Slashdot Mirror

Hmm. I wonder if they have informed Google or the Oxford Dictionarie. Maybe they did not get the memo.

You might as well say an astrology course counts as astronomy.

You don't know much about constellations then.

A group of stars forming a recognizable pattern that is traditionally named after its apparent form or identified with a mythological figure. Modern astronomers divide the sky into eighty-eight constellations with defined boundaries.

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/constellation

malware
Pronunciation: /malw/
NOUN

[MASS NOUN]
Software which is specifically designed to disrupt, damage, or gain authorized access to a computer system.

Sounds exactly like Windows 10.

nice greengrocers apostrophe
http://www.oxforddictionaries....

sorry to go all grammar fascist but the name of the company is Brinks right?

http://www.brinks.com/

ArgleBargle, thanks for the clarifications.

What you said is the opposite of Argle Bargle: "Copious but meaningless talk or writing; nonsense".

According to who? The license or the law?

The law, DMCA.

Nearly all cars have steering wheels. That doesn't mean a car is defined by a having a steering steering wheel. It doesn't mean that a car without a steering wheel is redefining what a car is.

Yes but you don't just point to a submarine and say it is a car. The idea of "choice" is directly contradictory to slavery, though it is becoming evident you don't understand the meaning of the word which is why you're so confused.

It shouldn't be that hard to imagine a scenario where a person makes a choice to be enslaved.

Except for anybody who knows that the definition of "enslaved" is precisely about choice and if you remove freedom of choice then you are no longer enslaved. The "choice" to be enslaved is directly contradictory to the concept of slavery.

In some places you don't have control over *all* your freedoms.

Right, and I have the freedom to choose whether I want to go there or not, that is exactly the scenario you laid out and it is absolutely not slavery because I have choice.

In some places you are prevented from entering into a contract where you enslave yoursel

Except that isn't what we are talking about because in terms of use of proprietary software you always have the freedom of choice to stop being under those conditions at any point you like, because you are not a "slave".

I like that I have the freedom to visit a museum despite not having the freedom to smash the place up when I'm there and I also like that I have the freedom to leave and go somewhere else should I feel the need to smash something up. You have to be extremely intellectually dishonest or extremely stupid to think that is in any way anything like "slavery".

Perhaps you forget the actual idea behind free speech.

The idea that you can say whatever you want, and that no one can stop you; is not the idea behind free speech. Free Speech merely means the government cannot imprison or bring up criminal charges for speech they do not like.

That is incorrect. The idea of freedom of speech is to protect people from being unjustly persecuted for having positions which would normally lead to their persecution without specific protections. Private interests conspiring to shut down undesirable ideas, say by actively campaigning to silence those who present them through intimidation and persecution is just as much of an atrocity as a government institution doing the same. This is an acceptable usage of the term.

I for one do not wish to live in a world where Twitter hysteria can get prominent cancer researchers fired, particularly not over a fabricated moral panic.

it would be legal for any company to say "I do not like what you wrote on Twitter/Facebook/Other Social Media; they disagree with our ethics and you are being terminated.

True, but GP didn't say it's not their right to. It's entirely sensible to hold the opinion that someone shouldn't do something legal or even that something currently legal should be outlawed.

Another example is if you were shouting hate-speech in a public place. As long as you on public property, that is fine. However, the minute you step on to privately owned property; the owners are able to enforce any restrictions they want. Want to scream bigoted statements in front of my house? Make sure you're doing it on the sidewalk or street; if you're in my yard; I'll have you removed.

The problem with that analogy is that the private-public dichotomy is unreasonably restrictive in describing the circumstances. There are spaces which are entirely public (streets) and spaces which are entirely private (homes) but Twitter is a privately-held open public platform which isn't strictly analogous to either scenario. I don't think it's unreasonable to hold such venues to different expectations in comparison to your own private home, given their quasi-public nature.

If Trump is violating the usual TOS of Twitter; than he needs to be removed.

Has Twitter taken any obligations to strictly adhere to their own ToS? Considering how much you trump (forgive the pun) the rights of private institutions then surely you should be happy to afford Twitter the liberty of policing their platform according to their own agenda. Note that I'm not defending or condemning Twitter on the matter, that is a topic for another discussion.

He can't be charged with a crime for doing so; but Twitter would not be violating the constitution.

But they are still open to the consequences of their actions.

"Jaguar v12 - usually replaced with a north american v8."- BarbaraHudson is a Cretinous Whore. She probably is a dicksucker for the guy who owns "Johns Cars" in Texas, which is entirely logical.

A cretin? Hardly. As for the rest ...

When the boys in the back did a v12-to-v8 swap, NOBODY wanted to buy the V12 engine, even though it was in working order - just not enough oomph. A small-block Chevy and some home-made engine mounts fixed that.

And that, kids, is why "knowledge" and "intelligence" are two different words.

Today's lesson was brought to you by the word disingenuous.

Land of the free my ass.

This is why people should follow the oxford punctuation. Do you mean "Land of the free, my ass", or "Land of the free-my-ass"?

fewer than 6 moths.

It's a quantity of time so "less than" is correct, although I don't know how long a moth lives. See the OED's guides on when to use less and fewer.

fewer than 6 moths.

It's a quantity of time so "less than" is correct, although I don't know how long a moth lives. See the OED's guides on when to use less and fewer.

Well Looks to me like Oxford says webster can suck it: http://www.oxforddictionaries....

That's in French. Neither Oxford nor Merriam-Webster lists "performant" in English. It's certainly in use. Some people seem to prefer "is more performant" over "has higher performance" or "performs better".

Well Looks to me like Oxford says webster can suck it: http://www.oxforddictionaries....

I guess, that

Modern atheists often have their own dogmas, and all the same problems.

falls either in the bullshit or in the dogma category.

You are confusing dogmatic thinking with religious thinking. As a born and bred atheist I see that sort of error all the time among atheists. If I may be so bold, I think that error is so common that it itself verges on dogma for many atheists who have only a weak understanding of religion.

Here's the OED definition of dogma, you'll note that religion is not a requirement:

noun
A principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true: 'the dogmas of faith'
[mass noun]: 'the rejection of political dogma'

More example sentences:

        'He believes that when living in a certain society you should become a real part of it by sticking to its rules, dogmas and principles.'
        'These are ideologies and dogmas that came for political reasons afterwards.'
        'Erasmus searched for reconciliation between Faith and Reason, refusing not only the dogmas of Faith, but the dogmas of Reason as well.'

https://www.oxforddictionaries...

A corporation is nothing but aggregated capital. It doesn't even have to be capital owned by a human being. It just has to be capital. Only capital and a document. Many corporations are owned by other corporations. The closest human being is several layers removed.

And you show you don't know what you are talking about. Here's a real definition:

A company or group of people authorized to act as a single entity (legally a person) and recognized as such in law.

Notice it says nothing about "capital" or how many layers you have to be separated from a living human.

See, this notion that somehow unions and corporations are morally equivalent

Unions are a proper subset of corporations by definition.

Well said. Also: I don't know how well known the late playwright Harold Pinter is on Slashdot. There is an adjective "pinteresque". Definition of Pinteresque in English: adjective - Of or relating to Harold Pinter; resembling or characteristic of his plays. Pinter's plays are typically characterized by implications of threat and strong feeling produced through colloquial language, apparent triviality, and long pauses. Origin: 1960s; earliest use found in The Times. From the name of Harold Pinter, British playwright + -esque. Note the similarity of the sounds of "pinteresque" and "pinterest". Surely a creative lawyer could make something of that?

I can't really see how a site called "Pinteresque" is going to overlap with "Pinterest" much. Fans of Harold Pinter probably aren't going to use "Pinteresque" to post links to cookie recipes and knitting patterns.

Well said.

Also: I don't know how well known the late playwright Harold Pinter is on Slashdot. There is an adjective "pinteresque".

Definition of Pinteresque in English: adjective - Of or relating to Harold Pinter; resembling or characteristic of his plays. Pinter's plays are typically characterized by implications of threat and strong feeling produced through colloquial language, apparent triviality, and long pauses.
Origin: 1960s; earliest use found in The Times. From the name of Harold Pinter, British playwright + -esque.

Note the similarity of the sounds of "pinteresque" and "pinterest". Surely a creative lawyer could make something of that?

So you're saying that all women are small fragile creatures who are both physically and mentally weak, and as such are unsuitable for combat service? And you're saying that holding women to this lower standard isn't sexist at all??? Huh.. Maybe the definition of that word has changed? ...Nope... It must be that the women in Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Lithuania, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Romania, Sweden, Australia, New Zealand, and Canada are mutant freaks with super-human abilities that allowed them to meet and surpass their military training standards. There are several other countries that allow women in combat roles other than front line heavy, roles like fighter pilots ans such. But, nah, you obviously know better than all those other military strategists and advisers because you were a Marine once.

Looks like video games match every single English definition of the word "art" out there:

art - noun \'art\

* something that is created with imagination and skill and that is beautiful or that expresses important ideas or feelings
* works created by artists : paintings, sculptures, etc., that are created to be beautiful or to express important ideas or feelings
* the methods and skills used for painting, sculpting, drawing, etc.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/art

* The expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power
* Works produced by human creative skill and imagination
* Creative activity resulting in the production of paintings, drawings, or sculpture
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/art

The OED lists its definitions in historical order. The Oxford Online Dictionary, by comparison, lists "kill, destroy, or remove a large percentage"as the first definition, and only has "kill one in ten" as the second definition. Which is marked as "historical". It also includes a usage note that says, "This sense has been superseded by the later, more general sense."

http://www.oxforddictionaries....

Collins Dictionary also has the one-in-ten meaning listed second: http://www.collinsdictionary.c...

As does dictionary.com: http://dictionary.reference.co...

Wiktionary lists the historical meaning first, but also presents evidence suggesting that this sense is basically never used any more, except when complaining about the change in meaning (at least in the British National Corpus): https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki...

Actually, both are correct. "Learnt" is the outside-the-US variant spelling (ie, the Oxford spelling). "Learned" is the American (Webster) spelling.

Citation, you don't have to take the word of an English teacher and the son of an English teacher.

Good God; you and your parent are both English teachers and yet don't understand the history of this tense??

I don't even know where to start.

But like the OP said, "learned" is a modern spelling and usage.

Actually, both are correct. "Learnt" is the outside-the-US variant spelling (ie, the Oxford spelling). "Learned" is the American (Webster) spelling.

Citation, you don't have to take the word of an English teacher and the son of an English teacher.

Pardon me, English is not my native language.

https://www.oxforddictionaries...
https://www.oxforddictionaries...

Pardon me, English is not my native language.

https://www.oxforddictionaries...
https://www.oxforddictionaries...

Perhaps you could assist the prosecutors by finding the specific law that was broken.
They can't say "You committed fraud, because what you did matches this description"

Start looking here

Feel free to argue with the Oxford Dictionary about what's proper English and what's not. Moreover, this use of 'gift' as a verb, while not always in vogue, has historic roots from at least the 17th century .

The fact or condition of being accountable; responsibility

is the definition of accountability. Maybe they'll change it next year?

Brings about an interesting point, can you own a trademark without a product or service. So for something like $300 a word can you buy out the English language http://www.oxforddictionaries...., 7000 commonly used words only $2.1 million dollars what a bargain. Psychopathic capitalism, is it not a wonder (they did it on the internet via domain names so why not spread it out into to the rest of the world).

Historically, yes. Since it's never used any other way now, the Oxford dictionary has apparently determined your definition is obsolete and the one I gave is correct:

http://www.oxforddictionaries....

Just because so many people are retarded and the people making dictionaries want to appease them or themselves, doesn't mean the result is correct.
Do you say jigaton?
jigabyte?
jigabit?
jigaflops?
You may be an American. Almost everybody else in the world speaking English will pronounce it properly.

I'll see your Merriam-Webster and raise you the Oxford dictionary, the Cambridge dictionary and dictionary.reference.com:
http://www.oxforddictionaries....
http://www.oxforddictionaries....
http://dictionary.cambridge.or...
http://dictionary.reference.co...

Just because so many people are retarded and the people making dictionaries want to appease them or themselves, doesn't mean the result is correct.
Do you say jigaton?
jigabyte?
jigabit?
jigaflops?
You may be an American. Almost everybody else in the world speaking English will pronounce it properly.

I'll see your Merriam-Webster and raise you the Oxford dictionary, the Cambridge dictionary and dictionary.reference.com:
http://www.oxforddictionaries....
http://www.oxforddictionaries....
http://dictionary.cambridge.or...
http://dictionary.reference.co...

no

language evolves. deal with it. no one cares about your strange mentally brittle sensitivities. adapt or die

http://www.oxforddictionaries....

verb

(often as noun catfishing) Back to top
1 [NO OBJECT] Fish for catfish:
with the Mississippi River far below its normal level, the catfishing kept getting better and better
MORE EXAMPLE SENTENCES
Some friends and I were catfishing the Minnesota River until well past midnight on a cloudy, moonless night.
I hooked a carp that was yellow as a goldfish while I was catfishing.
He'd spent more than a few cheery nights with them as they catfished on the Clinch River.

2 [WITH OBJECT] US informal Lure (someone) into a relationship by means of a fictional online persona:
he was being catfished by a cruel prankster
a victim of catfishing
[Originally with reference to the 2010 documentary film Catfish, which concerns such a relationship]
MORE EXAMPLE SENTENCES
While there isn't much data at this point, catfishing is becoming more common anecdotally.
His words are instead funneled through Nick, who has been catfishing his best friend.
He said the athletic department catfished several athletes to teach them the dangers of social networking.

The Oxford and Merriam Webster dictionaries don't agree with you.

I believe that "initialism" is the correct word.

http://www.oxforddictionaries....

You are a fucking idiot.

Atheism is exactly the belief that there is no god(s).

http://www.oxforddictionaries....
http://www.merriam-webster.com...
http://dictionary.reference.co...

Try learning something, you stupid little shit.

No. Well, not according to my app that is called TheSage which has very good definitions. I looked because I have seen a picture of an item that was circumnavigated being called a panorama. I figured I would get a more authoritative source and went to the MW source:

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

Colloquially I would agree with you BUT reality says otherwise. I personally only use it to describe what you think is the definition. However it is not as strict as I use it and you believe it actually is. To offer you some support, Oxford Dictionary has the very first definition as being what you describe and what I use it for. You can see that here:

http://www.oxforddictionaries....

However, even Oxford goes on to list additional definitions that negate the strictness of it having to be the area surrounding the viewer/camera/photographer.

He's no idiot. Emigrating means going to live permanently in another country.
You're not an immigrant until you get there.
http://www.oxforddictionaries....
http://www.oxforddictionaries....

He's no idiot. Emigrating means going to live permanently in another country.
You're not an immigrant until you get there.
http://www.oxforddictionaries....
http://www.oxforddictionaries....

You do realise that you are being fairly pendantic about that.
American Heritage dictionary defines antisocial as:
antisocial antisocial (nt-sshl, nt-) adj. Shunning the society of others; not sociable. Hostile to or disruptive of the established social order; marked by or engaging in behavior that violates accepted mores: gangs engaging in vandalism and other antisocial behavior. Antagonistic toward or disrespectful of others; rude.
Violent is defined:
1: marked by extreme force or sudden intense activity
2
a : notably furious or vehement
b : extreme, intense
3: caused by force : not natural
4
a : emotionally agitated to the point of loss of self-control
b : prone to commit acts of violence
and antisocial is:
http://www.merriam-webster.com...
violent and harmful to people.
Even Oxford English dictionary defines it as harmful or annoying to other people, or to society in general

All of this to show you I'm not incorrect, society's handing of it is. http://www.oxforddictionaries....

Look my American friends: raising minimum wage is the opposite of liberal and also the opposite of conservative. One problem of this world is, that you cannot use the correct name for it, because that word is a criminal in USA the land of the free speak.

OK, this presumably isn't the word you're thinking of, because 1) "the means of production, distribution, and exchange [being] owned or regulated by the community as a whole" doesn't necessarily mean that there will even be a minimum wage, or wages of any sort and 2) you don't have to have "the means of production, distribution, and exchange [being] owned or regulated by the community as a whole" in order to have a minimum wage with a given level.

So, either 1) the word in question doesn't (solely) mean what the OED entry in question says it means or 2) that word isn't the name you had in mind. Which is it?

*facepalm*

Your visual acuity is expressed in a fraction - such as 20/20 vision.

Certainly in British English there is no difference in meaning, although I gather that in US English farther is often encouraged when referring to physical distance.

I didn't say "Jews control Hollywood"

You claimed that no movies are made about other genocides done by the Nazis because the Jews want the term "Holocaust" to only refer to that aspect of it. It is not possible for the to happen if the Jews don't actually control Hollywood. Merely producing a few movies won't stop others from producing other movies.

Also, I cannot help but point out that while you emphatically deny that you said that, you did not deny that that is what you believe. Quite the contrary, you tried to bring support to precisely the same point of view you deny expressing (albeit from the only person in history who can be said to have murdered even more people than Hitler himself).

Anti-Semite? I don't recognize Jewish "ownership" of this term

It should be fairly obvious at this point that I have zero control over what you do or do not do. In terms of what the term means, however, you are wrong. See wikipedia, Merriam-Webster and the Oxford dictionary.

is the quick insult that's guaranteed to kill the conversation

Which is strange, because after I called you that, I went on to address your argument. Now why would I do that if all I want to do is kill the conversation?

While I completely agree that the label "anti-semite" is used too quickly on people who do not deserve it, in your case, given that you repeat a well known anti-semite story, it seems warranted.

Shachar

I completely agree... but what defines a scholarly work?

The dictionary.

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

http://www.oxforddictionaries....

Do you see the word "profit" in either of those?

You're thinking couleur.

See the oxford entry which includes the French word.

constitutes a "law ... abridging the freedom of speech

Well, it only abridges if there is a punishment or consequence for doing so. The headline says "demands". Demands usually contain threats, otherwise they're request. If there is a threat, then of course it's an abridgement.

But that doesn't mean that the USPTO has threatened to break the kneecaps of the EFF's lawyers, for example. They might just be threatening to toss the EFF's document into the circular file, i.e. demanding that they change the document if it's not to be ignored.

I.e., it would have to be a "threat" in the sense of the the OED's definition of "threat", where there's some form of harm worse than "being ignored" to be an abridgement.

if it is, the protest will probably be carefully filed away in the roughly-cylindrical filing cabinet on the side of the desk of the person at the Patent Office receiving it.

Which is a completely legitimate response to an illegitimate filing.

I.e., a threat to toss the document into the circular file is a legitimate response.

"So being lazy and using improper English is impolite to the extreme."

Motes and beams, people! If you're going to moan about "improper" English, it's best not to make lots of errors yourself: - you started your sentence with "So". The word you ought to have used was "Thus". - you missed out the comma that should have followed the "So" - the expression is "in the extreme", not "to the extreme" - even had you used "in the extreme", it would still have made for an awkward and inelegant sentence, compared to the obvious alternate of "... is extremely impolite."

Do you have a credible source for any of these so-called rules? In particular:

• There's nothing wrong with starting a sentence with "so", even without a comma.
• In the extreme is a perfectly valid phrase.

While I'm sympathetic, the term "apps" predates cellphones by a few years.... being the 1980's and all.

http://blog.oxforddictionaries...

Here's a definition from an actual dictionary, not something drafted by an Apple apologist:

1. Make changes in something established, especially by introducing new methods, ideas, or products: the company's failure to diversify and innovate competitively

1.1 [with object] Introduce (something new, especially a product): innovating new products, developing existing ones

(BTW, that's Oxford. As in, Oxford English Dictionary. If your definition disagrees with OED, that's because your definition is objectively wrong.)

"New", for-real-new, not "pretend it's new", not "new because the actual innovator doesn't count", not "new to us and our spellbound customer base and captive press".

Actual creation is not negotiable. It's an absolute unavoidable criterion of "innovate". "Creating novel things" is the only definition of innovation. And also something conspicuously absent from Apple engineering. About the only thing I can see Apple innovating in is marketing.