Slashdot Mirror

Language changes.

There already is a gender neutral pronoun. It's called "they".

That is only appropriate in the plural though. When you are talking about an unspecified individual, they is incorrect. And it is impersonal, implying the man or woman is an inanimate object unworthy of a gender.

But I think it's becoming (or coming back into) regular practice:

You can use the plural pronouns ‘they’, ‘them’, ‘their’ etc., despite the fact that, technically, they are referring back to a singular noun:

If your child is thinking about a gap year, they can get good advice from this website. A researcher has to be completely objective in their findings.

Some people object to the use of plural pronouns in this type of situation on the grounds that it’s ungrammatical. In fact, the use of plural pronouns to refer back to a singular subject isn’t new: it represents a revival of a practice dating from the 16th century. It’s increasingly common in current English and is now widely accepted both in speech and in writing.

From http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/words/he-or-she-versus-they

I've had to bale out a couple of friends

Er, I don't think Baling people is legal. Hay or straw only! Or did you mean Bail?

That, sir, is the reason to stay away from the Free Dictionary and the Urban Dictionary. They're written by people who can't read or spell. Use Webster's or the OED, which were actually written by people who know what they're writing about and not semiliterate high school dropouts like with TFD abd TUD (and slashdot).

Yes it does. Hence "creators" and "creatives". They describe people who make original work. They don't describe factory workers for example. Factory workers are makers, but not creators.

And words only have to be close in meaning to be listed as synonyms. The details do vary.

See the example of `"The East" and "The Soviet Empire". They are listed as synonyms, yet most times "The East" is used it doesn't mean the soviet empire at all.

http://www.oxforddictionaries....

No it doesn't and create and make are synonyms.

http://www.oxforddictionaries....

Oh yes it literally does...

Also, a citation for the definition of alphabet (and yes they're phoenetic, unless you're using alphabet in the sense of DNA alphabet):

http://www.oxforddictionaries....

The free dictionary:
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/back+door

...

Oxford:
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/back-door

So obviously it does not matter if it was a "published interface" or even if it was on purpose. It still qualifies as a backdoor. Frankly it does not sound like an accident either so I wouldn't even classify it as a bug. I certainly dont think it is unintended, a mistake, or an error. That means it does not fit your definition.

Note: Bold was added by me, and I did search other online dictionaries, most did not have definition that was technical in nature. Most referred to Back-door deals. Ones I checked were Miriam-Websters, Cambridge, and Oxford. If anyone does find a better definition I welcome being corrected.

You don't understand, I'm not saying that it's not a back door, nor that it's not a big glaring security whole, I'd even agree with someone that said it's irresponsible.

But there's no reason why it can't be all of those things *and* still be called a bug -- they are not mutually exclusive.

It could have even been coded that way intentionally to integrate with other software or for diagnostics or whatever and it would *still* be a bug if the functionality can be exploited for other means.

The free dictionary:
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/back+door

Noun 2. back door - an undocumented way to get access to a computer system or the data it containsback door - an undocumented way to get access to a computer system or the data it contains
backdoor
access code, access - a code (a series of characters or digits) that must be entered in some way (typed or dialed or spoken) to get the use of something (a telephone line or a computer or a local area network etc.)

Oxford:
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/back-door

noun
        the door or entrance at the back of a building.
        a feature or defect of a computer system that allows surreptitious unauthorized access to data.

So obviously it does not matter if it was a "published interface" or even if it was on purpose. It still qualifies as a backdoor. Frankly it does not sound like an accident either so I wouldn't even classify it as a bug. I certainly dont think it is unintended, a mistake, or an error. That means it does not fit your definition.

Note: Bold was added by me, and I did search other online dictionaries, most did not have definition that was technical in nature. Most referred to Back-door deals. Ones I checked were Miriam-Websters, Cambridge, and Oxford. If anyone does find a better definition I welcome being corrected.

Edit:

Sophistry does often imply intent

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/defamation That one came up first for my search.

Actually that's EXACTLY what it refers to. And concidentally, thats exactly how the English language works, taking root words, and deriving words from them using suffixes and prefixes. (seriously? how stupid are you?)

Capitalism:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/capitalism

Capitalism is an economic system in which trade, industry and the means of production are controlled by private owners

an economic and political system in which a country’s trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state.

Chris Jenks. Core Sociological Dichotomies. "Capitalism, as a mode of production, is an economic system of manufacture and exchange which is geared toward the production and sale of commodities within a market for profit, where the manufacture of commodities consists of the use of the formally free labour of workers in exchange for a wage to create commodities in which the manufacturer extracts surplus value from the labour of the workers in terms of the difference between the wages paid to the worker and the value of the commodity produced by him/her to generate that profit." London, England, UK; Thousand Oaks, California, USA; New Delhi, India: SAGE. p. 383.

Means of Production:

In economics and sociology, the means of production refers to physical, non-human inputs used in production; that is, the "means of production" includes capital assets used to produce wealth, such as machinery, tools and factories,[1] including both infrastructural capital and natural capital. This includes the "factors of production" described in classical economics minus financial capital and minus human capital. They include two broad categories of objects: instruments of labour (tools, factories, infrastructure, etc.) and subjects of labor (natural resources and raw materials).

Socialism:

Socialism is an economic system characterised by social ownership of the means of production and co-operative management of the economy.[1] "Social ownership" may refer to cooperative enterprises, common ownership, state ownership, citizen ownership of equity, or any combination of these.[2] There are many varieties of socialism and there is no single definition encapsulating all of them.[3] They differ in the type of social ownership they advocate, the degree to which they rely on markets or planning, how management is to be organised within productive institutions, and the role of the state in constructing socialism

Communism:

Communism (from Latin communis – common, universal) is a socialist movement to create a classless, moneyless,[1][2] and stateless social order structured upon common ownership of the means of production, as well as a social, political and economic ideology that aims at the establishment of this social order.

Oxford is British, It refer to non-British words as US English, See: http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/search/american_english/?multi=1&q=arsehole and http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/arsehole?q=arsehole
And for god's sake read the dictionary yourself before suggesting it.

Oxford is British, It refer to non-British words as US English, See: http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/search/american_english/?multi=1&q=arsehole and http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/arsehole?q=arsehole
And for god's sake read the dictionary yourself before suggesting it.

Incorrect. I never once said or implied that punishment in general implies big government; we're talking specifically about the death penalty.

And if you think punishment is the ultimate big government, then you imply the argument against big government means no punishment. We can play these word games where you try to say something that appears to be one thing but is really something else all day long. Just don't get mad when I call out what it implies.

Nonsense. The argument? You speak as if there is only one group at work here. This comment shows that there are multiple groups at work here.

I don't think you will find any group that thinks the government on a federal or state level should not do what the constitution demands or limits them from doing and still have that argument construed as being against big government. It doesn't have to be one group, but you will be hard pressed to find a group with a deviation from how I explained it.

But really, why refer to it simply as "big government" (among other ambiguous terms) and then act surprised when people don't know exactly what is meant? When you say "big government," it makes it sound like you're talking about government in general, and that's exactly what group I'm talking about.

Big government is a term used by people who object to the government's approach on freedoms and deviation from constitutional roles. I mean lets look the term up and see what it is..

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/big+government
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/big-government
http://www.macmillandictionary.com/us/dictionary/american/big-government
http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/big-government

Those all with a few different wordings state the big government is a derogatory term used to describe an over reaching government outside it's constitutional roles. But Wikipedia has a more detailed description of it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_government

the first paragraph on the page says "Big government (sometimes capitalized as Big Government) is a derogatory term generally used by political conservatives, laissez-faire advocates, or libertarians to describe a government or public sector that they consider to be excessively large, corrupt and inefficient, or inappropriately involved in certain areas of public policy or the private sector. The term may also be used specifically in relation to government policies that attempt to regulate matters considered to be private or personal, such as private sexual behavior or individual food choices. The term has also been used to define a dominant federal government that seeks to control the authority of local institutions - an example being the overriding of state authority in favor of federal legislation."

The reality of it is when the term is used, it is assumed those who hear it either understand the meaning or have the wherewithal to open a dictionary or do a Google search or at minimum ask someone to explain it to them. Perhaps it is a fault of those who use it in that we automatically assume the people on the other end already understand the concept. The term is not just two words Big and Government put together, but one phrase with two words that mean a specific thing or subject of things.

No. You just weren't sure which group I was referring to.

No, I'm confident you were not referring to any group who uses the term big government and instead were combining the definition of

It still does, but you simply disagree with how people are using it. Still, I'm curious as to what you think it used to mean.

This.

noun
1. an official who examines material that is about to be released, such as books, movies, news, and art, and suppresses any parts that are considered obscene, politically unacceptable, or a threat to security.

2. (in ancient Rome) either of two magistrates who held censuses and supervised public morals.

The Production Code Administration was true censorship, and even though it wasn't a government official, it did control what was produced. Not just sold, but what made it to film.

The PCA was given the authority to review and delete what it felt was morally objectionable material from both the final script before a movie was shot, and the finished movie before it was released.

This wasn't a case of simply finding a different movie house to view the film you wanted to see, it simply wasn't made.

In 1942, Byron Price published this article identifying censorship as an evil, albeit a necessary evil during time of war. He was the US Director of Censorship, and even he admitted it was evil. Even as late as that time, censorship was viewed as "bad".

Today, it means any limit put on anyone's free expression in any medium. It's "censorship" if Jeff Bezos decides not to sell a book based on its content. But amazingly, it is not censorship if a librarian decides not to buy a book for the library based on the content. This makes "censorship" a useless word. Ultimately, is it not suppression of your right of free expression if I choose not to read your article in /., and even moreso if I choose not to buy your book? That makes it "censorship" under this useless definition.

And please don't tell me that those who cry "censorship" when denouncing the evil capitalist Amazon or BandN or whatever aren't trying to draw on the collective memory of when censorship truly was a bad thing and not a normal part of everyday life. They count on the pejorative meaning sticking to the victim, not the useless one.

The real problem is creating an ignition LASER that can be fired just as rapidly, considering how long it currently takes to charge the gain material, and that they can only get a couple shots off before the LASER must be repaired.

While technically correct (the best kind of correct), you sound like Dr Evil when you capitalize laser like that. It has long ago ceased to be an acronym and is now a plain old noun.

http://blog.oxforddictionaries.com/august-2013-update/

> codec is an abbreviation coder/decoder

Or alt. compression/decompression.
http://oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/codec

Agreed that the mods are ignorant.

In current federal law law, insanity is defined as

at the time of the commission of the acts constituting the offense, the defendant, as a result of a severe mental disease or defect, was unable to appreciate the nature and quality or the wrongfulness of his acts"
  yet oxforddictionaries.com

gives only the following definition:

noun
the state of being seriously mentally ill; madness:
he suffered from bouts of insanity
[as complement]:
he attempted to plead insanity
extreme foolishness or irrationality:
it might be pure insanity to take this loan
the insanities of our time

Arguably, the legal definition can be taken as a subset of the rather broad and general oxford definition, but if one is pleading insanity,"unable to appreciate the nature and quality or the wrongfulness of his acts" is the important bit, not just "seriously mentally ill". Of course, a good lawyer would use the legal definition as a starting point, and consult relevant caselaw to make sure that he is not constructing an defense on the basis of obsolete legal interpretations.

It's best not to take a dictionary definition as the final authority on a complex topic.

I don't know; 'shall not be infringed' is a rather strong standard to me.

Oxford: act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on:

For example I think the closing of the NFA registry is unconstitutional, though given that 'due process of law' is a reason to remove rights from criminals, I'm okay with background checks.

So you would exclude "fait accompli" and "juste milieu" from the dictionary?

Yes I would.

Even the OED defines dictionary as dealing with words and not phrases.

a book or electronic resource that lists the words of a language (typically in alphabetical order) and gives their meaning, or gives the equivalent words in a different language, often also providing information about pronunciation, origin, and usage:

I see no mention of phrase in that definition.

Lets not talk about how _you_ define racism and look at how it is defined in dictionaries.

Like in the Oxford Disctionary.

racism
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

Or Dictionary.com

racism
a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.

Racism is fundamentally a belief. As in you believe that (insert race of choice) is fundamentally superior to (lesser race). It is therefore racism to suggest that members of a particular race are more likely to be criminals purely on the basis of their race.

Not quite. You've committed one of the classic blunders - believing people have a clue what the hell they're talking about.

http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/racism:

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:

The belief that a man is dangerous (or not dangerous, or good in bed, or a good clarinet player) because he is black (or white, or yellow, or brown) is, by definition, racist. It might be true, but it is racist.

In reality, the involved factors are probably wealth, education and environment. Poor, poorly educated people who grew up surrounded by crime and violence are more likely to commit crimes. It's very unlikely it has anything to do with skin colour.

pound [pound]
noun, plural pounds ( collectively ) pound.
1. a unit of weight and of mass, varying in different periods and countries.

Source

pound noun \paund\
plural pounds also pound

Definition of POUND

1: any of various units of mass and weight; specifically : a unit now in general use among English-speaking peoples equal to 16 avoirdupois ounces or 7000 grains or 0.4536 kilogram — see WEIGHT TABLE

Source

pound
Pronunciation: /pand/

noun
1 (abbreviation: lb) a unit of weight equal to 16 oz. avoirdupois (0.4536 kg), or 12 oz. troy (0.3732 kg).

Source

I did. By definition of every dictionary I checked, homocide encompasses when a human kills another human.

But not exclusively.

homicidal
  adjective

        of, relating to, or tending toward murder:
        he had homicidal tendencies

http://oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/homicidal

---------
murder
  verb
[with object]

        kill (someone) unlawfully and with premeditation:
        somebody tried to murder Joe

http://oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/murder

I did. By definition of every dictionary I checked, homocide encompasses when a human kills another human.

But not exclusively.

homicidal
  adjective

        of, relating to, or tending toward murder:
        he had homicidal tendencies

http://oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/homicidal

---------
murder
  verb
[with object]

        kill (someone) unlawfully and with premeditation:
        somebody tried to murder Joe

http://oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/murder

Really? In English? I don't know where you getting your dictionary, but the several I referenced stated...

Interesting, first one I checked was "death or injury", but that was my local desktop widget, which claims to use the New Oxford American Dictionary. Their online version has an absolutely horrible user interface, so I'll spare you the trouble with a direct link.

Merriam-Webster, as you say, is "death" only, as is an old old copy of the Webster's New Universal Unabridged.

HELP! ANYBODY OUT THERE GOT A SUBSCRIPTION TO OED ONLINE AND WANT TO SETTLE THIS???

;-)

The United States of America: The greatest country in the world, the last superpower, born of divine providence.

Unless you escaped from being indoctrinated with patriotism.

sarcasm, noun
        the use of irony to mock or convey contempt

from http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/sarcasm?q=sarcasm

http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/plague

Bull

The only time that rule is valid is when you are writing for a class and your teacher insists on it.

http://grammarist.com/grammar/conjunctions-to-start-sentences/
http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/conjunctions.htm
http://oxforddictionaries.com/words/conjunctions
http://www.writersrelief.com/blog/2010/01/how-and-when-to-start-a-sentence-with-a-conjunction/
I could keep going for a long time...

This is what the article said. I'll let it speak for itself.

"That amount of money is well short of what's needed to build an exascale system, or a computer of 1,000 thousand petaflops."

The foibles of units: How many is a billion?

Just the opposite. The policies are doing exactly what the lobbyists intended, feed the corporate coiffures at the expense of the people. Remember, the government no longer represents the voters, only those who buy pay their way to get elected.

I agree with your intended point, but you presumably meant "coffers"; feeding corporate coiffures would be amusing to watch....

Just the opposite. The policies are doing exactly what the lobbyists intended, feed the corporate coiffures at the expense of the people. Remember, the government no longer represents the voters, only those who buy pay their way to get elected.

I agree with your intended point, but you presumably meant "coffers"; feeding corporate coiffures would be amusing to watch....

Perhaps because shuttered is the correct word

You have also missed the point

The origin of words is often important, as are regional variations. I am assuming you realise that the Merriam-Webster is the quintessential American English dictionary. A quintessentially English English dictionary does not have the "or a split roll" addition to the definition (see also this one). My Macquarie English Dictionary (Australian English) dictionary reads: "1. two slices of bread (or toast) , plain or buttered, with a layer of meat, fish, cheese, or the like between. 2. something formed by similar combination." The term "Sub", traded so heavily by Subway is a contraction of Submarine sandwich which is claimed to be American in origin (along with quite a few US regional variations). While what Subway sell is a "sandwich" in arrangement that is not the term that much of the English speaking world would use outside of a Subway outlet: that is the point.

Let me guess, you're too lazy to look it up or you have a dull axe to grind?

There are two accepted spellings, one favoured in the USA, the other by those who got and retain their English spellings from the Brits. Are you gonna carp on "favoured" too?

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/civilization
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/civilization
http://www.studyenglishtoday.net/british-american-spelling.html
http://www.lukemastin.com/testing/spelling/cgi-bin/database.cgi?action=view_category&database=spelling&category=C
http://www.grammarphobia.com/blog/2011/09/civilise-civilize.html
http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/civilization
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/civilised

The above ought to be sufficient to get you started, if you have any interest in improving your understanding. You could have done this on your own hook if you really had an interest or gave a shit. Or perhaps you derive pleasure from pressing keys in pursuit of fucking with people, or some such? Any case, I'm sooo oughta here.

One Problem is teaching.

One problem is "compatibility" or "easy to learn". E.G. regarding keywords.

C has a keyword: static.
C++ has the same keyword: static.
As Java aimed to be similar to C++ and "easy to learn" it also has a keyword static.

While the meaning of the "keyword" in Java and C++ is the same, it differs from C. (Oh! and this already is not true as you can use 'static' in C++ similar to C if you just use it for free functions and data).

So what does 'static' mean?

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/static
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/static
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/static
http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/static

Unfortunately 'static' in a programming language has no meaning at all. Why is the "starting method" in Java called "static void main(String[] args) {}"? Yeah, because in C and C++ it is called main(). Pascal has not that problem.

What do you think a non native english (oh, well what about the english?) considers if he hears the word 'static'?

Good, now lets bash Python and Groovy. What is a "def"? Oh? A definition? Are you certain you can distinguish what the difference between a definition and a declaration is?

So "methods" are now "declared" (or is it defined?) by the introducing keyword "def"? Oh, for fuck sake, I got it wrong again.

Oki, in Python you declare, oh no!!!! you define methods with the keyword "def". In Groovy you define variables (oh! no!!!!! you declare!!!) with the keyword "def".

Yeah, I could rant forever ...

All new languages we see here and there are only languages for programmers that already can program.

But, what is about expressing your mind?

What about teaching programming? Imho Java is one of the most difficult languages to teach. Why? Because you need to know already so much about programming to grasp it!!!!! (Same for C# ofc).

However: modern times show: you don't need to understand Java/C# (just a replacement for most modern languages) because the programing tasks a modern developer has (especially compared to the tools he has at hand) is so mondane. C++ on the other hand only shows how super smart and knowing you need to be to use the language, or not to shoot into your foot.

So where are we?

New languages should use new keywords, that describe precisely what they mean. No void, no static, no final or for that matter finally, no fucking def, var or func. Did I forget one? I certainly did. And they should have reasonable defaults. I hate Java meanwhile, "public void doit() {}", "private boolean done = false". Then we get to "static final String DID_WE_DO_IT = "yes we did";" What is so hard in having methods be PUBLIC by DEFAULT and attributes PRIVATE by DEFAULT?
Writing code is still possible, even if it hurts my hands and my eyes. But reading? I simply don't want to read code anymore ... neither C++ nor Java nor C#. The redundancy hurts me literally.
In a typical Eclipse window I would estimate 30% of all characters/words are simply superfluous. And the fact that they all have a different colour emphasizes this.

How would a real world language look to you if it was written like this: "I want (that is me the guy writing) that we (that is us, you who are listening, and me who is talking) that we (well, dont be mistaken, I only want it, it is not an order) that we (yes, I invite you to participate) go to the beach (and want does not mean it is super important ... it is kinda void)? (And all words in () above in a different colour? Like pink (ARRRRGGG!!!!) light green ( /*facepalm*/), dark and light blue, emphazised(bold) full

Yeah, methinks GP wasn't the one who didn't understand the word 'ignorance'. To whit:

lack of knowledge or information:

Substituting 'dumber' and 'less capable of abstract thought' is trollish on your part and something GP seems to have tried to avoid in the use of the word 'ignorance'.

How can I protect my privacy in a "public" place? To me, it's an oximoronic situation.

You misunderstand the meaning of "public". It means something belonging to, or used by, the population as a whole. A park is public, not because people can see who is in the park, but because anybody from the community has access to it. A public company allows anyone from the population to own it through buying shares. Etc.

A good example is a public toilet. It is public, because anyone may use it. But it certainly not intended that anyone should watch what goes on in a stall.

Passphrase? Cracking it is called a dictionary attack, it's what almost every password cracking attempt uses anyway. It's just a list of words run against the password, and can be rather easy to crack. SAFE passwords are long enough series of random letters numbers and symbols, something an attempt would have to brute force character by character and thus wouldn't have much of a chance of getting. $57*ghU^61@nm is a far safer password that "Correct Horse Staple Battery" which would easily be crackable in a reasonable timeframe. Unfortunately $57*ghU^61@nm is friggen hard to remember. Maybe it's time to find convenient and cheap biometric scanners.

I think you misunderstand. A brute-force attack on a password is "just" a dictionary attack using letters and symbols as your dictionary instead of English words. There's realistically 26 lower case letters, 26 upper case letters, 10 digits, around 32 symbols, and space (just looking at my keyboard), giving us a set of about 95 to compose our passwords from. According to Oxford Dictionaries there's around 171,476 words in current usage. Even if you constrain to what the average person knows, you've got anywhere from 12,000 to 60,000 words depending on who you trust for those kinds of statistics. Want to include your below average person? If XKCD is to be judged, you can still communicate somewhat by limiting yourself to the 1000 most used words. That ignores capitalization variations, so it assumes the attacker knows you only capitalize the first word of the sentence (or whatever your personal rule is). That actually puts a six word passphrase using a vocabulary of 1000 words as harder to brute force than an eight character password.

Passphrases of equivalent length are easier to remember because we're trained to think in sentences, not letters. You can also use visualization techniques, as XKCD suggests, because we associate images with many words, not so much with letters. The biggest problem with passphrases are sites that put an upper limit on passwords, so we're forced to come up with pass phrases that operate as mnemonics for passwords, but then that limits our pool of characters in our password (unless you know a word that begins with the letter %).

Oxford: http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/atheism
Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

You will do better if you don't accept that people who call themselves "atheists" may have a different definition than yours in mind.
Even if yours was the only true one, it still boils down to bickering over labels instead of understanding the world-views.

Starting a sentence with a conjunction You might have been taught that it’s not good English to start a sentence with a conjunction such as and or but. It’s not grammatically incorrect to do so, however, and many respected writers use conjunctions at the start of a sentence to create a dramatic or forceful effect. For example: What are the government’s chances of winning in court? And what are the consequences? Beginning a sentence with a conjunction can also be a useful way of conveying surprise: And are you really going? But didn’t she tell you? It’s best not to overdo it, but there is no reason for completely avoiding the use of conjunctions at the start of sentences.

http://oxforddictionaries.com/words/conjunctions
http://www.writing-skills.com/resources/e-bulletin/october-2011/hit-or-myth-you-cant-start-a-sentence-with-and-or-but
http://public.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/nonerrors.html
http://grammarist.com/grammar/conjunctions-to-start-sentences/
http://blog.oxforddictionaries.com/2012/01/can-i-start-a-sentence-with-a-conjunction/

Starting a sentence with a conjunction You might have been taught that it’s not good English to start a sentence with a conjunction such as and or but. It’s not grammatically incorrect to do so, however, and many respected writers use conjunctions at the start of a sentence to create a dramatic or forceful effect. For example: What are the government’s chances of winning in court? And what are the consequences? Beginning a sentence with a conjunction can also be a useful way of conveying surprise: And are you really going? But didn’t she tell you? It’s best not to overdo it, but there is no reason for completely avoiding the use of conjunctions at the start of sentences.

http://oxforddictionaries.com/words/conjunctions
http://www.writing-skills.com/resources/e-bulletin/october-2011/hit-or-myth-you-cant-start-a-sentence-with-and-or-but
http://public.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/nonerrors.html
http://grammarist.com/grammar/conjunctions-to-start-sentences/
http://blog.oxforddictionaries.com/2012/01/can-i-start-a-sentence-with-a-conjunction/

And What with the English Oxford usage for the "Googling" and "Gogleable" terms? Have Google already demanded them to remove it as well? Last time I checked it was still there. http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/google?q=Googling

I just did, and I don't understand what point you are trying to make.

Or perhaps you were confused about what it means. or what he said.

Tenfold = ten times as much. Not one tenth. If you mean "one tenth" SAY "one tenth".
"reduce tenfold" literally means take away ten times. i.e. 1-10 = -9 Since that's nonsense, we can only guess what they actually mean

http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/tenfold
tenfold adjective. ten times as great or as numerous:

Two can play this game.

http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/beg?q=beg+the+question#beg__15

Check out definition #1.

Now, to avoid any further confusion in the future, make yourself acquainted with the following word: context.

          -dZ.

Two can play this game.

http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/beg?q=beg+the+question#beg__15

Check out definition #1.

Now, to avoid any further confusion in the future, make yourself acquainted with the following word: context.

          -dZ.

In this case nanospook is correct. The plural of a normal mouse is mice, the plural of a computer mouse is also mouses.

http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/mouse

" (plural mice or mouses) a small handheld device which is moved across a mat or flat surface to move the cursor on a computer screen:"

I guess you have a dictionary available but don't use it.