Slashdot Mirror

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=viruses

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=virii

Easy enough to check for yourself.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=viruses

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=virii

Easy enough to check for yourself.

I tried funny, then I got bad karma... now I go for insightful...

I thought you might find this helpful...

I have a feeling this will be a bunch of +5 Funny Microsoft-bash posts.

And also a bunch of posts from people like you who think free speech is optional.

Personally, I like an alternative viewpoint. If I wanted marketing dross I'm quite capable of reading the source material at microsoft.com thank you.

---

First, define "smart."

Characterized by sharp quick thought; bright. (Yes, I cribbed from the dictionary.)

Does "smart" mean you're in advanced placement or Honors classes?

Obviously not.

Is he stupider than the girl who didn't understand what the ozone layer was?

Obviously not. I'm just saying that intelligence wasn't what caused this fellow's unpopularity.

Definition of communism is here.

Notice the state controls everything and this is borderline fascism. Socialism is mentioned here.

Socialism is often missused as well since welfare = socialism = fascism has been being said by right wing think tanks for decades.

Socialism is a way to level the playing field and almost every government in the world is socialistic in some way by industry regulations. Communism is more repressive of the two and more authotarian.

You can also be communistic and capitalists like China and control just who gets the money. :-)

A monopoly is also communistic too. If MS controls the market and sets speed, innovation, pc standards, and drm into pc's then yes MS is the communistic entity. In a truly free market with competition than thats capitalist.

Definition of communism is here.

Notice the state controls everything and this is borderline fascism. Socialism is mentioned here.

Socialism is often missused as well since welfare = socialism = fascism has been being said by right wing think tanks for decades.

Socialism is a way to level the playing field and almost every government in the world is socialistic in some way by industry regulations. Communism is more repressive of the two and more authotarian.

You can also be communistic and capitalists like China and control just who gets the money. :-)

A monopoly is also communistic too. If MS controls the market and sets speed, innovation, pc standards, and drm into pc's then yes MS is the communistic entity. In a truly free market with competition than thats capitalist.

Marx idea of a communist state actually removed a great deal of any government system

hmmm next!

P.S.: The expression is "in the cards", not "on the cards".

reference.com disagrees with you:

in the cards

on the cards

As another poster has already said, here in the UK the expression is most definitely "on the cards". (That redundant information added to escape the lameness filter. Have a very unlame day!)

P.S.: The expression is "in the cards", not "on the cards".

reference.com disagrees with you:

in the cards

on the cards

As another poster has already said, here in the UK the expression is most definitely "on the cards". (That redundant information added to escape the lameness filter. Have a very unlame day!)

Do you have some other word for billions of tiny particles clumping together at random?

You are missing the point, which is hardly a surprise. The Theory of Evolution does not say anything about how life began, only about how it has changed over time. The theory of how life began is called abiogenesis. That particular theory has life beginning in the ocean. No one with two brain cells to rub together would claim that dust is a synonym for ocean.

What is the agenda behind your being a fucking moron who should shut up?

Wow. After only one message you fall to pieces. That's much more quickly than most people would have. Perhaps you should run along now before you before you lose the ability to form complete sentences.

Do you have some other word for billions of tiny particles clumping together at random?

You are missing the point, which is hardly a surprise. The Theory of Evolution does not say anything about how life began, only about how it has changed over time. The theory of how life began is called abiogenesis. That particular theory has life beginning in the ocean. No one with two brain cells to rub together would claim that dust is a synonym for ocean.

What is the agenda behind your being a fucking moron who should shut up?

Wow. After only one message you fall to pieces. That's much more quickly than most people would have. Perhaps you should run along now before you before you lose the ability to form complete sentences.

It is nearly beyond my comprehension that someone who trusts in evolution, can then say that the "entire" field of biology is in agreement with this "theory." Especially macroevolution. To say that we, as human beings, were not created as such... that we evolved from some lower life form is ridiculous.

BTW, I admit my spelling error with "laughing stock" as it is one word.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=laugh ingstock

I had to look this up :D

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=tautology

tautology Audio pronunciation of "tautology" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (tô-tl-j)
n. pl. tautologies
1.
1. Needless repetition of the same sense in different words; redundancy.
2. An instance of such repetition.
2. Logic. An empty or vacuous statement composed of simpler statements in a fashion that makes it logically true whether the simpler statements are factually true or false; for example, the statement Either it will rain tomorrow or it will not rain tomorrow.

Learn how to spell "noone" is not a word idiot! It's not even a compound word. Correct spelling: No One

Learn how to spell "noone" is not a word idiot! It's not even a compound word. Correct spelling: No One

# Biology.
1. Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species.
2. The historical development of a related group of organisms; phylogeny.
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition

1. A continuing process of change from one state or condition to another or from one form to another.
2. The theory that groups of organisms change with passage of time, mainly as a result of natural selection, so that descendants differ morphologically and physiologically from their ancestors.
The American Heritage® Stedman's Medical Dictionary

1 : a process of change in a certain direction (there has been much discussion as to ... the possible evolution of benign adenomas into invasive carcinoma --Journal of the American Medical Association)
2 a : the historical development of a biological group (as a race or species)
b : a theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations
Merriam-Webster Medical Dictionary

source

Emphasis added. Care to post the defintion of evolution taught to you in whichever august institution you attended? Because all of these seem to encompass my definition.

If all your going to say in your posts is "you're wrong", don't bother replying. You accomplish nothing.

mod parent troll

How about people mod the parent however they bloody well like?

Here again we see the creationist nutters telling the rest of us how to think. How about you back off and let people make up their own mind, nazi.

While you are at it learn about punctuation and grammar - such as starting a sentence with a capital letter and ending it with a full stop. People would be forgiven for thinking you are an under-educated religious nutcase; but then you evidently are.

mod parent troll

How about people mod the parent however they bloody well like?

Here again we see the creationist nutters telling the rest of us how to think. How about you back off and let people make up their own mind, nazi.

While you are at it learn about punctuation and grammar - such as starting a sentence with a capital letter and ending it with a full stop. People would be forgiven for thinking you are an under-educated religious nutcase; but then you evidently are.

mod parent troll

How about people mod the parent however they bloody well like?

Here again we see the creationist nutters telling the rest of us how to think. How about you back off and let people make up their own mind, nazi.

While you are at it learn about punctuation and grammar - such as starting a sentence with a capital letter and ending it with a full stop. People would be forgiven for thinking you are an under-educated religious nutcase; but then you evidently are.

mod parent troll

How about people mod the parent however they bloody well like?

Here again we see the creationist nutters telling the rest of us how to think. How about you back off and let people make up their own mind, nazi.

While you are at it learn about punctuation and grammar - such as starting a sentence with a capital letter and ending it with a full stop. People would be forgiven for thinking you are an under-educated religious nutcase; but then you evidently are.

But then will dismiss us as ignorant savages who write things like existance.

Since I'm me...pique (To provoke; arouse: The portrait piqued her curiosity.).

Here is a dictionary defition of "theory", http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=theory Look at definitions 1-6 and you may possibly apply those to gravity, atoms and germs... but 7 is best used for evolution. Evolution is a laughing stock and the only reason people defend it so much is their tradition. They were raised that way.

There is nothing more to it, a review is something written to express an opinion, Dictionary .com says something else.

" I've heard many evolutionists declare evolution as only theory and not fact as well..."

You have made the mistake -- as have many, many people -- of misunderstanding the definition of "theory" as it is used in the phrase "theory of evolution."

These are the definitios of theory (from dictionary.com) that you're probably thinking of:

An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.

Abstract reasoning; speculation

When in fact, this is the definition of theory that is used in the phrase "theory of evolution" :

"A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena."

No worries. Wander into any /. discussion about P2P and you'll find that many Slashdotters are similarly confused about the multiple definitions of the word "piracy."

Gaining Credence? Probably only this sort of Credence:

credence
n.

4. A small table or shelf for holding the bread, wine, and vessels of the Eucharist when they are not in use at the altar.

How is this "creationist"? Evolution is a theory, not a fact, and as with all scientific theories, should be presented as such.

You realize "Electricity" is a theory right? The reason this was thrown out, was because it was a deliberate attempt to confuse school children by muddying the difference between the common usage of the word theory (aka. hunch) and the scientific:

A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

Is there a better way to teach scientific thinking to students than to emphasize "what you are learning is not final"?

In fact, no... but the basic tenant of science is to keep an open mind so why stress this about evolution? Also, as I stated, this was not designed to open students minds but merely to confuse them.

What is it then? It is called the Theory of Evolution, yet it does not fit the definition for a theory? WTF? Oh wait, here's a more complete definition.

True curiosity requires me to ask what gramar rules define data as plural? I have to agree with http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=data where it list usage as singular as a set. Much like the herd is grazing rather than the herd are grazing because it is a single set of animals. This is a singular term describing a plural item.

I think you are looking for the phrase "for all intents and purposes".

BTW, "capitol" is the city where the seat of government sits, like Washington, DC. "Capital" is money used for investment.

Actually, with the usage you quoted, both are "capital" . The parent is still wrong though, as "capitol" is the building (as opposed to the city).

BTW, "capitol" is the city where the seat of government sits, like Washington, DC. "Capital" is money used for investment.

Actually, with the usage you quoted, both are "capital" . The parent is still wrong though, as "capitol" is the building (as opposed to the city).

...or not.

# To let loose; release: "loosed the dogs".

Courtesy of dictionary.com.

...spurious - I do not think it means what you think it means...

I don't understand your comment, as I don't know of the verb "severe". Too bad, perhaps I could have complied with your request. Maybe you meant sever? But I guess requesting actual verbs in their pithy comments is too much to ask of "the world gene pool".

For the record, I don't hand out or accept "weird sized CD media", but the standard (for many years) Mini CD media should be playable in any device which calls itself a CD-ROM or a derivative of one.

What, like this one?

Since the rest of your post reveals you were unaware of this primary meaning of materialism and that you were using it exclusively as what that dictionary lists as the third definition, there's little reason for me to address the rest of what you say based on it. Regardless of your educational background, this doesn't give me much of a sense that you know what you're talking about.

Can you even read? I mentioned that there's little agreement among philosophers as to what constitutes "the Good". You reply by listing the widest possible divergence of opinion and then telling me it shows I was wrong. (You seem to think Plato regarded the ideal plane to be unreal. He actually considered it more real than the material.)

There were also a lot of writers between those I mentioned, with different opinions yet.

That's called the Socratian method.

What you're thinking of is more often called the "Socratic method" but that's not what she used. I didn't say she led the class by questioning and I don't know why you'd read that in. It was more of a dialectic. It wasn't really a Hegelian approach though, since if there was a synthesis to be formed she left it up to the individual students and didn't force it.

he went to the kings of each Mycenae and Macedon attempting to prevent the spread of the method,

I'm not terribly familiar with Democritus other than a bare outline of his philosophy, but I do know that Mycenae had been a ruin for over 500 years before he was born and certainly had no king in his lifetime. Check your facts before you start preaching next time.

Piracy == A crime committed on high seas;

1. a. Robbery committed at sea.
   b. A similar act of robbery, as the hijacking of an airplane.
2. The unauthorized use or reproduction of copyrighted or patented material: software piracy.
3. The operation of an unlicensed, illegal radio or television station

Not quite ingenious but certainly not ironic.

I'm thinking the FBI would spell correctly.

surveillance

Swing and a miss.

But don't give up - the world needs urologists to take the piss.

1. Nasa.gov says "According to the big bang, the universe was created sometime between 10 billion and 20 billion years ago from a cosmic explosion that hurled matter and in all directions.".
2. Some guys at U Mich (GeoSci students?) say "About 15 billion years ago a tremendous explosion started the expansion of the universe."
3. Cambridge Cosmology says "About ten billion years ago, the Universe began in a gigantic explosion"

That's the first three results. How about Dictionary.com? "big bang [n.] The cosmic explosion that marked the origin of the universe according to the big bang theory."

So if I'm wrong in referring to it, in general and metaphorical terms (like the name "big bang" itself), as an "explosion", at least I stand in good company. So now that I've spent all this time defending my use of a single word, I can actually get to the relevant parts of your post (I don't mean anything personal by that, I promise ;)

I already admitted the error of attempting to tie an accelerating universe to problems with the Big Bang, I don't know why you wrote so much more about it, but thanks anyway, interesting stuff. I do find the accelerating universe a fascinating tangential subject. (If your response contains something along the lines of "the fact you think acceleration and the big bang are tangential to each other shows your complete ignorance, etc etc" I will stop reading)

'The mathematics of the Big Bang model are easier to work with when the vacuum energy density is zero: the equations are simpler, and various things are easier to calculate . . .and physicists will always consider the simplest case first.'

Yes, and I believe that eliminating the "ZPE" components because they complicated the equations has done enormous harm to our understanding of physics. (Similar to what happened to Maxwell's original equations when Heaviside butchered them)

I can tell you are a strong adherent to good experimental data (as am I)... a book I cannot recommend strongly enough to you is "The Field" by Lynne McTaggart. (Think I mentioned this in an ancestor post) It is chock full of recent experimental results concerning quantum physics and consciousness, from good solid double-blind placebo controlled studies. I am not given to superlatives, but this book will blow your

1. One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.

1. 1. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
   2. The doctrine that there is no God or gods.
2. Godlessness; immorality.

1. One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.

1. 1. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
   2. The doctrine that there is no God or gods.
2. Godlessness; immorality.

... and would uncover what appeared at a distance to be a defensiveness on parent's part.

I'm not contesting that social skills are useful, and sometimes necessary for advancing a career.

This doesn't make sense unless you meant "aren't useful,"

Jesus. All he said was "I think it's sad that so many people are proud of being shut-ins." Overreact much?

Theism == Belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in a personal God as creator and ruler of the world.

So theism is the belief, not the god or gods. I definitly lack such a belief, but I don't see how the lack of belief makes it a religion.

Well, I think god would be most pleased if people learnt how to spell altar in the first place.
Only then would he demand one made from expensive materials.
Or a shrubbery.

It is, assuming I spell it correctly of course.

Profit is self-interest. Self interest is bias.

Riigghht... Your argument is clear. It's still total crap. Despite your confusion over meaning of the term "bias" does not mean "self-interest". If you'd bother to check a dictionary, you'd find the most relevant definition is "A preference or an inclination". Check the link for a more complete definition. So think about it? Do human beings all have preferences & inclinations? Yep. Anything magical about working for a state sponsored corp that removes said preferences and inclinations? Nope. Conclusion? I think I've made my point.

People are biased. The news is biased. The CBC is biased. You're biased. I'm biased, and your Aunt Mabel is biased. It's called having a worldview. Get over it. Stop looking for that magical unbiased source because it does not exist!

The way to get the best news is to check a variety of sources. End of story. The problem isn't that the CBC is biased so much as it's biased and government funded. Funding one view is a bad idea because that gives unfair precendence to that one view. Or if you want to indulge the fantasy that there is not editorial direction at the CBC, then it's a bad idea to give funding to a limited subset of views).