Slashdot Mirror

But you are a cromagnum for using such a 1993ish setup.

Actually, an acronym can be either the first letter of words or parts of words.

acronym @ dictionary.com. The example it gives is radar - radio detecting and ranging

Your 'Murder is Wrong' thing is stupid.
Absolutely a definition of wrong is proof enough.
Unless you rather argue the concept of wrong itself,
murder is wrong because of what wrong means.
Or perhaps the use of the English Language is off-limits in your little game, too.

gmail invites? give me a break.

Both are acceptable, moron.

Batman flies around on ropes or climbs buildings or runs around on rooftops or somthing when he's in the city. He doesn't DRIVE. That would be so... pedestrian.

hmm, For Batman to drive in the city would be pedestrian?

thinking....

No, I am not a microbiologist, I am just a lowly student that has to bow down to microbiologist profs.

Minority Report shows a sort of example of this: stop the disease by fully understanding it and stopping before it happens. This may involve a lot of science (which may include the horrid bad science ), but it does look promising and more research into it is very exciting.

There are many spectulated culprits ( randomness, heredities and free radicals ), but I believe I am going to be one of those graduate students doing 1000s of hours of expirments and research on this. Or maybe I will write a bash script for it instead (bash 3.0 released!)

So what exactly would artificial pron be? The mind boggles!

MMmmmm... hentai...

. o (Oh crap... was that my outside voice again?)

-Twilight1

You might be interested in FPGA's Which are practiaclly 'universal chips' you simply have a chunk of RAM (EEPROM) next to it that sets up the logic gates within the chip. They're only ~£15 ($20) per chip, and you can load whatever you want into them to perform any function. More info at http://www.xilinx.com/ (One of the industry leaders)

Ah this is when their terminology really starts hurting us.

1 terabyte = 1,000,000,000,000 bytes

Try 1024^4 = 1,099,511,627,776.. wait, where'd my 100 gigs go?

Due to the exponential nature this little white lie hurts a bit more for every increment, here sacrificing just about 10% of the storage. I'm surprised they don't say 1000 gigs just to dodge the 10% mark.

For those who insist that tera means one trillon for bytes, I reference
Here, here , here, here, here, and how about here. Now I'll admit the wikipedia entry has the trillion byte definition, but they basically said it is used in storage advertising.

you welcome

The word "hackers" was successfully successfully co-opted long, long, long ago ("a person who illegally gains access to and sometimes tampers with information in a computer system"), so don't fault Apple's (currently correct and appropriate) use of the word, and save us the tiresome lectures.

First, the full Apple statement, since it's not referenced in the summary:

"We are stunned that RealNetworks has adopted the tactics and ethics of a hacker to break into the iPod, and we are investigating the implications of their actions under the DMCA (Digital Millennium Copyright Act) and other laws. We strongly caution Real and their customers that when we update our iPod software from time to time it is highly likely that Real's Harmony technology will cease to work with current and future iPods."

- Regarding the DMCA: you can't fault Apple for using a law on the books - passed by Congress (unanimously by the Senate), and signed into law by President Clinton - to protect its own business interests. If you don't like the DMCA, or aspects of copyright law in general, work to change the law(s), but don't fault companies or individuals for conducting themselves within the bounds of those laws while they are in force.

- What Apple says regarding breakage is true. Some might argue that any breakage would be intentional; however, you can certainly also agree that otherwise benign changes to the iPod or its firmware may indeed break Real's reverse engineering. Intentional or no, this would still leave customers who have purchased songs via Real out in the cold, which ultimately, to the average customer, reflects poorly on Apple and the iPod (moreso than on Real). Does Apple, or its customers, really want an environment where any changes to the iPod to add functionality or features can break customers' music that they've ostensibly legitimately purchased?

- The word "hackers" was successfully co-opted long, long, long ago ("a person who illegally gains access to and sometimes tampers with information in a computer system"), so don't fault Apple's (currently correct and appropriate) use of the word, and save us the tiresome lectures.

That said, yes, Apple could sublicense Fairplay, as they have done with Motorola. But still, it means both parties must agree, and doesn't excuse Real.

Others remember the continued arrogance and mistakes regarding OS licensing long ago. "Apple could potentially become the Microsoft of online music," they say. But this could only potentially happen by cannibalizing iPod sales. The iPod would be akin to the "PC"; the iTunes Music Store would be "Windows". (Remember: Microsoft never made computers). But for Apple, the iTunes Music Store is a break even proposition: its sole purpose from a business perspective is to drive iPod sales and adoption, and, to a lesser extent, adoption of other Apple products. Apple's iPod and hardware margins are to-die-for in the computer industry, while the iTunes Music Store, even after having sold 100 million songs, only recently made a "small profit". Additionally, Apple maintaining control over the whole process from end to end is one of the things that makes the iTunes/iPod experience so friendly and pleasing. This may no longer be true with other manufacturer's products.

I'm not arguing against for or against licensing here, only pointing out that it's more of a difficult situation than people make it out to be. The iTunes Music Store and the iPod, for Apple, are inextricably connected, at least currently. Allowing the iPod to work with other online music stores can be argued to hurt Apple's iTunes/iPod strategy, while allowing the iTunes Music Store to work with other players definitely hurts iPod sales. Sure, you can make all sorts of contrary arguments, but there are valid arguments just as contrary to those. All that said, Apple

bureaucrat.

That means that after the first ones optics failed

We'd send up a crew to spacewalk and fix it.

On what would we send the crew? An Apollo style vehicle? (Laughs). A crew on an Apollo style vehicle would take much more time to accomplish the same tasks as a single Shuttle flight. Shuttle flights can accomplish so much because they have a) a stable base to dock the Hubble to that is b) directly adjacent to the tool and materiel stowage, both of which are c) in reach of assitance by a sophisticated and capable mechanical arm which is operated by d) crewmembers that have shirtsleeve enviroment to work in while e) the other EVA crew gets ready for the next days tasks.

Not to mention the fact that the mighty Saturn V would be required to boost both an Apollo spacecraft, and a work/living platform capable of supporting such a workload, and that platform would have to be trashed after each flight. (Not unless you also want to support a maintenance program for the platform as well.) Even so, it would be iffy, you'd have to partially defuel the third stage, and strenghthen it to take the loads in question.

Nor can you move the Hubble any significant distance to a maintenace facility without using an (expensive) Saturn or Titan class vehicle to bring up the fuel required.

It's not even remotely as simple as 'sending up a crew to spacewalk and fix it'.

Weinburg takes a fairly complex technical, political, and fiscal realities and reduces them to a grade school aphorism.

You've done the same, by claiming that the lack of a shuttle program means an inability to repair satellites in orbit.

You are wrong. I don't claim it, I pronounce it as fact and can back it up (as I did above). Of course I don't confuse the current Shuttle with a shuttle program. Nor do I delude myself that doing so is easy or cheap just because we shun winged craft.

What's that? You think that spacewalks are only possible from a shuttle? Think again. Manned flight to orbit was possible before the shuttle, and it was both cheaper and safer.

No, I don't think spacewalks are possible only from a shuttle. I *know* that to do useful work in space requires far more than a simple capsule.

So far as safer is concerned, there is no way to say that with a certainty. There are simply not enough flights of other US craft to make a valid statistical judgement. (The Shuttle has flown almost four times as many flights as Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo *combined*.) The numerous life threatening problems on those earlier flights suggest that their (20-20 hindsight) safety is illusory and as much a product of luck as of design.

Along with the Shuttle, the only craft that we can begin to make a valid (engineering and statistical as opposed to emotional) judgement as to it's safety is the Soyuz. When you look at the numbers and flight records, you find that it is indeed cheaper (per flight), but it's also many orders of magnitude less capable (per flight). (You cannot space walk from a Soyuz, nor does it have any significant payload capacity, it's a very optimized dedicated space taxi.) Those same numbers and records shows that it's safety and reliability are on the same par with Shuttle, (.982 for Shuttle, .990 for Soyuz IIRC, a difference of .008 considering only fatal accidents.). Soyuz is patently *not* the rock solid, utterly safe system it's widely believed to be.

For instance did you know that no fewer than five times has a Soyuz capsule (out of eighty five flights) come down off course? (Twice into blizzards, once into a lake where the parachutes dragged the spacecraft underwater.) Did you know that eight times Soyuz flights have had to abort docking and return to Earth?

It has turned out that the shuttle project could've m

Eh?

To be homonyms, words must be pronounced in the same way. The 's' sounds are very different in those two words. See also the pronunciation keys for loose and lose. Remember the following two phrases, observe the difference:

You snooze, you lose.

Loose as a goose.

If we were seeing 'lose' and 'loos' (plural of loo) substituted, that would make sense. Those two are homonyms.

Eh?

To be homonyms, words must be pronounced in the same way. The 's' sounds are very different in those two words. See also the pronunciation keys for loose and lose. Remember the following two phrases, observe the difference:

You snooze, you lose.

Loose as a goose.

If we were seeing 'lose' and 'loos' (plural of loo) substituted, that would make sense. Those two are homonyms.

Eh?

To be homonyms, words must be pronounced in the same way. The 's' sounds are very different in those two words. See also the pronunciation keys for loose and lose. Remember the following two phrases, observe the difference:

You snooze, you lose.

Loose as a goose.

If we were seeing 'lose' and 'loos' (plural of loo) substituted, that would make sense. Those two are homonyms.

Back-formed from incentive, bah! I'll back-form something for you.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=baby-sit

'A plausible but misleading or fallacious argument.'

Still not quite right, since this supposes that they sound plausible...

I actually RTFA (no, I'm not new here...), and I think the submitter is wrong about one thing.

As far as I can tell, the existence of this new particle is being *hypothesized*, and since there's discussion of using neutrino detectors to see if they're right, it may soon be *theorized*.

A *postulate* is something else - a statement that is accepted as truth, usually as the basis of a theory or argument. Here's a helpful definition.

I'm sure these people don't expect anyone to simply "accept as truth" the existence of accelerons, but rather want to go do experiments and turn their hypothesis into either a theory or a failed hypothesis.

A postulate is something along the lines of "Through a point not on a line, one and only one line can be drawn parallel to the given line."

That is, you can accept it as truth or deny it, but trying to actually prove or disprove it *experimentally* is difficult or impossible. There's either a logical counterexample, or not (or we haven't found it yet).

Xentax

What is "socialist" about a worm (white knight or otherwise)?

Or are you one of these ignorant idealogues that equates socialism with "something bad" irrespective of the context or subject at hand?

dude, it's Extensible Stylesheet Language Transformations

No, it was an expression or utterance marked by a deliberate contrast between apparent and intended meaning. Isn't it ironic when the supports of the true meaning of "irony" get it wrong?

Animals that don't move are called vegetables.

Actually, they're called sessile.

You know, like a sessile Grog?

From dictionary.com for steal. First definition:

1. To take (the property of another) without right or permission.

So, he took the (intellectual) property of another, without right or permission.

So, follow me here, he STOLE PROPERTY ILLEGALLY.

Smart ass.

Also, GMail supports Safari. Read here.

Why is it so hard for people to admit when they are doing something stupid and correct it? The idea that we should continue doing something simply because it is entrenched is folly at best and is better described as arrogant. I find the idea that we should do something simply because it is the way it has always been done to be absolutely horrific.

Apparently the moderatorship agrees with you that I am wrong, because they have moderated my comment as flamebait, in spite of an utter lack of intent to flame. I simply want words to have as few meanings as possible. The english language, made up as it is of smatterings of all different languages, is complicated enough without me having to now consider all different possible meanings for a technical lexicon as well, while at the same time trying to retain knowledge of assorted programming languages, operating system commands, and so on. Hence, I attempt to do my part against entropy - it can never be stamped out, but it can be minimized on a local scale.

Now you probably think (more than before) that I am a wanker. However, we are faced with incontrovertible proof that you are a coward, and as such I will not allow your opinion to bother me more than is required to write this comment.

I state my assertion once more: mega means one million, 10^6. To try to use the prefix to mean something else, besides the idea of something very large which makes sense given that it is from a greek word meaning "great", is a mistake. To make it try to mean 2^10 is sheer folly. Continuing in this vein, we see that giga means one billion (10^9) and is descended from greek gigas, or "giant", and that tera means 10^12 (one trillion) and is descended from the greek word for monster but none of these words (or parts of words) has a meaning that has anything to do with powers of two. To take a word with a specific meaning, and to assign it a similar but different meaning can not be anything but ridiculous. To attempt to correct such an error might be impossible, but it won't stop me from trying to do what I see as essentially the right and more importantly logical thing. Computers are tools of logic - why encumber the very language with which we describe them with illogic?

Why is it so hard for people to admit when they are doing something stupid and correct it? The idea that we should continue doing something simply because it is entrenched is folly at best and is better described as arrogant. I find the idea that we should do something simply because it is the way it has always been done to be absolutely horrific.

Apparently the moderatorship agrees with you that I am wrong, because they have moderated my comment as flamebait, in spite of an utter lack of intent to flame. I simply want words to have as few meanings as possible. The english language, made up as it is of smatterings of all different languages, is complicated enough without me having to now consider all different possible meanings for a technical lexicon as well, while at the same time trying to retain knowledge of assorted programming languages, operating system commands, and so on. Hence, I attempt to do my part against entropy - it can never be stamped out, but it can be minimized on a local scale.

Now you probably think (more than before) that I am a wanker. However, we are faced with incontrovertible proof that you are a coward, and as such I will not allow your opinion to bother me more than is required to write this comment.

I state my assertion once more: mega means one million, 10^6. To try to use the prefix to mean something else, besides the idea of something very large which makes sense given that it is from a greek word meaning "great", is a mistake. To make it try to mean 2^10 is sheer folly. Continuing in this vein, we see that giga means one billion (10^9) and is descended from greek gigas, or "giant", and that tera means 10^12 (one trillion) and is descended from the greek word for monster but none of these words (or parts of words) has a meaning that has anything to do with powers of two. To take a word with a specific meaning, and to assign it a similar but different meaning can not be anything but ridiculous. To attempt to correct such an error might be impossible, but it won't stop me from trying to do what I see as essentially the right and more importantly logical thing. Computers are tools of logic - why encumber the very language with which we describe them with illogic?

Why is it so hard for people to admit when they are doing something stupid and correct it? The idea that we should continue doing something simply because it is entrenched is folly at best and is better described as arrogant. I find the idea that we should do something simply because it is the way it has always been done to be absolutely horrific.

Apparently the moderatorship agrees with you that I am wrong, because they have moderated my comment as flamebait, in spite of an utter lack of intent to flame. I simply want words to have as few meanings as possible. The english language, made up as it is of smatterings of all different languages, is complicated enough without me having to now consider all different possible meanings for a technical lexicon as well, while at the same time trying to retain knowledge of assorted programming languages, operating system commands, and so on. Hence, I attempt to do my part against entropy - it can never be stamped out, but it can be minimized on a local scale.

Now you probably think (more than before) that I am a wanker. However, we are faced with incontrovertible proof that you are a coward, and as such I will not allow your opinion to bother me more than is required to write this comment.

I state my assertion once more: mega means one million, 10^6. To try to use the prefix to mean something else, besides the idea of something very large which makes sense given that it is from a greek word meaning "great", is a mistake. To make it try to mean 2^10 is sheer folly. Continuing in this vein, we see that giga means one billion (10^9) and is descended from greek gigas, or "giant", and that tera means 10^12 (one trillion) and is descended from the greek word for monster but none of these words (or parts of words) has a meaning that has anything to do with powers of two. To take a word with a specific meaning, and to assign it a similar but different meaning can not be anything but ridiculous. To attempt to correct such an error might be impossible, but it won't stop me from trying to do what I see as essentially the right and more importantly logical thing. Computers are tools of logic - why encumber the very language with which we describe them with illogic?

Yeah, that was fun.

"but you admittedly "picked the dictionary whose definition gave [you] the most slack". This is precisely the problem. "

:) In fact that dictionary is the only one that allows that much slack. Comparing a few different dictionaries most all of them agree with your meaning. Your definition matches other dictionaries (American Heritage, etc). Only the M-W one had the lamest definition as the #1 definition. I just enjoy the fact that even dictionaries - especially if you can sample a few of them to find the worst - sometimes have such bad definitions that it's easy to bug the grammar nazis. And sadly (dare I say ironically), the Merriam-Webster dictionary defines such "provoking" with "feigned " "ignorance" as irony, making it especially useful for this discussion :-).

Bottom line - I actually agree with you totally (even to the extent that I think your definition is more correct than Merriam-Webster's, and that they should swap their primary and secondary definitions); but was just having fun too.

A nice device, allows over-ride if you lose it, and instant unlock as need be.

lose

However, there is still no irony in the original grandparent. He made an interesting observation and shared it with us; he deserved his mod up. But irony was mentioned where there was none.

I liked your reference to "irony-strong will" (really), but you admittedly
"picked the dictionary whose definition gave [you] the most slack".
This is precisely the problem.

Ironic is a great word, and I would hate to see it trashed by the disparaging trend of "Well, enough people have misunderstood the definition or pronunciation of this word, so we may as well expand it to include what the uninformed masses believe, so that more of us can be correct." that has snowballed more and more of our words. A couple examples of what I mean:

• The term biweekly originally meant "every other week," and not "twice per week." Many people ignored that we are already equipped with a handy way of expressing the latter concept, known as "SEMI-weekly". We exclusively use "semicircle" when talking about half a circle, and we say "semi-coherent" when we mean "partially intelligible," so why "bi-[time period]?"

  We had a word with a clear, efficient meaning, but now when someone wants to have bimonthly meetings, we're forced into checking context to determine whether the speaker actually meant two or only .5 times per month, and in written form, it's rarely clear.

  The reason this happened is beyond me; I'd never tell anyone I'm bi-finished mowing the lawn, or that I had to let my bi-eaten lunch get cold when my toddler fell down the stairs.

• (From dictionary.com--the dictionary whose name is easiest to remember) the most common pronunciation of Celtic has assumed the "s" sound many basketball fans in the Boston area assume to be the correct way to say it.

  The Boston Keltics?

• Closer to home for most of us geeks, the pronunciation of route has abandoned the root pronunciation with which it started. The carpenter's tool called a "router" is a tool that "routs," meaning "to dig." The word that refers to an electronic networking device for establishing a communication path between computers has assumed the pronunciation of the word for the woodworker's tool. The way we say it would suggest that a network router will dig a hole when we need one.

  The prevalence of the incorrect method is so complete that I've never heard anyone use it correctly. So everyone says "raowter" (or however you choose to spell it phonetically). I can't say "router" properly because it sounds stupid (yes, I'll admit that).

The wrong way is collectively perceived as the right way, and those who resist the change give up or are overpowered. The change becomes official. It is effectively conceded, "that's wrong, but enough people believe it, so now I guess it's right." It's this lazy way of "P.C.-ing" the language so no one gets their feelings hurt that gets the snowball rolling. Communication breaks as the meaning is diluted.

Sometimes it only results in a silly dispute on

/., but there can be serious consequences for this sort of miscommunication. Talking about the phrase 'post traumatic stress disorder' from a soapbox, Georg

However, there is still no irony in the original grandparent. He made an interesting observation and shared it with us; he deserved his mod up. But irony was mentioned where there was none.

I liked your reference to "irony-strong will" (really), but you admittedly
"picked the dictionary whose definition gave [you] the most slack".
This is precisely the problem.

Ironic is a great word, and I would hate to see it trashed by the disparaging trend of "Well, enough people have misunderstood the definition or pronunciation of this word, so we may as well expand it to include what the uninformed masses believe, so that more of us can be correct." that has snowballed more and more of our words. A couple examples of what I mean:

• The term biweekly originally meant "every other week," and not "twice per week." Many people ignored that we are already equipped with a handy way of expressing the latter concept, known as "SEMI-weekly". We exclusively use "semicircle" when talking about half a circle, and we say "semi-coherent" when we mean "partially intelligible," so why "bi-[time period]?"

  We had a word with a clear, efficient meaning, but now when someone wants to have bimonthly meetings, we're forced into checking context to determine whether the speaker actually meant two or only .5 times per month, and in written form, it's rarely clear.

  The reason this happened is beyond me; I'd never tell anyone I'm bi-finished mowing the lawn, or that I had to let my bi-eaten lunch get cold when my toddler fell down the stairs.

• (From dictionary.com--the dictionary whose name is easiest to remember) the most common pronunciation of Celtic has assumed the "s" sound many basketball fans in the Boston area assume to be the correct way to say it.

  The Boston Keltics?

• Closer to home for most of us geeks, the pronunciation of route has abandoned the root pronunciation with which it started. The carpenter's tool called a "router" is a tool that "routs," meaning "to dig." The word that refers to an electronic networking device for establishing a communication path between computers has assumed the pronunciation of the word for the woodworker's tool. The way we say it would suggest that a network router will dig a hole when we need one.

  The prevalence of the incorrect method is so complete that I've never heard anyone use it correctly. So everyone says "raowter" (or however you choose to spell it phonetically). I can't say "router" properly because it sounds stupid (yes, I'll admit that).

The wrong way is collectively perceived as the right way, and those who resist the change give up or are overpowered. The change becomes official. It is effectively conceded, "that's wrong, but enough people believe it, so now I guess it's right." It's this lazy way of "P.C.-ing" the language so no one gets their feelings hurt that gets the snowball rolling. Communication breaks as the meaning is diluted.

Sometimes it only results in a silly dispute on

/., but there can be serious consequences for this sort of miscommunication. Talking about the phrase 'post traumatic stress disorder' from a soapbox, Georg

Have you considered buying a dictionary?
Why?

Apparently my comment went over your head...

A Firefox Dictionary Search found some interesting and appropriate definitions of SCAMP:

• \Scamp\ (sk[a^]mp), n. [OF. escamper to run away, to make one's escape. Originally, one who runs away, a fugitive, a vagabond. See Scamper.] A rascal; a swindler; a rogue. --De Quincey.
  Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, (c) 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.
• \Scamp\, v. t. [Cf. Scamp,n., or Scant, a., and Skimp.] To perform in a hasty, neglectful, or imperfect manner; to do superficially. [Colloq.]

  A workman is said to scamp his work when he does it in a superficial, dishonest manner. --Wedgwood.

  Much of the scamping and dawdling complained of is that of men in establishments of good repute. --T. Hughes.

  Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.
• v : perform hastily and carelessly
  Source: WordNet ® 2.0, © 2003 Princeton University

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

1. Not imprisoned or enslaved; being at liberty.

Def: guys

The other guy is just a fool. "Couldn't care less" is the correct way to say it. (I'm a native speaker, BTW.)

It's just that illogical people say it "could care less." But these are the same people that write "could of" instead of "could have" and use double negatives, so what can you do? If they thought about what they were saying, they would see that it doesn't make sense, but they don't think about it.

Anyway, see here for more discussion of this idiom. That site is a great reference for such things.

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

1) Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives.

Not, that would not be irony. Unless you define "irony" to mean what Alanis Morissette evidently thinks it does. She's wrong and you're wrong.

Let me give you an example of irony. Take this sentence:

"ticklemeozmo certainly has grasped the concept of irony"

That was dripping with irony, get it? Your rescue helicopter example isn't irony, it's a twist of fate. In fact, your misunderstanding of the term irony probably stems from the usage:

"Fate must have a keen sense of irony to allow that helicopter to crash on the person it was rescuing"

The above is not the same as your use of the term. Allowing the helicopter to crash on the rescuee might be seen as an ironic statement by Fate, if you believe Fate was in control of the helicopter in the first place. As a disinterested observer the crash holds no irony for us, and certainly not for the person being crashed upon, in and of itself.

OTOH, your use of the helicopter example in a post lambasting another poster for his misunderstanding of irony, is, in a word, ironic.

Google for more references, here's a couple to start you off:

http://www.politicaljuice.com/2004/05/defining_iro ny.html
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=ironic (check the usage note)

Though that did lead serendipitously to

aubergine: <jargon> A secret term used to refer to computers in the presence of computerphobic third parties.

I like that a lot.

This allows traffic to enter the intersection from all directions simultaneously

I do not think that word means what you think it means.

Irony is one of those words that's very quickly being redefined by modern usage.

((please note, the usage of "you" in the following argument is defined as "you understood", the common plural usage. Not the singular usage. Or did that change?))

Ah, yes, the old "I'm too lazy to pick up a dictionary and find out what a word REALLY means so I'll just modify it" clause. While I am not picking on you in general, it does seem a custom to just change the meaning of a word. "moot", "hacker", and now an important literary term called "irony".

What about twenty, twenty-five years from now? Conversation will become more ambiguous (wait, that word still means 'open to more than one interpretation' right?). We, as a society, over time, have formulated words to more clearly define things. Take a look at any older language and you'll be hard pressed to find such modifiers as "terrible", "horrible", "fabulous", and "fantastic".

And now, just because someone doesn't feel like paying attention in English class, meanings of words get changed by the vulgar (definition 3). Years from now English classes will teach courses in "Irony: Not the modern kind, but the kind that employs such contrasts for humorous or rhetorical effect."

Why not just use a different word for what you mean? We have 26 letters, create a new word.

---
Personally, my favorite response for the mis-use of irony is: "I believe thw word you were straining for was "coincidence". Irony deals with opposites, coincidence deals with things that are related. If a rescue helicopter happened to have killed the person they were trying to rescue, that would be irony. The fact that you are a moron and mixed up the definitions of 'irony' and 'coincidence' is just a coincidence".

Do a little reading and you will find that DNA is very easily added to a species genome.

Now, I will provide some evidence to back this up: Viral Transformation is a very common tool for genetic alterations of organisms. It is also a common occurance in non-intended genetic alterations, such as Cowpea mosaic comovirus which inserts its DNA into plants (please note that plants are considered higher organisms).

But wait! If plants are still not good enough for you, there is the GloFish which is a genetic alteration allowing it to fluoresce. Now, it would be highly unethical to do this to a human, but it is very possible.

In addition, there are many things in the human genome (LINEs, SINEs, etc) that frequently move. How do you think that everyone ends up with a different genome if nothing is able to change? Most changes and mutations don't do anything or cause harm, but with time good ones will arise. In fact, good mutations (at least in their terms) frequently occur in bacteria and viruses allowing them to become immune to antibiotics and to our specific T-cells (respectively).

It seems that successfull capitalism always leads to monopolies or at least oligopolies. At which point, in order to restore competition, you need to have an outside power (govermnent, natural disaster, horrible mis-management) come in and either put severe restrictions (read 'regulations') on the company's behavior, or else bust it up.

While busting it/them up doesn't seem very fair, in the long run it seems more effective than trying to regulate a monopoly (for example, we all see how effective the gov'mt has been at regulating MS, haven't we?)

I've always heard it in the context of the grandparent (something close to peddling), however a quick dictionary search indicates that the correct definition is to carry clumsily; to move slowly or laboriously; an ardurous journey; or a clumsy or stupid person. I guess the selling crap around the globe was taken from one of the first two definitions. I wonder if it's regional (east cost usage indicates a journey western usage to carry a lot of heavy crap and sell it on a trip. I guess you learn something everyday.

exaggerate

1. A discharge from a number of firearms, fired simultaneously or in rapid succession.
2. A rapid outburst or barrage: a fusillade of insults.

• To attack with a fusillade.

...so in your perfect world, quoting you would be prohibited ... umm ... yeah ... only if i were foolish enough to believe that a pseudo-fascist 'ultra-right' condition can only come about by dialectic (look it up) presumption.

i hold no such view. for me, the unsolved is just as valuable as the solved. yes, its a paradox: you cannot publish something without giving it up for alteration. you are right.

but at the same time, society grants authors rights. one of those rights is the right of non-change. that certain authors choose to exercise those rights with edits doesn't detract from the point: once you have released your work, away from your own personal little box^H^H^Huniverse, off into the bad ol' world, you no longer have any control.

yet, society, in its quest for freedom, grants authors the rights of control to the greatest extent possible. that technology continues to challenge social capacity for doing so, is a paradox, considering the sources of such vast technological progress, and their so-called 'purpose'... and the ability of society to provide such control to authors, in the face of such technological 'reality', is a measure of that society indeed.

and that is the point.

"I dont know who you talked to but they aure didnt loom my name up over there thats for sure.Everyone is not going to beleave you soon when i show the lies yor telling about me."