dictionary, Encyclopedia Britannica, Wikipedia.

You
http://www.dictionary.com/brow...
Are
http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Wrong
http://www.oxforddictionaries....

Grok is a perfectly acceptable, defined, word contained in the dictionaries that record the meanings of the english language. Language evolves, get over it.

What is wrong with words that are well defined and in the Oxford dictionary? Personally, I'd rather see Slashdot dweebs who purport to be English experts, but are actually clueless, neutered (We all know you can't spay a Slashdotter.)

And even if it was, "decimated" doesn't strictly mean 1/10th.

http://blog.oxforddictionaries...

But it has, insomuch as dictionary definitions do not restrict the word in the way you do. From Webster's:

Full Definition of decimate
decimateddecimating
transitive verb
1
: to select by lot and kill every tenth man of
2
: to exact a tax of 10 percent from
3
a : to reduce drastically especially in number
b : to cause great destruction or harm to
decimation play \de-s-m-shn\ noun

Oxford even has a blog on it: http://blog.oxforddictionaries...

Or, to put it very simply, you're just plain wrong.

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.

Do you mean matte? If your maths are equal to your literacy, this should be interesting. ;-)

Ok, so what's this then?
Pot, meet kettle...

I suggest you look up what capitalism and socialism actually mean. Because neither definition includes "things cost money".

OK, let's do so. OED says socialism is "A political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole." Most of "the means of production, distribution, and exchange" are privately owned in Sweden, Norway, and Denmark, so not very socialist (social democratic, but that's different).

You don't get to redefine words to suit your political agenda or because you are to FUCKING LAZY to use the right term.

Right back atchyou beeatch. Like most racists you are hell bent on redefining race to just mean ethnicity. Ironic for someone accusing others of making up definitions.

race:
1.1A group of people sharing the same culture, history, language, etc.; an ethnic group

example: They sought to weld the country's diverse ethnicities into a Brazilian race defined in historical and cultural terms.

Now that you've been schooled, don't repeat that bullshit excuse ever fucking again, capiche?

From the dictionary you quoted, Here is definition 1, the top-level definition.

Each of the major divisions of humankind, having distinct physical characteristics:
  ‘people of all races, colours, and creeds’

‘Jews represent a group of people rather than a distinct race or ethnicity.’

This is the definition that educated people use when they are discussing the topic of race.

Here is a copy/paste of the sub-level definition from the dictionary you mis-quoted:

A group of people sharing the same culture, history, language, etc.; an ethnic group

Anyway, a group of people having just one of those similarities does not constitute a race - you have to have them in aggregate.

Muslims are not a race, Buddhists are not a race, and Christians are not a race any more than "stamp collectors" is a race.

You don't get to redefine words to suit your political agenda or because you are to FUCKING LAZY to use the right term.

Right back atchyou beeatch. Like most racists you are hell bent on redefining race to just mean ethnicity. Ironic for someone accusing others of making up definitions.

race:
1.1A group of people sharing the same culture, history, language, etc.; an ethnic group

example: They sought to weld the country's diverse ethnicities into a Brazilian race defined in historical and cultural terms.

Now that you've been schooled, don't repeat that bullshit excuse ever fucking again, capiche?

Before you play the dictionary pedant, you should actually read the dictionary.

race:
1.1A group of people sharing the same culture, history, language, etc.; an ethnic group

example: They sought to weld the country's diverse ethnicities into a Brazilian race defined in historical and cultural terms.

That these mistakes are oft repeated doesn't make them any less wrong.

Absolutely it does make them less wrong. Are you going to tell me that using phrases such as "to curry favor" and "moot point" are incorrect because a long time ago someone misheard someone else say "to curry Favel" and "mute point"? (see: http://blog.oxforddictionaries...)

Everyone should agree that languages evolve over time. For some reason, however, some people get really indignant when they observe the actual mechanisms by which languages evolve up-close.

How are we defining "real word" here? Typically I see people suggest that it need to be in "the dictionary", and by that definition cisgender/cisgendered certainly qualifies (given its inclusion in the Oxford English Dictionary.) http://www.oxforddictionaries....

You mean "misandry?"

http://www.dictionary.com/brow...

http://www.oxforddictionaries....

There are definitions for misandry in both the sources I referred to.

From the Oxford Dictionary:

[MASS NOUN] The state of being male or female (typically used with reference to social and cultural differences rather than biological ones):

It's worth reading up on gender verification in sports, especially at the Olympics where there was concern that men would try to pass as women to gain an advantage, or that some countries were giving their female athletes male hormones. It turns out that the best scientific minds in the world have trouble determining biological gender.

Chromosomes and genetics proved to be inconclusive and inadequate in some cases, so were abandoned. Genitalia also proved inconclusive in enough cases to make sporting bodies abandon those tests too. Nowadays when there is a question over gender it takes a panel of experts and multiple tests, mainly focused on if that individual's physiology gives them an advantage over other female competitors. It's a judgement call and doesn't determine gender, only fairness when competing in the athlete's particular sport.

"you need to be aware of the dictionary meaning of the word"

http://www.oxforddictionaries.... and http://www.oxforddictionaries....
"Injure or kill someone by electric shock", which clearly includes non-fatal interactions.

Is The Oxford English Dictionary insufficiently authoritative for you?

"you need to be aware of the dictionary meaning of the word"

http://www.oxforddictionaries.... and http://www.oxforddictionaries....
"Injure or kill someone by electric shock", which clearly includes non-fatal interactions.

Is The Oxford English Dictionary insufficiently authoritative for you?