Slashdot Mirror

If that was so, they wouldn't be very good dictionaries. WordNet is an odd creation, halfway to thesaurus, Moby obviously IS a thesaurus. And thesaurus list words that can sometimes be substituted in sentances depending on context. They don't guarantee that such words are the same. The American Heritage Dictionary lists each as synonyms, but also provides different definitions for each.

The standard reference work this side of the pond is the Oxford English Dictionary:

fashion
Pronunciation:/ËfaÊf(É(TM))n/
noun
1 a popular or the latest style of clothing, hair, decoration, or behaviour:
the latest Parisian fashions ...

style
Pronunciation:/stÊOEÉl/
noun ...
2 a distinctive appearance, typically determined by the principles according to which something is designed:
the pillars are no exception to the general style
a particular design of clothing:
his shoes were in a style that he could wear anywhere
a way of arranging the hair:
for a glamorous style, hair was brushed out after setting
3 [mass noun] elegance and sophistication:
a sophisticated nightspot with style and taste
http://oxforddictionaries.com/

I'm sorry if you didn't realise there's a difference between fashion and style. But there is. And the distinction is vital for discussing phrases like "form over function" and "style over substance".

While I totally agree with you, the lawyers of the mall might not. They probably will come up with some lame excuse, quoting a dictionary that:

intercept
verb
[with object]
        obstruct (someone or something) so as to prevent them from continuing to a destination:
                    intelligence agencies intercepted a series of telephone callsI intercepted Edward on his way to work
        chiefly Physicscut off or deflect (light or other electromagnetic radiation):
                    a second prism can be swung in to intercept the light beam
        Mathematics(of a line or surface) mark or cut off (part of a space , line , or surface).

source: http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/intercept

They will probably argue that they do not prevent the signal from reaching its destination

This isn't vigilantism. "any person who takes the law into his or her own hands, as by avenging a crime. "

This is not avenging (judge, jury), this isn't even crime prevention. This is people stopping actual crimes in progress. If you try to break up a fight, is that vigilantism? If you stop a robbery is that vigilantism? If you stop a little girl from being kidnapped?

If you're walking down the street getting about your normal business and you happen to see a crime in progress, I don't think anyone would call you a "vigilante" for trying to be a good citizen and helping out the victim.

If you get together with a few friends, make an armour-plated uniform with "Dennis the Avenger" stitched on the front, equip yourself with an electric stun baton, taser, and tear-gas sprays, and go strolling around bad neighbourhoods looking for "wrongdoers" to use your new toys on, then that makes you a vigilante. I honestly can't think of a single more text-book example of a vigilante. Hell, the dictionary definition I've just looked up is:

noun
A member of a self-appointed group of citizens who undertake law enforcement in their community without legal authority, typically because the legal agencies are thought to be inadequate.
http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/vigilante

If you don't believe that this is at least a mild example of vigilante behaviour, then I struggle to believe what you *would* classify as vigilantism. Would it make a big difference to you if he were carrying a (completely legal and registered) firearm instead of a stun baton? What if he and his friends patrolled together, rather than separately? What, basically, is the line to you?

http://oxforddictionaries.com/page/heshethey/he-or-she-versus-they

Basically, "he" was male/neuter with "she" being exclusively female. If you didn't know someone's gender male pronouns were the default.

People tend to get touchy being called it and using the plural "they" to refer to a single unknown gender person isn't universally accepted, and "he or she" is unwieldy.

It's getting popular with educated people as an ironic word to use. It's also, most definitely a word, it's just an uneducated one. I expect this use was the ironic one, not the uneducated one.

http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/irregardless

It may surprise you to learn that many of the words we think of as totally acceptable were once like irregardless. Turns out, a few decades of ironic use (or even incorrect use) make it into a new word. I expect decimate will mean devastate shortly, if it doesn't already. I also expect FDA to be an acronym, if it isn't already. Those are the two that really bug me personally, but you pretty much have to let it go. The English you're accustomed to is also in use all over the world. I'm starting to hear some Indian idioms creep into US English from time to time. They make little sense to me sometimes. "Please do the needful." I'm hopeful it's some time before we're using that here in Michigan. WTF is that?

"all but dead" is the opposite of "dead".

From the Oxford dictionaries:

all but

1. very nearly:the subject was all but forgotten
2. all except:we have support from all but one of the networks

Here, the first definition applies.

Furthermore they misspelled apologize!

No, they didn't.

Since the OED lexicographers are over an office divider from where I am sitting I guess I'm in a good position to answer this.

The most important point to make about modern dictionaries is that they are descriptive not prescriptive. That is to say that they describe the language as it evolves rather than tell you how you should use it. Lexicographers are like scientists though they do not generally consider themselves as such, everything they include in their dictionaries has made it there through painstaking linguistic research.

Please believe me when I tell you that my lexicographer colleagues have no interest in being 'hip'. Trust me on this one, I see them walk past my desk every day. Instead they are passionately interested in language and when a word has amassed enough evidence of usage in modern English they include it in their modern English dictionaries. Evidence of sufficiently common usage to be considered to have entered the language is their only value judgement.

It is also worth spelling out the differences between the different Oxford dictionaries. The OED is a massive multi-volume historical dictionary based on human research. You would use it to find the etymologies of words over a milennium. The Oxford Dictionary of English and the Concise Oxford English Dictionary however are corpus based dictionaries, they are derived from computational analysis of a billion-plus word corpus of contemporary English. That kind of stuff should be right up the average Slashdotter's street. Thus words like 'woot' and 'leet' (The lexicographers are funny about numbers in words, don't blame me) will not have been selected for trendiness but because the corpus analysis tells us people are using them.

The multi-volume book sells rather well as it happens. Not to many individuals but there are a lot of schools, universities and libraries in the world. And yes, we do have two dictionary websites. But as to a desperate attempt to stay profitable, the OED itself is not likely ever to do that. It took decades to produce its first edition, decades more for the second. We are a publishing company that is also a not-for-profit department of a major university so the OED is a project created for its academic value rather than its monetary return.

Botanically tomatoes are fruits - I have never argued this, and it is in fact part of the point that I initially raised - but here are just a few sources that back me up. As you can see, legally and culinarily speaking, there are a whole hell of a lot of people who consider a tomato a vegetable. This is a fact. This is inarguable. All of your "technically"s aren't going to change this. This is the point that I initially made, this is the point that I have continued to make, and this is the point that you have continued to deny in the face of overwhelming evidence. My ego is not particularly connected to what people think of tomatoes. Maybe you, on the other hand, should consider why yours is so connected to putting on blinders and denying simple facts as they are.

except dictionary attacks aren't combining words in the dictionary in to phrases.

There are 171,476 words in the english language, according to the count in the oxford dictionary (source: http://oxforddictionaries.com/page/93)...probably many more in reality. If your phrase is 4 words long, using just the words in the dictionary, that's 8.65x10^20. If your cracker is going at 1 million guesses per second, then it's taking your "ultra-quick" dictionary attack is going to take about 27 and a half million years.

Seriously, I need some ammo to beat my grandmother at Scrabble for once. She's getting pretty old and I'd like to win a few games against her before she kicks it.

You can't, as both are marked as abbreviations. (Just like... erm, other pronounceable abbreviations. PAYE? I can't think of anything else right now.)

http://oxforddictionaries.com/ (lol and omg are included.)

Damn. Linked to the wrong sense of leet in the post above. Try this: http://oxforddictionaries.com/view/entry/m_en_gb0984830?rskey=7RJxzw&result=2#m_en_gb0984830

I'm an OUP employee, I work on http://oxforddictionaries.com/ and I sit just over a partition from the OED team so I guess I'm well placed to comment on this one. For a start, it already is in our dictionaries. http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/leet . Unfortunately though they have lemmatised it (rendered it into its simplest form) as the rather lame-sounding 'leet' rather than '1337'. Hey, give them a break, they're English graduates! This probably has a root in their research. Analysing the corpus to find out how much the word is used, they are probably ignoring numbers because their job is to look for words. This infographic showing our inclusion process might be illuminating: http://oxforddictionaries.com/page/newwordflowchart/how-a-new-word-enters-an-oxford-dictionary

I'm an OUP employee, I work on http://oxforddictionaries.com/ and I sit just over a partition from the OED team so I guess I'm well placed to comment on this one. For a start, it already is in our dictionaries. http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/leet . Unfortunately though they have lemmatised it (rendered it into its simplest form) as the rather lame-sounding 'leet' rather than '1337'. Hey, give them a break, they're English graduates! This probably has a root in their research. Analysing the corpus to find out how much the word is used, they are probably ignoring numbers because their job is to look for words. This infographic showing our inclusion process might be illuminating: http://oxforddictionaries.com/page/newwordflowchart/how-a-new-word-enters-an-oxford-dictionary

I'm an OUP employee, I work on http://oxforddictionaries.com/ and I sit just over a partition from the OED team so I guess I'm well placed to comment on this one. For a start, it already is in our dictionaries. http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/leet . Unfortunately though they have lemmatised it (rendered it into its simplest form) as the rather lame-sounding 'leet' rather than '1337'. Hey, give them a break, they're English graduates! This probably has a root in their research. Analysing the corpus to find out how much the word is used, they are probably ignoring numbers because their job is to look for words. This infographic showing our inclusion process might be illuminating: http://oxforddictionaries.com/page/newwordflowchart/how-a-new-word-enters-an-oxford-dictionary

Indeed it does.

http://oxforddictionaries.com/view/entry/m_en_gb0574430#m_en_gb0574430

You posted the wrong link. And what is this interesting history of which you speak?

http://oxforddictionaries.com/view/entry/m_en_us1249363#m_en_us1249363

Origin:
1940s: acronym from fucked up beyond all recognition (or repair)

http://oxforddictionaries.com/view/entry/m_en_gb0994289#m_en_gb0994289

It also has FUBAR, although misses out on the interesting history of that acronym.

noun
humorous
used in allusion to the belief that wearing a hat made from tinfoil will protect one against government surveillance or mind control by extraterrestrial beings:you don't need to be wearing a tinfoil hat to understand that your privacy might not be as private as you would think
[as modifier] :the tinfoil hat brigade

A "liberal arts" institution can be defined as a "college or university curriculum aimed at imparting broad general knowledge and developing general intellectual capacities, in contrast to a professional, vocational, or technical curriculum."

From Oxford:

liberal arts: academic subjects such as literature, philosophy, mathematics, and social and physical sciences as distinct from professional and technical subjects.

Are there engineering trade schools? I'm guessing not, and I'm guessing that if there are, they're not as respected as colleges are. But should there be well-respected engineering trade schools, for people who have this attitude? Yes. If a well-developed but narrow-scope education is what you want, fine, but allowing the corruption of the system put in place for those who do want to develop "broad general knowledge and...general intellectual capacities" is a bad idea.

Sorry for the late reply. I've been a little busy lately. I thought I might do this a little differently to the classic string of rebuttals, since a lot of the strands run together, and a lot of them are, in my opinion, irrelevant. If there's anything specifically you want me to respond to, point it out next time.

Essentially, my problem here is that I do not know your definition of harm. Most of my efforts have been to spur you into telling me exactly what you mean by the word "harm". Explain it to me like a dictionary would. If you make some mistakes/omissions, that's fine, but I would like to see some kind of outline. At least then we could have something to work with, and I could actually evaluate both our arguments. To kick off, allow me to provide you with a definition of harm that I agree with:

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/harm

I hope you can see how piracy fits the definition of harm I've provided.

Until you provide me with a complete definition of harm, I'd like to ask some more about your most illuminating position on investments:

Did they ever have the money? If not, then no, you haven't harmed them.

What if the chance was bumped up to 100%? Yes, if you invested, you were 100% guaranteed to get a million dollars at the end of tomorrow. If I sabotaged it, would I still not be harming you? I mean, the money technically isn't yours yet, but it is guaranteed.

As another scenario, let's suppose that the probability of gaining $1,000,000,000 is 99.999999% or something else ridiculously close to 100%. Let's also suppose that you live in a smallish town, where everyone invests, and everyone manages to get a $1,000,000,000. Everyone, that is, except you, because I sabotaged your investment. Then, due to the suddenly rich neighbourhood, people renovate their houses, buy more expensive food, clothing, and other essentials. In fact, no store catering to the middle or lower classes can even remain competitive, and all change to something more up-market, or pack up shop and move somewhere else. As the only person without $1,000,000,000, you can no longer survive in this town, and are forced to move just so you have access to a grocery store and hold down a job. Finding a place is difficult, takes time, and you can only find a crappy little apartment that is a 10th of the size of your old place. Essentially, you're suffering. Have I harmed you? By sabotaging your investment, I have indirectly lost you your house and way of life, and these are only future losses, so that might factor into your decision as well.

A software engineer does not require a 4 year degree in the US or UK and I suspect it's the same in Canada. There are other engineers that would not require a 4 year degree. http://oxforddictionaries.com/view/entry/m_en_gb0266260#m_en_gb0266260

I'm not saying Homer is really an engineer because he doesn't really build or maintain machines so I'd agree his title likely isn't right but he wouldn't need a 4 year degree for the title.

It expresses that the thing it's applied to can be supposed - as opposed to something that can't be supposed at all.

Wouldn't that be supposable'?
Also Oxford Dictionary search

• using or characterized by irony:his mouth curved into an ironic smile
• happening in a way contrary to what is expected, and typically causing wry amusement because of this:[with clause] :it was ironic that now everybody had plenty of money for food they couldn't obtain it because everything was rationed

-Oxford Dictionary

Oh you're so hilarious! You sad little boy.

Heres a definition of evil by a proper dictionary , not some yank garbage. We're talking the proper definition of the word here, not the definition in your idiotic dialect.

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/evil?view=uk

Oxford English Dictionary entry for 'automagically'.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/violence?show=0&t=1292690950

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/violence?view=uk

So now you can stfu, troll.

"Jobsworth"? It's a common British term for an official who follows a daft rule because it's "more than his job's worth" not to. Generally it's only used against those who do so with relish and just use that as an excuse, so it seems to fit.

According to Oxford Dictionary, yes.

This dictionary says:

"innovate"
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/view/entry/m_en_us1258229

I say both devices ARE examples of innovation, and I challenge you to a duel, sir.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sentience
SENTIENCE
1 : a sentient quality or state
2 : feeling or sensation as distinguished from perception and thought

Dog qualifies.

http://oxforddictionaries.com/view/entry/m_en_gb0755520#m_en_gb0755520.005
sentient (sen|tient)
Pronunciation:/sn()nt/
adjective
        * able to perceive or feel things:

Dog qualifies.

hahahahahahahahahahaahaha! Hilarious. Look it up in a real dictionary (one with research staff, linguists, historians, etc) and your dog nor any other animal is sentient by their definition.

Perhaps next time you should look it up before you make an ass of yourself.

No it isn't -

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/spelt

Just because your ignorant puritan ancestry couldn't spell doesn't mean we have to conform to your bastardisation of our language.

The verb "to sex " means to "determine the sex of", as in what a chicken sexer does for a living (yes, that is a real job). This Burning Man thing sounds pretty boring.

"Sex up" does have other informal meanings, but I am not sure either is exactly what you mean.

See the OED

Actually....

In the past, people tended to use the pronouns he, his, him, or himself in situations like this:
If your child is thinking about a gap year, he can get good advice from this website. A researcher has to be completely objective in his findings.
Today, this approach is seen as outdated and sexist. There are other options which allow you to arrive at a ‘gender-neutral’ solution, as follows:
* You can use the wording ‘he or she’, ‘his or her’, etc.:
If your child is thinking about a gap year, he or she can get good advice from this website. A researcher has to be completely objective in his or her findings.
This can work well, as long as you don’t have to keep repeating ‘he or she’, ‘his or her’, etc. throughout a piece of writing.

Source: http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/page/heshethey/he-or-she-versus-they;jsessionid=082070F581446958B284847E7564A28E
At this point, the only question left to ask is whether yours was made out of an attempt at feeling smugly elitist, or out of general curiosity. Judging from the fact that GPs post was actually quite well written, I'd say the latter of the two.

Unfortunately, I have yet to find a dictionary wherein "literally" is described to mean "metaphorically."

There are notes explaining the usage problem of using "literally" as an intensity modifier, but this is not considered correct usage.

Here even explicitly rejects using "literally" as "metaphorically."

Languages need not be regular to be useful, but a minimum degree of rigor is necessary for them to function (and hence exist). Languages exist to facilitate communication, which they can't do [well or maybe even at all] if words also properly mean opposite things. Definitions may be loose, but not that loose, otherwise no one could understand anyone else.

In the end, it's possible, but unlikely. Thus, citation please.

It is English.

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/view/entry/m_en_gb0131000#m_en_gb0131000

As well as being Latin of course.

How many words are in english? A lot. (According to the OED folks, "The Second Edition of the 20-volume Oxford English Dictionary contains full entries for 171,476 words in current use, and 47,156 obsolete words. To this may be added around 9,500 derivative words included as subentries.") How many words does the average native english speaker know? According to this random website, 12,000-20,000 words. So English is complex, yet just 10% of the language meets a native speakers needs (less than that as we don't use all the words we know in normal conversation...except my wife when she's mad at me, then I hear every word she knows, many repeatedly)

So Java is complex. C++ is complex. I program in Java for my daily bread and I certainly don't use the entire language. It's only as complex as I need it to be. The complexity of my code is driven by what I'm trying to do, not by the language itself. And for code maintainability, I try to keep things as simple as possible.

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/page/grammartiplessorfewer

Less is also used with numbers when they are on their own and with expressions of measurement or time, e.g.:

His weight fell from 18 stone to less than 12.
Their marriage lasted less than two years.
Heath Square is less than four miles away from Dublin city centre

And since you're in marketing: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gDW_Hj2K0wo

The point was that to British ears it sounds like "scalps", since the context is concert tickets.

OED "Tout: attempt to sell (something), typically by a direct or persistent approach". Culturally, we're a bit uncomfortable about money, so touting (in all contexts) is slightly negative.

Can someone please tell me the difference between morality and ethics? The OED definition of ethical is "morally correct" (OK it can mean a precription drug as well, but that is clearly not what we mean in this content).

The real moral problem I can see here is that someone argues that it is legal, therefore it is OK even though it is inethical - i.e. do anything you can get away with and stuff the ethics of it.