Slashdot Mirror

Please don't discuss your proud here. That's just gross.

It's a short form used by owners of rottweilers. Here's some pictures.

it brings to mind the image of a kitten poking at a Rotty

dictionary.com lists "titbit" as the variant. Had you asked me, I'd have guessed that "titbit" might be an Anglicism, but OTOH, the quote dictionary.com gives for "tidbit" is from Sir Alec Guinness, who I (admittedly an American) would think very English indeed.

Attention, Unqualified Idiot:

judgement

IANAL,BIAALWPO (I am not a lawyer, but I am a legal word processing operator)

In any event, allergists [d]o not diagnose psychiatric conditions any more than an psychiatrist ought to be diagnosing allergies.

And that's a real problem. I'm sure that failure to treat a patient holistically (if you're thinking new age, hit the dictionary) leads to all sorts of humorous anecdotes. Funny to the doctor, that is...

Oh, and from the snarky posts in this thread alone we see that allergists do attempt to "treat" patients that should be referred to psychiatrists. Guess it must be hard to get rid of such a steady customer.

Since this is /. I feel obligated to point out your incorrect spelling of the word obligated.

*ready (though you did spell it right later one... I'll let it slide)

*spelled (spelt isn't a word)

Isn't it funny, not ha-ha, how some of those who wrap themselves in the First Amendment, and who claim to be the most open minded and tolerant, are the ones who would attack a group whose political affiliation is different?

Tolerance n. The capacity for or the practice of recognizing and respecting the beliefs or practices of others.

Tolerance, Politically Correct n. The capacity to slander, libel, ridicule, belittle, attack, or otherwise marginalize anyone who adheres to moral, religious, or political views which are not Politically Correct. See also: hypocrisy

Isn't it funny, not ha-ha, how some of those who wrap themselves in the First Amendment, and who claim to be the most open minded and tolerant, are the ones who would attack a group whose political affiliation is different?

Tolerance n. The capacity for or the practice of recognizing and respecting the beliefs or practices of others.

Tolerance, Politically Correct n. The capacity to slander, libel, ridicule, belittle, attack, or otherwise marginalize anyone who adheres to moral, religious, or political views which are not Politically Correct. See also: hypocrisy

don't forget the National Spelling Bee

And its wonderful dictionary, with words like ninnyish. I lost in my 6th grade school finals on that, and I'm still pissed about it. They could have at least picked words that exist!

don't forget the National Spelling Bee

And its wonderful dictionary, with words like ninnyish. I lost in my 6th grade school finals on that, and I'm still pissed about it. They could have at least picked words that exist!

"Muzjiks" is 128 points off the first draw.

shake off the yolk of human oppression

Ick. We're throwing eggs at them? That's just not right. Perhaps once they've shaken off the yoke of human oppression, they will be able to carry out their existences relatively egg-free.

Yes, but can it go Plad!

I don't know anything that can go "plad". Maybe if you drop an iPod from the top of a building, it goes "iPlad" on the ground. You meant "Plaid"

Documentary:

AKA: Docu
A non-fiction narrative without actors. Typically a documentary is a journalistic record of an event, person, or place. See also: cinema verité.

Genre Browser: Documentary

No one has discredited Moore's statements, or even argued coherently with them. His political opponents depicted so disparagingly in his film could sue him for libel, but have no grounds.

And for good measure:
" bald faced liar"

rather than the famous documentarian

Please, please, please don't ever refer to Michael Moore as a docuementarian. He's a movie maker who claims his movies are documentaries, but they're not. They're filled with his views and opinions, not the documents and facts that define a documentary.

From Dictionary.com you'll see that a Documentary has two definitions:
1. Consisting of, concerning, or based on documents.
2. Presenting facts objectively without editorializing or inserting fictional matter, as in a book or film.

Now if you can sit through any Michael Moore movie and tell me with a straight face that a) everything you see is based on documents (and documents that Michael Moore writes don't count) and b) are lacking editorializing or inserting fictional matter, then you are either stupid or a bold faced liar.

Don't get me wrong, he makes a really compelling film, but then so did the guys who made the Blair Witch Project (also, a supposed documentary).

flatfile and perl equal to mysql?!?!? I don't think so
Hope this helps

Exactly. If they had just checked the dictionary before trying to redefine words on their own they would know that the words internet and Internet are not the same.

Another one that always bothered me..."worldwide" is one word. So it should be Worldwide Web...as in ww.slashdot.org and not www.

Great, so to get true color fidelity, we all need to switch to polyester film displays?

But, really - just how big is the market for bukkake? And are you sure it only brought "a smile" to your face?

Yeah that was what Shot in the Face was all about. Nothing to do with a guy shot by a gun, or a series of interesting or funny situations, at all. It was bukkake -- really! /sarcasm

...really can piss me off.

At least I understand what I wrote myself, which is more than can be said about you.

"Are you now arguing that this only applies if you didn't know that your decision was a poor one ?"

Well now it wouldn't really be foreseeable otherwise, now would it?

So if I know that connecting a Windows machine containing important business data to the Internet might lead to bad consequences, but someone else doesn't, is this a foreseeable consequence or not ? And if that someone did connect a Windows machine with important business data into the Internet, and got hacked, does he have grounds for complain or not ?

"I'd say that all my examples were foreseeable consequences of your own decisions."

But in case you missed it, I had more criteria than it just being a foreseeable consequence of your own decision.

I indeed missed those criteria, perhaps because you never bothered to say what they are. Care to do so now ?

"It seems to me that this would equate not charging the perperator."

Well thats because you are an idiot. I am talking about metaethical issues here, not legal ones. Need any help understanding the difference?

You said: "I would submit that if you cause something that is a foreseeable consequence of your own poor decision, you have no grounds for a complaint, regardless of whether or not it itself is fair or lawful."

If you didn't talk about legal issues, then why did you mention them ?

And no, I don't know what you mean by the word "metaethical". Explain.

And calling me an idiot is pretty pointless when you seem to have trouble understanding your own writings.

"I'm assuming that you meant to say "unless the junkie gets sick or dies"."

Actually I did say that.

Really ? Slashdot seems to disagree. According to it, I said: "The junkie has no grounds to complain to the dealer, because the dealer has done no crime against the junkie."

To which you answered: Not if he gets sick or dies. Unless you don't consider murder a crime.

Now, english is not my native language, so maybe I'm wrong here... But the literal meaning of your statement would seem to me to be that the dealer has made no crime against the junkie if the junkie gets sick or dies, which made no sense in the context. That is why I made the clarification.

"Murder ? The junkie knew the dangers, and chose to accept them. No one forced him to take the heroin. "Murder" implies the dealer ended the junkies life purposefully; no such thing has happened."

Not according to the definition of murder. But fine, manslaughter if you want to nitpick. Still illegal.

I don't know about your homeland, but here murder is legally defined as killing someone in cold blood, and commonly defined as killing someone purposefully.

According to Dictionary.com murder means "The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice." As the dealer had no intention of killing the junkie (none of his actions had the junkies death as a goal), this obviously is not the case.

Manslaughter, being defined by the same source as "The unlawful killing of one human by another without express or implied intent to do injury" is not correct either, since the dealer didn't kill the junkie - it was the junkies own insistence of engaging in hazardous practices which killed him. The dealer was likely to not be even present when the junkie died.

The dealer never cut a single hair out of the junkies head - he simply sold the junkie harmfull substance, which the junkie then used of his own free will, fully knowing it was harmfull.

"Think of it this way: if you play russian r

According to Dictionary.com, it's either.

From dictionary.com:

Thus; so. Used to indicate that a quoted passage, especially one containing an error or unconventional spelling, has been retained in its original form or written intentionally.

---

It's not really the best use of 'sic', but it's not inappropriate.

And before you claim that "begs the question" is a special case which must use the third definition of the word solely because it is commonly used that way, it is also just as (if not more) commonly used in the way the origional post used it.

Direct all complaints to Merriam Webster. Maybe you can get them to change their definition for their next version. Unlikely, but possible.

BTW, the dictionary does address the confusion over the word decimate. Sorry to spoil your perfect example that the dictionary use can be wrong.

RTFD. No Mr. English wiz, the 'for' is not needed. Go back to the dictionary here and you will see under the section from the M-W unabridged the following uses of the word with the "To ask earnestly for; to entreat or supplicate for; to beseech" definition:

I do beg your good will in this case. --Shak.
[Joseph] begged the body of Jesus. --Matt. xxvii. 58.
Note: Sometimes implying deferential and respectful, rather than earnest, asking; as, I beg your pardon; I beg leave to disagree with you.

"Begging the point is an attempt to convince someone of a point because its the point your trying to convince them of. "

Yes, I am perfectly aware of the third use of the word, as I stated in my last post. However (also as I stated in my last post) the word is ambiguous. There are several definitions for it and in order to know what the writer meant you must read the context which here clearlly shows what the writer meant.

"But the two are easily confused, so "prompt" is a good choice to avoid the confusion."

A) Who, other than you, gets confused when someone says "Begs the question" in that context? Anyone with half a brain and the ability to read English can figure it out.
B) So are you now admitting that his use of the word 'beg' was only confusing, not improper?

Another way to phrase the article title could have been 'Spam has its roots in US'. Replace the word root with 'origin' and the meaning becomes more clear (hopefully).

If you look at this definition you can see that the fifth entry uses the term 'primary source'. In this case the primary source of spam is the US.

Hope this helps.

P.S. Considering English is not your first language you write much better than a large percentage of people on this board who were born in the US.

Here is the definition of "pirate". Please pay close attention to line #3 for both singular and plural definitions. Here is another word that applies to your previous post. Please pay close attention definition #1 as it is the only one that applies to your writing style.

Here is the definition of "pirate". Please pay close attention to line #3 for both singular and plural definitions. Here is another word that applies to your previous post. Please pay close attention definition #1 as it is the only one that applies to your writing style.

beg Audio pronunciation of "beg" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (bg) v. begged, begging, begs v. tr.
1. To ask for as charity: begged money while sitting in a doorway.
2. To ask earnestly for or of; entreat: begged me for help.
3. 1. To evade; dodge: a speech that begged the real issues. 2. To take for granted without proof: beg the point in a dispute.

And yes, I know what "Begging the question" means when used to identify a logical fallacy.

You might want to apply that to your future posts as well. That is if you want anyone to take anything you say seriously and not just pass you off as the immature jackass you display yourself to be in your post. But that's your call.

Liberty: The condition of being free from restriction or control.

When an icon of freedom can't be visited without controls and restriction, what's left?

It would seem prudent at this point, given the clear need for such a word, and the commonplace use of the word they for this purpose, to just accept it as grammatical usage. The word notes on they at dictionary.com are quite interesting on this subject actually, and on the origins of they/them and the modification from the Old English form to the Norse-derived form.

According to Dictionary.com, ferret is derived a Latin word meaning "thief" (fur). :)

You're insulting.

• Self-contridictory: a factual claim supported by hundreds of examples.
• Superstitious: An accurate description, by definition. [A belief, practice, or rite irrationally maintained by ignorance of the laws of nature or by faith in magic or chance]
• Gobbledegook: By definition, "Unclear, wordy jargon"; which is an accurate description of numerous Biblical passages, particuarly in the KJV.

You've already poisoned the well,monkeyboy.

Who the fuck would debat you

Treadmill.

The current word, folks like to use when describing the purchase of stock is "invest" as in "I am investing in the stock market"

The term that should be used is "speculate" as in "I am speculating in the stock market"

You see, if you "invest" in something, you expect to see a profit. If you "speculate" you acknowledge that there is risk involved, but you hope for a profit. I concede that it is a very subtle difference.

I blame the drop from common use on the stockbrokers. (or are they called "investment agents" now?) They want you to feel all happy, warm and fuzzy while they make their commissions on your speculations.

Words are powerful tools. As with all tools, you should try to use the right one for the task at hand.

The current word, folks like to use when describing the purchase of stock is "invest" as in "I am investing in the stock market"

The term that should be used is "speculate" as in "I am speculating in the stock market"

You see, if you "invest" in something, you expect to see a profit. If you "speculate" you acknowledge that there is risk involved, but you hope for a profit. I concede that it is a very subtle difference.

I blame the drop from common use on the stockbrokers. (or are they called "investment agents" now?) They want you to feel all happy, warm and fuzzy while they make their commissions on your speculations.

Words are powerful tools. As with all tools, you should try to use the right one for the task at hand.

Not true. I believe it was Robert Alton Harris, who got the death penalty in California, raped an inmate at the Sacramento jail. Harris held a trial in jail, convicted the other jailbird of being a sissy for only having forged checks, and punished him.

I didn't say it wasn't possible, just that it wasn't likely. However, it sounds like what Harris did was while he was in prison, not jail. ("jailbird" is a misnomer)

I say if you're in jail, you've lost your rights and should be on camera.

Please keep in mind the difference between jail ("A place for the confinement of persons in lawful detention, especially persons awaiting trial under local jurisdiction") and prison ("A place for the confinement of persons in lawful detention, especially persons convicted of crimes"). If you're in jail, you've not been convicted of anything yet, and thus you have not lost any rights, nor should you. You're being held, but you've not been tried or convicted of anything yet (that's not to say that you're innocent, or that you didn't do it, but as other posters have pointed out we do have the concept of "Innocent until proven guilty"). As such, you'll typically only run into drunks, vagrants, prostitutes, and other less violent criminals (or suspects). If you're being held on some more heinous charge, you're not going to be put into the communal holding cells (commonly referred to as "the drunk tank"), but you're also not likely to be congregating with other folks in jail. Once you've been tried, convicted, and sentenced to a term of confinement, you'll be put into prison. That's when you lose some (not all!) rights and are at serious risk of ass-raping and other unsavory acts (the fact that a short prison sentence can become a death sentence due to the rampancy of AIDS in federal prisons is sad, but I'm not addressing that -- do you really deserve to die if your crime was "minor" like fraud or larceny? Do you not deserve a chance to be rehabilitated?).

So, if you're in "jail", you're still innocent but suspected. If you're in prison, you've been found guilty. There's a world of difference, and saying that anyone who is ever in jail (not prison) should lose their rights is stupid and insane.

Not true. I believe it was Robert Alton Harris, who got the death penalty in California, raped an inmate at the Sacramento jail. Harris held a trial in jail, convicted the other jailbird of being a sissy for only having forged checks, and punished him.

I didn't say it wasn't possible, just that it wasn't likely. However, it sounds like what Harris did was while he was in prison, not jail. ("jailbird" is a misnomer)

I say if you're in jail, you've lost your rights and should be on camera.

Please keep in mind the difference between jail ("A place for the confinement of persons in lawful detention, especially persons awaiting trial under local jurisdiction") and prison ("A place for the confinement of persons in lawful detention, especially persons convicted of crimes"). If you're in jail, you've not been convicted of anything yet, and thus you have not lost any rights, nor should you. You're being held, but you've not been tried or convicted of anything yet (that's not to say that you're innocent, or that you didn't do it, but as other posters have pointed out we do have the concept of "Innocent until proven guilty"). As such, you'll typically only run into drunks, vagrants, prostitutes, and other less violent criminals (or suspects). If you're being held on some more heinous charge, you're not going to be put into the communal holding cells (commonly referred to as "the drunk tank"), but you're also not likely to be congregating with other folks in jail. Once you've been tried, convicted, and sentenced to a term of confinement, you'll be put into prison. That's when you lose some (not all!) rights and are at serious risk of ass-raping and other unsavory acts (the fact that a short prison sentence can become a death sentence due to the rampancy of AIDS in federal prisons is sad, but I'm not addressing that -- do you really deserve to die if your crime was "minor" like fraud or larceny? Do you not deserve a chance to be rehabilitated?).

So, if you're in "jail", you're still innocent but suspected. If you're in prison, you've been found guilty. There's a world of difference, and saying that anyone who is ever in jail (not prison) should lose their rights is stupid and insane.

Actually, the word can also be used as a sentence modifier to slightly emphasize a statement. It is described near the bottom of this page, actually.

Nope: That's only one definition

Try this one instead: posthumously
Get it? It's funny if you know the definition.

Discover and Invent Although they are synonyms (according to the site), there is a subtle difference.

But what do I know? I just post stupid things to Slashdot.

Discover and Invent Although they are synonyms (according to the site), there is a subtle difference.

But what do I know? I just post stupid things to Slashdot.

Bones (what kind of nickname is that anyway?)

It's from sawbones, old slang for a doctor. I think it dates back to the Civil War when doctors tended to amputate a lot.

Yeah, terrorists are all swarthy, and anyone swarthy at Los Alamos is a terrorist. Thank you for propogating racist stereotypes.

Well, since we are redefining what censorship means...

Who is? Not me. Censorship according to The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition (per Reference.com) is "The act, process, or practice of censoring." And censoring is "To examine and expurgate," e.g., by a censor. And a censor is "A person authorized to examine books... or other material and to remove... what is considered morally... or otherwise objectionable." Emphasis added, to highlight the connection to the (moral) justification provided by the Kansas AG. Doesn't sound like redefinition, just a perfect example for a future printing of a dictionary.

...any ship made of...

Booo....

Well, since we are redefining what censorship means...

Who is? Not me. Censorship according to The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition (per Reference.com) is "The act, process, or practice of censoring." And censoring is "To examine and expurgate," e.g., by a censor. And a censor is "A person authorized to examine books... or other material and to remove... what is considered morally... or otherwise objectionable." Emphasis added, to highlight the connection to the (moral) justification provided by the Kansas AG. Doesn't sound like redefinition, just a perfect example for a future printing of a dictionary.

...any ship made of...

Booo....