Slashdot Mirror

A stern, candid critic or adviser.

Dictionaries do fit the criteria. They owe their existence to previous dictionaries

Counterproposal: I'm about to create a very small, very abridged dictionary here :

Doug's 2004 Dictionary

Dictionary: a book that contains words and short summaries about what each word means.

Thesaurus: a book that contains words, and then lists of words that have similar meanings to the first word.

Clueless: lacking clue.

Clue: could mean `a bit of knowledge', or it has come to mean `overall knowledge, either about a specific field or about everything'.

Shizzle: a relatively new word, made up by some rapper. It's hard to tell what it means, but I suspect it means either `sure' or `sh*t'.
(c) 2004 by Doug

Ok, that's my dictionary. I've just created it, just now. It's automatically protected by copyright as soon as I write it, registered or not. The (c) 2004 bit is not required for it to be copyrighted, but I'll include it just so there's no question.

If you feel that my dictionary is not covered by copyright, this is where you need to prove your point. If you feel that it's existance is based on a previous dictionary, then you'll need to be specific about which one. Certainly, I did not consult any other texts while writing it, and do not have an edietic memory. Also, I don't recall ever looking up any of these words in a dictionary. And consider that the word `shizzle' is very new, and not likely to be found in any dictionary more than 10 years old (and therefore all would still be covered by their copyrights, unless explictly put into the public domain.)

As another counter example, consider this -- a slang dictionary ... do you feel that he's not entitled to the copyright on his work? Certainly, he does.

Another counterexample -- these people seem to think that you keep the copyright of definitions that you add to the project. If individual definitions are protected by copyrighted, would not the whole thing also be similarly protected?

Really, you've come up with a position that's pretty difficult to support.

Claiming copyright and actually having a copyrightable right are two different things, as SCO is finding out.

with all of your responses to my posts on this subject, is that you seem to be making a fundamental assumption about the definition of evil.

That's true. My first language was English, so I assume "evil" means exactly what the word is defined to mean in a dictionary of the English language: "Something that is a cause or source of suffering, injury, or destruction". There are other valid definitions, but "Whatever God says is evil" isn't amoung them.

Ultimately, the Biblical standard for good and evil is absolute, and it is based on what God says is good and evil.

That is then a circular argument. Under that theory, the statement "God is Good" is content-free: it's equivalent to "God is God-like".

If you're using a completely different definition of words than a dictionary, then there is no way we can communicate. We are effectively speaking separate languages, which are superficially similar but mean completely different things.

It is hardly an unbiased approach to interpreting the Bible.

I feel that ignoring the definitions of words so they won't contradict your position is a fairly biased activity. Indeed, your approach only works if you start with the assumption that the Bible is true, for otherwise you wouldn't accept it's redefinitions. Muslims and Jews can use exactly the same technique to demonstrate the absolute correctness of their own respective creeds, since they all start from the assumption of truth.

Now that we are done with that...

"Yet you seem to prefer a dictionary as your primary reference."

Primary reference? No, more like easily accessible reference. Had I wanted to refute your claims with a primary reference I would have dug out my old stat textbook, driven to your house, and pointed out the definitions they gave. However, I don't feel like doing that, so instead I copied and pasted a link to an online dictionary. This is still a more than adequate source due to the fact that dictionaries are written by experienced linguists who research the use of words in many contexts, including statistics. For instance see the definition of significant. The definition lists not only the common definitions used by non-statisticians, but also the definition with regard to statistics. Yes, I could have also searched the net for sources like yours, but unlike sources like dictionaries which have been verified by experts, these websites could have been created by complete idiots who pretend they are experts like yourself who got a particular definition wrong. This often happens when a particular writer is discussing a subject out of their field of expertise (for instance a biologist discussing statistics).

"For I have substantiated every one of my claims with a verifiable reference that was not merely a dictionary."

You have not substantiated yourself period. Nowhere in that site you linked to did they give a definition of quantitative or qualitative that differed significantly from the dictionary definitions, or even one that would substantiate your claims that statistics on the number of touchdowns thrown by every quarterback in the NFL or statistics on standardized test scores are qualitative.

"You either refute the references or you lose."

No, whether or not I lose is not dependent on whether or not I can convince you that you are wrong. The loser is the one who is wrong, period. In this case you are wrong, thus you lost from the start. The only reason I am still responding to you is that I am still clinging to the dwindling hope that I can convince you of your errors.

Yeah, you're right.

An emulator changes hardware calls from their native format into the format of the machine running them.

No, that is absolutely not what "emulator" means.

Wine is an emulator by the definitions used both in normal English speech and computer science.

Disaster, noun:
1) An occurrence causing widespread destruction and distress; a catastrophe.
2) A grave misfortune.

The incidents at Three Mile Island and Chernobyl both fit the definition of disaster in my book (and in dictionary.com's book). Also, both of these events were public relations disasters for advocates of nuclear energy and have served to inhibit more widespread adoption of safer nuclear technologies.

I almost forgot what a password was

Yes, theist means having a diety (more literally: with god), atheist means not having a diety (not with god). Like the words moral and amoral:

Amoral: Not admitting of moral distinctions or judgments; neither moral nor immoral.

According to the original definitions, agnostics are a subset of atheists, though 'athiest' has been moving toward your definition. If a person is using the original definition, I could see them getting quite frustrated with you. :)

/nitpick

Believing that a god(s) do not exist is an act of faith.

That just seems odd to me. Do I need to have faith the believe that hobbits (chakras, dragons, hobbits, invisible pink whatevers) don't exist? Then everyone has faith in the non-existance of a great number of things, even things they have never heard of before!
Do you believe that aliens will attack tomorrow? You can't say you know for sure that they won't, but you aren't ready to pack up survival gear and head for the hills (just in case the do), either. So you really aren't completely 'without knowledge'.

Note that there are some faith-based athiests (just like most theists, it's the way they were raised), I just think most of them (the other 90%) aren't basing their beliefs on faith.
The same is true for theists, but I think the percentages are reversed.

Yndrd1984

Hmm, OK, Here you go.

I see your point, but I just checked and found the same definition under payed as well. It seems either is correct as far as the American Heritage Dictionary is concerned :-)

> I made a simple comment about the eastern european countries, without even mentioning the US.
Ok, so it was off topic.

> You chose to be US-arrogant, got the reply you deserved. Ever thought why the whole world hates the US? It's not because you're the greatest or because they're jealous or even because of Iraq. It's because you're arrogant, so try to work on that.
I am not even sure where to start. What is it to be "US-arrogant"? Nice use of hyperbole with your "whole world hates the US" bit.

> And if you don't believe me, you should reconnect to reality.
I should believe what reality?

Ha HA! Turnabout is fair play!

chirurgical:(archaic) of or relating to surgery

Now hit this link!

archaic: No longer current or applicable; antiquated

Now, someone point out the fact that I didn't use the whole definition! Then the English flame will be ON!

"a geed thing?" A thing relating to the command given to horses or oxen to turn them to the right?

People who oppose paranormal research are always claiming that they want quantifiable, reproducible data. Well, here it is.

No, here it isn't. The very definition of paranormal means that there can't be quantifiable, reproducible data.

If you had meant psychic research, you would still be wrong. The fact that you can detect general changes in brainwave patterns when somebody is concentrating at a distance of mere millimetres is hardly proof or even an indicator that one person can tell precisely what another is thinking merely by transmitting "energy waves" with their brain.

It's akin to saying that because I can see somebody waving at me from across the road, that is quantifiable, reproducible data that helps prove the theory that I can see something on the far side of Mars.

--
2: "...with this is the judgement ...".
judgment
--
Both are correct.

One would think that an "online university" would have heard about dictionary.reference.com!

:-) Heh! Quite right, touché.

The writers at dictionary.com think Grammar Nazis everywhere will eventually capitulate on this one:

The use of impact as a verb meaning "to have an effect" often has a big impact on readers. Eighty-four percent of the Usage Panel disapproves of the construction to impact on, as in the phrase social pathologies, common to the inner city, that impact heavily on such a community; fully 95 percent disapproves of the use of impact as a transitive verb in the sentence Companies have used disposable techniques that have a potential for impacting our health. It is unclear why this usage provokes such a strong response, but it cannot be because of novelty. Impact has been used as a verb since 1601, when it meant "to fix or pack in," and its modern, figurative use dates from 1935. It may be that its frequent appearance in the jargon-riddled remarks of politicians, military officials, and financial analysts continues to make people suspicious. Nevertheless, the verbal use of impact has become so common in the working language of corporations and institutions that many speakers have begun to regard it as standard. It seems likely, then, that the verb will eventually become as unobjectionable as contact is now, since it will no longer betray any particular pretentiousness on the part of those who use it. See Usage Note at contact.

The definitions of:
capital

and

capitol

Are slightly confusing -- they overlap. Unless someone uses capitol to mean something like

"capital - 2.b:Wealth in the form of money or property, used or accumulated in a business by a person, partnership, or corporation."

Then I'm not sure they should be faulted. By the way, I really hate how convenient firefox makes it to search dictionary.com.

(not to be a Nazi but...shouldn't Inprofesional be Unprofessional or am I mixing up my morphemes?)

The definitions of:
capital

and

capitol

Are slightly confusing -- they overlap. Unless someone uses capitol to mean something like

"capital - 2.b:Wealth in the form of money or property, used or accumulated in a business by a person, partnership, or corporation."

Then I'm not sure they should be faulted. By the way, I really hate how convenient firefox makes it to search dictionary.com.

(not to be a Nazi but...shouldn't Inprofesional be Unprofessional or am I mixing up my morphemes?)

chirurgical (sic)

Interesting: My spell checker did not recognize "vailing", but it turns out it is a valid, though archaic word.

I assume that since you posted this as an anonymous coward you were just trying to be funny or a troll since 'release candidate' is a pretty standard term in the software industry - which is more than just Microsoft.

You may also want to look up what the word 'candidate' means. Here, I will help you: candidate. There do not have to be multiple candidates nor does a candidate have to receive votes.

In this case there actually is a type of voting that goes on. When a software company has a 'release candidate' there is generally a period of time between it and the actual released product. During this time the company receives feedback from people running the release candidate. The feedback/bug reports/etc are analyzed to determine if the product is actually ready to ship. When a product is getting ready to ship certain representatives actually have to sign off on it - essentially the same thing as a 'vote'.

But, I'm sure you already knew that and you were just trying to get a +5 Lame Attempt At MS Bashing on your message.

I know this is probably a quote from his speech, so this isn't the Mr. Morrison's fault, but shouldn't that just be one sencence? Beginning a sentence with "and" is awkward at best and completely unnecessary in this instance.

Also, predilection is a word that most people would hear and either think: "Wow! He's smart!" or, "Wasn't that the Word of the Day a while back?"

I'm pretty sure he meant rediculous, unless the hundreds of idiots posting on the internet every day are spelling it wrong too [ ... ]

...all of humanity..., for just one example. Or perhaps you'd rather the very first definition in the dictionary?

Don't insult other people on things that you yourself are ignorant on.

chirurgical gloves are what chirurgeons wear when they are performing chirugury. DUH!

I know you're joking here, but you are actually correct : )

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=chiru rgeon

I agree. Giving these things silly names is only promoting the problem. We have people in congress and politians making legistlature who don't understand the difference between the World Wide Web and the Internet. Are we still thinking in terms of Cyberspace? What the hell is Cyberspace? It sounds like a place to have Cybersex? So, Cyberspace must be in an IRC chat room, a lot less cool than it sounds really. If the Department of Homeland Security can't even use correct terminology how are they going to secure anything. Its not even a hard word to say, its 2 words you already know joined together, and the two words still mean the same thing... "Internetwork"!

Yep, they're usually inductive.

I used to work, for the same company as my wife and occasionally, one of us would arrive at the car park only to discover that the other person (working from home or out on a business trip) had the swipe card for the barrier - no problem, whip out the metal drinks tray kept in the boot/trunk for such an emergency, place it on the exit sensor wire, up goes the barrier, drive in and over tray, retrieve tray and park!

There are a number of devices already on the market which input visual and audio information into your brain via well defined pathways.

That'd be curricula.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=curriculu m

but the majority of the folks pushing papers that make the real decisons for our country need relatable terms

You're absolutely right. Dictionary.com's first three usage examples for cyber are cyberpunk, cyberspace (Gibson references to be sure), and cybersex. No doubt these terms are relatable to all and well covered by the document in question.

Or for those who don't have a subscription to the OED: abseiling

LOL. There is no such thing. Statistics are by definition quantitative. I thought you had taken a course in statistics.

"Nope. First you come up with a hypothesis. Otherwise, you don't know what to measure."

No. You cannot make up a hypothesis unless you have some observation for it to explain. Read the fucking definition of the word.

A tentative explanation for an observation, phenomenon, or scientific problem that can be tested by further investigation.

" No you cannot. Not without knowing how the other quarterbacks perform."

Fine, include their performance. Thats still only quantitative data, and you can make a qualitative statement about it.

Seriously, what level of statistics have you taken. You are constantly bragging about your great "education" in the manner, yet if you have taken a single course above the high school level you need to demand your money back.

Obviously I meant viri. You're still a idiot.

Vira is a synonym for viral, idiot.

There isn't anonymity on the internet right now. Every action that we do now is monitored and recorded for future screening.

The average Joe Blow consumer doesnt know who has xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx ip but the ISP knows, it's confidential information. If there is suspected activity from said ip, then the FBI or other authorities can supeona the ISP and get all their records. How do you think virus writers end up being caught? Magic!?!?!?

The limited anonymity we have on the net is for our own protection, you don't want a possible attacker to know where you live.

It also keeps companies from fraudulantly using your information, think credit card theft is bad now, well it's going to be that much worse.

The real reason for the government to want to do something like this is that they are power hungry as are all forms of government. Any government is a juggernaut.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=juggernau t

They are also afraid that the truth can be let out and they can't control the internet as well as they do control the other forms of media.

Do you think concerts should be free?

If you think musical recordings/performance should be free, do you mind not getting paid for the job you do?

Your diatribe about media conglomerates is a straw man. The issue here is paying the artist because it is the right thing to do and a way to show appreciation for their hard work/dedication to their art. Cultural information? Are you on crack? Minstrels http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=Minstrels of the middle ages were paid for their performance of music, so paying for musical performance should not be something new.

You don't get it. There may be many songs which are part of our shared culture and are now found in the public domain but performances by artists belong to the artist regardless of where the music comes from. It is up to the artist to choose whether to distribute it freely to others, not people like you.

I think you are confusing "music/lyrics" (information) with performance (a product/service offered by an artist). Of course songs should eventually become part of the public domain but the recordings themselves are not information. They are interpretations/expressions of the "information".

Regardless of how you feel about copyrights for music/lyrics (I agree with you about the 120 year copyright), that has nothing to do with not paying the artist for their performance of the piece.

Here is my definition of "fair use". If you purchase a recording, you are free to do with it as you wish for personal use including creating your own mixes, using it in your home videos etc... If you have a book in your possession, you are free to take small excerpts via photo copying or quotation (with credits to the original work) and "use" it in your own art creation or academic work.

Where do you get "use" as being a right to distribution or obtaining it without purchase? If you obtain tangible items without purchase/permission, that is called stealing.

A death what now? :)

An interesting potential side effect - let's say lawsuits force many spammers to adhere to all rules and restrictions. I'd be worried about the next legal action - a law to ban filters which filter out unsolicited commercial email. Suddenly, to filter UCE would "irreparably harm legitimate businesses", and so to filter based on "ADV:" in your subject line would be... no more legal that taking a trip to the rest-room during a commercial break.

That's not a digital clock in any sense of the word.

What high school did you graduate from? Obviously they weren't doing their job.

From dictionary.reference.com:

digital

1. Of, relating to, or resembling a digit, especially a finger.
2. Operated or done with the fingers: a digital switch.
3. Having digits.
4. Expressed in numerical form, especially for use by a computer.
5. Computer Science. Of or relating to a device that can read, write, or store information that is represented in numerical form. See Usage Note at virtual.
6. Using or giving a reading in digits: a digital clock.


Please see #6, and then go think about why you don't know the definitions of common words. It also seems that you can't be bothered to look them up.

Are you sure you are 'intelligent' by any sense of that word?

(Sorry, I couldn't resist...)

We are animals, acting morally is acting in accordance with out animal instincts, acting immorally is acting against our animal instincts.

Exactly the opposite. We are animals, acting amorally(or immorally, since we have a choice, unlike the animals) is acting in accordance with our animal instincts, acting morally is rising above our animal instincts. Presently, almost all humans are the former. Our support of a system that permits(encourages) SCO's behavior for example can be considered immoral. This makes us the same as they(SCO) are.

Morality is a judgement that humans make on words and actions.

Then you should understand that morality is a purely human concept. Nature makes no such judgements. Also, being a human concept makes morality relative to which human you're talking to. That is an aberration. If morality is to be an absolute, it must occur in nature. Something like light and dark. We have nothing to base morality on, except our own concepts of it. In my little world, yes, I do consider it "more" moral to rise above our instincts, not necessarily to act against them. One way of doing that is to assure that one would never, ever cause harm to anything, ever.

All your words and actions are subject to judgement.

Only by other humans. Most of them are in no position to judge anybody. Certainly not the ones we put in charge.

BTW there is no such thing as amoral.

amoral --- Please note, I DO care about right and wrong, but in this case, I'm looking for a deeper resolution than simply winning it. If what I'd like to see happen actually happens, I might be saying "Thank you, SCO" for helping to eliminate(indirectly) some truly horrible laws. Nature does fit the first definition.

You're applying your "common-sense" filter to interpreting copyright law and its Constitutional basis. That's part of the problem: current common sense is wrong, incomplete AND overly broad regarding copyright. Abusive laws like the DMCA make matters worse. Especially as so many copyright scenarios are still undefined, due to public complacency and political/legal laziness.

Art: 1. Human effort to imitate, supplement, alter, or counteract the work of nature.

It might be a puny effort, but "DocRuby@slashdot.org" is my artifice. Of course I don't control the rights to copying @slashdot.org, or @.. But I do control those rights in my artifice, "DocRuby@slashdot.org". Except of course for the express purpose for which it was copied to its recipient, like identifying / replying to my email box with messages. But unless I express permission for you to copy the address to someone else, you may not do so - like to a spammer, or someone I haven't granted permission to know how to contact me. See how copyright reflects good manners?

Publishing it on a public web page is an implicit expression that anyone in the public may copy it, as that is what we expect from publication. My middle name, as my middle name (ie, in context, not just "Jack") is similar: though the original copyright was presumably controlled by my parents, they transferred all rights in it to me, as that is the express purpose of naming a child. There are strict boundaries between copy rights and wrongs, including which uses society allows as "fair use". I'm talking about rights - the law has, as usual, a lot of catching up to do.

What the fuck does "spilt" mean?"

For the uniformed: Click.

By the way, you are a moron.

That seems like a lot of effort, when nobody really minds if you actually burn the desk itself.

While I don't disagree with your comments in general, I must disagree with you're statement "It is NOT a vaccine."

A vaccine is defined as:

"A preparation of a weakened or killed pathogen, such as a bacterium or virus, or of a portion of the pathogen's structure that upon administration stimulates antibody production or cellular immunity against the pathogen but is incapable of causing severe infection."

Which is exactly what they created. It's a therapeutic vaccine, rather than the more common preventative vaccine that people are accustomed to.

it's just that most of that price is paid by the government for us.

Do you understand what subsidy means?

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

Backing up the one advising you to step down off the high-horse:

According to Dictionary.com's definition of the word, the most dominant spelling since ca. 1995 has been 'email', but 'e-mail', 'Email' and 'E-mail' are acceptable alternatives.

Interestingly, according to the text of the definition, the word 'email' has another definition dating back to the 15th century, 'meaning embossed or [perhaps] arranged in a net or open work'. It also has a meaning in modern French, 'a hard enamel obtained by heating special paints in a furnace'. I realize that doesn't add anything to this conversation, but I, for one, found it interesting (and welcome our new French overlords, of course).

I appologize for continuing this off-topic discussion. I simply wanted to point out that not all Americans are "Ugly Americans" as described by the parent. I would say that the "Ugly American" definition as given above is more of a stereotype than an archetype, with the key difference being that his definition is oversimplified. I want to emphasize here that I am not attacking, just pointing out that I am offended by being lumped into a group of mean people because they happened to be from the same country as I am. I think this is a useful discussion, but unfortunately not necessary for Wil Wheaton to worry about. However it would be fun if he weighed in on it, being an American that has traveled around the universe an all. Starfleet Academy will also be located in Ugly America (Ugly San Francisco to be exact). Thanks, James