Slashdot Mirror

Since it would be around the equator wind wouldn't be much of a problem. Remember the oceans in that area is famous for doldrums which is a sign of how much wind is around the equator.

lmfao. Perhaps you are not familiar with this concept.

And his site, as another poster mentionned, is a sight for sore eyes...

So, do I write an algorithm that goes and heuristically guesses what the country of the user is, or do I friggin use a drop down? - I use a drop down.

Actually, if you go to dictionary.com, you'll see that they give 17 basic meanings of "free" in English. Several of those are groups of closely-related definitions, for a total of 27. Other English dictionaries will have a similar number of definitions.

The phrase "free beer" is meaning 7a, while "free speech" is 3c. I've long liked to respond to these phrases by mentioning "free disk space". I get some funny looks when I do that.

An old joke based on two different meanings (8b and 7a):

Person1: Are you free Friday evening?
Person2: I'm not free, but for you I can be reasonably inexpensive.

hate PPronunciation Key(ht)
v. hated, hating, hates
v. tr.
To feel hostility or animosity toward.

To detest.


To feel dislike or distaste for: hates washing dishes.

Telnet has been a depreciated protocol

Assets depreciate (lose value).

Protocols are deprecated (disapproved).

Telnet has been a depreciated protocol

Assets depreciate (lose value).

Protocols are deprecated (disapproved).

Hmmm, a 'tard and his sockpuppet versus a dictionary. I know which definition I'd believe.

I do not think that means what you think it means. Go look up "disinterested" in a dictionary. Compare & contrast with "uninterested". If you use the first definition from dictionary.com, be sure also to check the comment attached to it.

But if I choose not to use the first definition (link to the mentioned page), then I can use the second which clearly shows that my usage is exactly what I intended.

The question is, does one accept only the original definition of the word that you were pointing out? Or does one accept that we speak a living language and after enough undefined but accepted use said connotation becomes a new denotation?

I tend to fall under the living language category. Apparently so does Dictionary.com since even though their note supports the first definition, they continue with a second definition that supports it. In fact, it would appear that the online Webster's dictionary lists my usage as the first and yours as second, probably because yours has come to be considered archaic in modern use.

FWIW, since the sentence is syntactically and semantically correct, you are not truly criticizing the grammar. You are challenging the usage and context. If my usage had been definitively incorrect instead of contextually viable then it might be considered by some to be a grammatical error but in this case it was not.

And now that we've spent too much time on it, I await a -1 Offtopic :)

documentary
adj.
1. Consisting of, concerning, or based on documents.
2. Presenting facts objectively without editorializing or inserting fictional matter, as in a book or film.

This is not to go against Moore's credibility. It is to say this movie's sole purpose is not to show all the facts about Bush.

By stating that if you do not believe Fahrenheit 9/11 to be a documentary then opponent does not understand what it is to be a documentary, poster is stating one of the following:

1. opponent is stupid (ad hominem)
2. opponent is uneducated (ad hominem)
3. opponent chose to believe false information (ad hominem)

I see. So if I say I disagree with you, it's an ad hominem attack because it implies you are stupid, uneducated, or believe false information?

You seem to mistakenly believe (and attempt to prove by a baseless assertion, since we're so fond of meta-talk here) that an ad hominem attack is any argument which implicitly insults an opponent, when in fact it is merely an argument which attempts to prove its correctness solely through insulting the opponent. In other words, if I tell you you are wrong about the definition of ad hominem, but back it up with, say, a definition, while I have implied that you are stupid or uneducated, I have not conducted an ad hominem, because that implication was not the main thrust of my argument.

"Widely accepted"? This is ad numeram or perhaps even ad verecundiam, depending on who is doing the "accepting".

Once again, we've somehow managed to retain our knowledge of Latin terms, but not their proper usage. You see, if you were arguing over some factual point such as whether or not Iraq had WMDs, or whether AIDS is a contagious virus, and his argument was, ``well, a lot of people seem to believe it, so it's probably accurate'', then your critique would be correct and justified. But in this instance, you are arguing over the meaning of a word--whether this film can rightfully be called a documentary--and so to make his case, it is perfectly legitimate to present what the majority opinion is on the meaning of that word (assuming we both accept that language is determined by the practitioners and not by the dictionary publishers; feel free to dispute with the parent as desired).

See? Isn't debating fun?

2. Presenting facts objectively without editorializing or inserting fictional matter, as in a book or film.

No, that's the definition of the adjective form of the word "documentary", not the noun form, which is what we are discussing when we talk about "a documentary".

Don't believe me? Look for yourself.

I knocked down this little bit of selective mis-definition in an earlier thread... the fact that it keeps popping up when it is so obviously wrong indicates that either many people here need to learn how to use a dictionary, or they need to learn how to do more than just parrot Republican talking points.

He is not people, he is a person. So far 96,080,638 songs have been purchased from the iTunes music store since it's inception, what did you say again?

He is not people, he is a person. So far 96,080,638 songs have been purchased from the iTunes music store since it's inception, what did you say again?

This nonsense of admonishing everything Apple creates on Slashdot...

...I know some of stuff is harder to cipher, but even a literate monkey...

There are literate monkeys now? Where have I been?

At least you were honest enough to add the word "total". :P Then again, why be a zealot of a second rate OS? The OS X zealot I understand... but Linux?? *grin*

While I agree with you to some extent, I also disagree. The point that the parent was trying to make was that installing software on OS X with Installer.app is worlds easier than on Linux. No, it's not tough to download and rpm --install or even build from source... I do this all day on Solaris (mind, sans rpm, but meh) and it's second nature for most of us. The point is that double-click, click to confirm is still easier and less time consuming. On the topic of dependecies, yes it's no sweat to go and fetch them, but once again, while your fetching your dependencies, I'm already using my app on OS X.

The other issue comes from the overall expectation and the difference between Linux and OS X in that regard. On OS X, if you double-click an application icon and it doesn't run, there is generally something wrong with the application. On the other hand, how many of us have struggled with some command line tool that has ambiguous switches or had to ln -s some libraries because there is a version mismatch with some of your .so's? Not tough, but certainly not nearly as convenient. On Linux, this is often not considered to be a problem. I guess the difference is in targets markets... OS X apps are almost always targetted at people who quite simply have no interest in Googling for the correct answer. There's nothing wrong with wanting to... it's just a different type of end user.

Of course, Fink on OS X makes all of this moot for *NIX applications, but I digress. Actually, most of the reason why I use OS X is because my professional life has me reaching for bash$ to solve half my problems and my overwhelming laziness has me longing to just double-click on something the rest of the time.

I also think a lot of problems the parent is complaining about come from the ever increasing number of "flavors" of Linux floating around. What are they up to now, 100 or more? On one hand this is great, because it's a distribution for almost every need. On the other hand, it makes support and releasing applications in binary format a hassle sometimes. OS X solves this problem by being the one and only OS X. If it says it works with 10.3, 999/1000 times it'll run on your copy of 10.3. Then again, often if it says it works on Linux, it's referring to Red Hat. This would be fine, but sometimes even if you have Red Hat, an application that was built for a slightly older version still requires some tweaking. Once again.. no biggy.. but it's more than zero effort.

Before someone mods me down for the Linux comment... be sure to check this link.

Are you prideful (1) about that point?

Thanks for making the point about standards, though.

...which is that the framers recognized their own infallability...

...which is that the framers recognized their own infallability...

Yo, sparky, I've got a link for you.

'moron' + 'irony' = moran

Moran: the new black.

ROTFLOL!!! Seriously dude. That was hilarious! Was that a picture of you?

truce. but the sig stays! LOL!

this marks you out as more of a moran then the average SUV driver

Only someone with an IQ of under 25 would misspell that word. ;D By the way, I did think of that smart guy, but since most radio stations are blaring commercials much of the time, I would take it as read that any reasonably bright fellow, which you are DEFINATELY not as I am DEFINATELY a moron, should be able to parse from my humble prose. ;p

And the nice thing about subsidies, from the government's point of view, is that it makes an easy segway to regulation and monitoring.

If you can change your vote after you see a reaction to it from your financial backers, how is it a vote anymore?

Vote:

1. A formal expression of preference for a candidate for office or for a proposed resolution of an issue.

2. A means by which such a preference is made known, such as a raised hand or a marked ballot.

I think I'd be scared too if I saw a field full of gigantic insects

ahem.

You didn't loose, but you end up being a little less rich. Oh wait, that's the definition of loosing.

Wrong. The definition of loosing would be to release, detach, let fly, absolve, relax, etc. Loose is the opposite of tight and it rhymes with goose.

>The pound sign '#' also stands for number.

If we're going to be pedantic, a pound sign indicates pound sterling, and looks like a stylized 'E'. Someone more pedantic than myself will likely tell us all the HTML code to display this character.

The sign you are discussing is, in fact, an octothorpe (occasionally spelled without the 'e'). ;-)

"The government" has historically been used to descibe the "ruling political party or coalition of political parties in a parliamentary system" (eg Italy's government has fallen again); increasingly it is being used to describe the party in power in the United States as well.

Using this terminology, the supreme court is part of the state, but by no means part of the government.

Luckily, no IP address is particularly discreet. Perhaps you meant discrete? That'd be redundant but technically correct.

>> No, judges are not simply ignorant

Definition: Ignorant

1. Lacking education or knowledge.
2. Showing or arising from a lack of education or knowledge: an ignorant mistake.
3. Unaware or uninformed.

Well looky here, the judge IS ignorant. He could have done some research before throwing something like this out, but he choose not to.

• unwashed geek with a beard full of Dorito crumbs,
• Mountain Dew fermenting in a shag carpet laid down in 1976,
• "magic-user" feet after a twelve-hour D&D marathon,
• the reek of Mom's basement after that dot-com "opportunity" fell through and an impoverished and dispirited Perl hacker moved home too depressed to shower.

I don't think you understand the consept of an analogy:

I don't think you understand the concept of spelling correctly

Aaarrrggh! "Debut"! Debut, debut, debut!

See?!? Ah, nevermind. I give up.

I got that definition from dictionary.reference.com which cites the American Heritage Dictionary as its source. The thesaurus.reference.com entry similarly lists incredible which (in addition to the "not credible" definition) has synonyms such as: amazing, astounding, awe-inspiring, extraordinary, fabulous, great, wonderful, etc.

Both uses appear to be common. A quick search on CNN indicates that "incredible" is used to mean "amazing" more times than it's used to mean "not credible". Of course, the two aren't all that much different. Sometimes, something is so amazing that it almost defies credibility.

I got that definition from dictionary.reference.com which cites the American Heritage Dictionary as its source. The thesaurus.reference.com entry similarly lists incredible which (in addition to the "not credible" definition) has synonyms such as: amazing, astounding, awe-inspiring, extraordinary, fabulous, great, wonderful, etc.

Both uses appear to be common. A quick search on CNN indicates that "incredible" is used to mean "amazing" more times than it's used to mean "not credible". Of course, the two aren't all that much different. Sometimes, something is so amazing that it almost defies credibility.

11 entries found for game.

1. An activity providing entertainment or amusement; a pastime: party games; word games.

If the intent of the software is to entertain or amuse, then it is a game. Period, end of story. Stop trying to make words mean things they don't, it's annoying. A video game is a game played on a video monitor or an analogue thereof. Whether you call a final fantasy game an interactive movie or a roleplaying game, either way, it's a video game.

Oh, and, barney doom was a classic. Maybe even a megaclassic.

Not everything has to be a thesis here, y'know. I don't get why people only ever demand proof for an opinion when it's an opinion that goes against the majority.

Yet an opinion has to be either true or false. It doesn't matter which one. However, what I said was that his argument is indeterminate, and therefore can't be a valid opinion.

"chuck full", hmm? Perhaps you meant chock-full?

Wrong.

A tip for you: use dictionary.com to confirm something you think is correct.

And most people who speak English know that it's "disc," not "disk," as in "Digital Versatile Disc."

haiku ( P ) Pronunciation Key (hk)
n. pl. haiku, also haikus

Both work

So what, exactly, makes the Christian standpoint the right one?

You can't define what's right and wrong for everyone based on your personal beliefs, since so many different belief structures exist in this world.

Check your facts. From Dictionary.com's definition of documentary :

n : a film or TV program presenting the facts about a person or event

Just because there's more than one way to describe the facts doesn't mean you need to ignore the format. Documentaries are used to show one thing and one thing only: facts. When Moore uses footage of himself harassing Congressmen to sign their kids up for the military, it's not documentary fare, and it's certainly not recounting any facts. It's sensationalism, plain and simple.

I haven't seen Fahrenheit 9/11 , nor do I plan on seeing it, as all of Moore's films I see show me that his attempt to shove his own propaganda down my throat is no worse than the "evils" he tries to fight. If Moore ever decides to create a film that actually doesn't reflect his personal opinion (and doesn't involve politics), then I might be intrigued enough to see it.

Why do people think that a documentary must be a completely objective, facts only movie?

This is why. Note definition 2 states "objectively without editorializing." That's what a documentary is. Regardless of which way the slant or opinion is, if it's there, the film is no longer a documentary, but a commentary. That's not to say commentaries don't have merit, but to try to pass it as a documentary is incorrect and misleading.

Actually, I was focusing more on the "New business models are required" bit. "Commodity" can have many meanings; not just a product that is directly sold, but also "That which affords convenience, advantage, or profit", which I presume can be indirectly. Free and open source software can be considered commoditised because it can facilitate profit indirectly without itself being sold.

I think that a different business model can be applied to the DRM debate, in the same way he talks about software. Just take radio and free-to-air television broadcasting for example. These are business models in which the end-user does not have to pay for content, yet the content providers still can profit.

Wow. The parent post managed to mangle two different definitions and mislead folks in the same way it condemns.

the parent post takes the separate "adjective" definition and splices in words into the "noun" definition while implying that it's all part of the "noun" definition of "documentary".

Here is the real dictionary.com link.

The noun version (the parent post did start with the words "A work...") in its entirey is "A work, such as a film or television program, presenting political, social, or historical subject matter in a factual and informative manner and often consisting of actual news films or interviews accompanied by narration."

The parent post spliced in words from the second definition of the adjective version of the word, and the adjective mentions the "objectively without editorializing", and even in that case it is only one of multiple valid definitions. The parent post purposely ignored the first definition of the adjective "Consisting of, concerning, or based on documents." (Yup, that's the first definition listed in its entirety).

And thus the parent post use of "Further, it restricts the presentation..." is highly misleading since it certainly does not make a firm restriction or preclude its use in other ways.

And the ONLY other NOUN definition on that page is "a film or TV program presenting the facts about a person or event". And certainly that describes F911 just darn fine.

Don't believe me? Here are the facts. You decide.

Wow. The parent post managed to mangle two different definitions and mislead folks in the same way it condemns.

the parent post takes the separate "adjective" definition and splices in words into the "noun" definition while implying that it's all part of the "noun" definition of "documentary".

Here is the real dictionary.com link.

The noun version (the parent post did start with the words "A work...") in its entirey is "A work, such as a film or television program, presenting political, social, or historical subject matter in a factual and informative manner and often consisting of actual news films or interviews accompanied by narration."

The parent post spliced in words from the second definition of the adjective version of the word, and the adjective mentions the "objectively without editorializing", and even in that case it is only one of multiple valid definitions. The parent post purposely ignored the first definition of the adjective "Consisting of, concerning, or based on documents." (Yup, that's the first definition listed in its entirety).

And thus the parent post use of "Further, it restricts the presentation..." is highly misleading since it certainly does not make a firm restriction or preclude its use in other ways.

And the ONLY other NOUN definition on that page is "a film or TV program presenting the facts about a person or event". And certainly that describes F911 just darn fine.

Don't believe me? Here are the facts. You decide.

For someone who has a beef with Moore for quoting out of context, you do a pretty good job of doing the same thing yourself. Let's look at both definitions dictionary.com provides for "documentary" from the American Heritage Dictionary:

documentary

adj.

1. Consisting of, concerning, or based on documents.
2. Presenting facts objectively without editorializing or inserting fictional matter, as in a book or film.

n. pl. documentaries

A work, such as a film or television program, presenting political, social, or historical subject matter in a factual and informative manner and often consisting of actual news films or interviews accompanied by narration.

Notice how the noun form (which is what we're talking about here -- a "documentary") does not include strict objectivity as part of the definition -- which makes sense, considering that just about every documentary film ever made has a point of view on its subject matter. What you quoted was the definition for the adjective form of the word (in other words, it's the definition of "documentary" when used as a descriptor for things that are documentary-like -- and not actual documentaries.)

Did you do this out of simple error, I wonder -- not having the attention span to read past the first definition -- or are you as guilty of having a (gasp!) point of view as you say Moore is?

I appreciate the difference between 'Cum Laude' and 'With Honors', and it is something that can be brougth up during the face to face interview.

However, if the resume is in DOC or PDF format, will automatically get scanned?
It's a gamble - are you willing to bet your job (the potential for a face to face) on it?

The word Niggardly is a perfectly good English word, means stingy or tight with the purse strings, but I wouldn't use it in a phone interview with HR of a prospective employer. That's a good way to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, because you never know how someone is going to take something when they don't really know.

Unless you are going to work for Vivid Entertainment, I wouldn't send in a resume with Cum on it.