Slashdot Mirror

Nah, it sounds just like an esthetician, only more facials....
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/esthetician

Evil http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/evil

evil /ivl/ Show Spelled[ee-vuhl] Show IPA
adjective
1. morally wrong or bad; immoral; wicked: evil deeds; an evil life.
2. harmful; injurious: evil laws.
3. characterized or accompanied by misfortune or suffering; unfortunate; disastrous: to be fallen on evil days.
4. due to actual or imputed bad conduct or character: an evil reputation.
5. marked by anger, irritability, irascibility, etc.: He is known for his evil disposition.

"to call him evil in the face of all the horrors that were acceptable under his predecessor is quite disingenuous"

Implies that Obama's predecessor is the evil one rather than Obama. The second definition above is the definition being used his opponents. You are clearly saying you believe his predecessor did the harm and therefore is harmful aka evil per the second definition.

It is nothing but manipulative word play. It is you trying to put words in the mouths of Obama's opponents in the form of either the 1st or 4th definition and thereby create a strawman that you can beat down to give yourself the appearance of taking higher moral ground. The reality is that both opposition to Bush and opposition to Obama claim the respective individual is fits the second definition of evil whether they choose to use that word or not. It is not "putting words in the mouth" of someone when you point out synonyms of the words they used.

"I said I disagreed with their policies"

Exactly. A person with harmful policies has a harmful effect and harmful is, per definition, evil.

but in effect Anonymous' structure is exactly that of your standard terrorist organization

Let's think this through, first does Anonymous engage in terrorism?

terrorism 1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.

Violence? Not physical violence that we know of. But certainly "threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes" is basically what they do. I doubt most of them are really "ideologically motivated", they have always seemed more like a bunch of attention whores. They use political or social issues to get sympathy/justify their actions.

What a great site! pass-thru snicker.

Are you thru?

Youre playing semantics.

believe
verb (used without object)
1. to have confidence in the truth, the existence, or the reliability of something, although without absolute proof that one is right in doing so: Only if one believes in something can one act purposefully.

verb (used with object)
2. to have confidence or faith in the truth of (a positive assertion, story, etc.); give credence to.
3. to have confidence in the assertions of (a person).
4. to have a conviction that (a person or thing) is, has been, or will be engaged in a given action or involved in a given situation: The fugitive is believed to be headed for the Mexican border.
5. to suppose or assume; understand (usually followed by a noun clause): I believe that he has left town.

So do you have confidence or faith in the truth of the assertion of global warming? Do you give credence to it, have confidence in it?

I know it feels clever to make these subtle jabs at this kind of language so when the inevitable religion flamewar breaks out, the terms will already be poisoned, but its not terribly honest.

When the hell did Time and the Washington Post become "august" pubs???

There seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding of the terms 'battery' and 'cell'. A battery is the collection of cells. So a Tesla could be bricked by a failed battery but it is tolerant to a failure of individual cells. This is not surprising.

Semantics.

No, not semantics, but rather proper use of terminology. The AC is correct - a battery is a collection of cells. A battery pack is a collection of batteries. (The battery being the smallest individually replaceable part in the pack.)
 
That's why a "D" cell battery is called a "single cell battery" - because, duh, there's only a single cell in the battery. That's why automotive type batteries (of the type you add water to) have multiple vent caps - because each individual cell must be separately vented and/or topped off with water.
 
The quoted IDC analyst adds to the confusion (at least to those of us versed in standard terminology) by using the terms battery and cell interchangeably, which is the same mistake often made by the general public - you for example.

Next thursday is March 1, not tomorrow. New policy goes into effect NEXT thursday, not tomorrow.

Not according to the definitions in any dictionary I have at hand. E.g.: Dictionary.com:

adjective: 1. immediately following in time, order, importance, etc.: the next day; the next person in line.

Tomorrow is the Thursday immediately following in time. I cannot find any dictionary carrying the definition you are using.

Nonetheless - I am familiar with the idiom, based on the usage I have heard I suspect it is endemic to the American South - and its illogicality annoys the heck out of me. Is the house next door the one you reach after a passing the house immediately adjacent to yours?

Given the inherently high velocities of spacecraft, be it in orbit or between bodies, it doesn't take much mass to damage things. Coat a weight in radar-absorbing foam and get it in the way of whatever you're trying to damage. Call it a space-mine. Explode something in their path and call it ack-sierra.

Beyond that, due to weight/energy densities, conservation of momentum will be important, but spacecraft wouldn't have the ability aircraft have to deflect air via their wings to change the direction of their momentum. There's nothing in space to push against... I don't anticipate it would look like a dogfight at all because of this.

It would probably look most like naval warfare, where the combatants lob missiles and minimally guided shells at each other. Missiles wouldn't change the attacker's momentum, whereas the recoil from shells would.

Did I use the term correctly? I didn't mean just economic issues, but social issues too.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/socioeconomic
adjective
of, pertaining to, or signifying the combination or interaction of social and economic factors: socioeconomic study; socioeconomic status.

Words literally mean things.

> but why do you have to confuse the issue with this "grounded faith" thing?

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/faith

faith, noun
1. confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.
2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.
3. belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims.
4. belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.: to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty.
5. a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish faith.

Ignoring definition 1 doesn't make it go away.

You keep assuming faith has been hijacked by religion.

Everyone has beliefs.

Beliefs can fall into two categories
* Rational Beliefs
* Irrational Beliefs

If you never do anything with those beliefs, they are just that beliefs. But once you act upon them, the beliefs become faith. Again, the reason may either be rational, or irrational. Grounded Faith, or Blind Faith.

Scientists have faith (rational beliefs) that the Scientific Method is way to gain truth (by removing falsehood.)

i.e
If you are married you have faith that your partner will remain faithful to you. That is, not have unprotected sex without telling you. You live a certain lifestyle based on faith -- again, either a rational or irrational belief.

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

It depends on the definition of 'income'. Shooting down a proposal is much different than implementing something and finding it rejected by the courts on constitutional grounds.

Wikipedia's first sentence :

Income is the consumption and savings opportunity gained by an entity within a specified time frame, which is generally expressed in monetary terms

an entry from Webster:

a gain or recurrent benefit usually measured in money that derives from capital or labor; also : the amount of such gain received in a period of time

Dictionary.com

the monetary payment received for goods or services, or from other sources, as rents or investments.

questioning manufacturers practices.

http://hardware.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2659717&cid=38964405

That's not what seth was doing. Seth wants to "legislatively block" manufacturer practices.

That's not just questioning manufacturer practices. It's vehement denunciation

Atheism: no. There is no spiritual or moral component of atheism.

You're a bloody ignorant idiot. Here's the moral component: _I_ am the highest authority to judge what I am doing. Therefore _I_ am the one who is solely responsible for living my life the right way. There is only one life, only one chance of doing it right. I won't come back to fix what I'm doing wrong, so _I_ intend to do things right the first time. If Christians or Muslims hide behind their "religion" to justify whatever evil they do, _I_ can't do that. I can't blame anything on a higher authority because _I_ am the highest authority for myself.

Wrong! Thanks for playing. The correct answer is:

atheism [ey-thee-iz-uhm]
noun
1.the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2.disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

Source: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/atheism

I could say I'm a straight, white male, so it doesn't effect me, but that's not true- I am white, I am straight, and I am male, but it does effect me, it effects everyone - bigotry is one of the most fundamental problems our species still suffers to an unhealthy degree. I don't expect to see us rid of it any time soon, but we've made a lot of progress on women's rights, a lot of progress on fighting racism, but sexuality related discrimination? not so much. Any amount of official additional condemnation of it is a good thing, because that's what's required to fight it. When people as great as Turing can be effected by it so negatively then it absolutely effects all of us.

Improper use of language hurts us all and, in this case, proves the old saw "'tis better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt."
effect [ih-fekt]
noun
1. something that is produced by an agency or cause; result; consequence: Exposure to the sun had the effect of toughening his skin.

affect [v. uh-fekt; n. af-ekt]
verb (used with object)
1.to act on; produce an effect or change in: Cold weather affected the crops.
[Source: http://dictionary.reference.com/

It's not just premed that is taught in this fashion, it's everything up to and including premed.

Hmm... I do guess that's true.

Me, I'd been comparing engineering education in the US to engineering education abroad -- but that's mostly in college. The American students consistently have more practical experience, have done more projects, and have been more frequently required to invent creative solutions to problems, than many of their Indian and Chinese peers. Not because the Americans are "inherently" better -- whatever that means -- but because engineering school just works differently here.

But elementary school? I think I agree. I think it's highly variable (e.g., there are good public schools in high-property-tax areas, and private schools like Montessori Schools), but I think I agree that, even when they are good, it's only by overcoming a tradition of rote learning which still dominates -- in practice if not necessarily in theory. I am also under the impression that, until 'No Child Left Behind' emerged, elementary education had improved significantly over that of two or three generations ago. Nevertheless, yes, elementary education is definitely as much about socialization as it is about academic learning -- for both good and ill.

Finally, there is an element of tracking in education. If you were a "smart kid," if you got into honors classes, you probably were able to have a high school experience that avoided some of the rote learning that other kids were subjected to. That was my experience, at least. But, again, it doesn't happen until high school.

Formation does not equal swarm.

Formation is from of a swarm.

A great number of things or persons, especially in motion.

  Insects don't get the right to define human words in my book.

Interesting etiology: The word privilege comes from private law.

Newt and those in his circle have it, and aren't used to being told they have to follow the same rules that the rest of us do.

When I look at Dictionary.com I find this for irony:

5. an outcome of events contrary to what was, or might have been, expected.

It seems reasonable that debating moon travel 40 years after Apollo might be considered unexpected. What am I missing?

If the space program hadn't happened, that would be an outcome of events contrary to what was. The act of discussing it isn't ironic or contrary to anything, it's just a discussion. If the LA Lakers beat the Chicago Bulls in a basketball game with a last-second basket, and I say, "what if they missed that last shot," it's not ironic.

5. an outcome of events contrary to what was, or might have been, expected.

It seems reasonable that debating moon travel 40 years after Apollo might be considered unexpected. What am I missing?

Concealing your password (as opposed to sticking it on a post-it or in your signature) is very much "security through obscurity."

That you can't understand that all security ultimately is based on something concealed is sad - it means you'll believe that things like biometrics are secure, when they're not (and they're also very much based on hiding something, both at the design and implementation levels, as well as the user level. If I have the information needed to duplicate your fingerprint, or the information on the data stream between the fingerprint reader and the rest of the system as well as the information on how to insert data into that stream, and the datastream that would result from your fingerprint, your data is mine).

There is no such thing as something that is 100% secure, but every bit of hiding (obscuring) information helps.

Definitions of 'subsidy'

Note that none of those overlap in any way with what you describe.

You knew that when you started this thread, and you knew it every time you posted the same thing previously.

You are lying. The reason that you are lying is because you know you are too stupid to argue your case using the facts.

Why is that so hard for people to understand? One party lying about something someone else did isn't censorship. The government didn't, as a matter of policy because of the content, take down the video

Perhaps you should learn english. Or at least one language to speak.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/censorship

The word government doesn't show up in ANY definition of censorship. Anywhere.

What you're thinking of is the 1st amendment, which of course no one here mentioned at all, and is completely off topic to what the rest of the adults are speaking of in this thread.

-1 troll, -1 offtopic, -1 flamebait

Changing or removing information that would otherwise be available via a medium is censorship. It doesn't matter if it is the government, Google, or slashdot moderators.

Censor
an official who examines books, plays, news reports, motion pictures, radio and television programs, letters, cablegrams, etc., for the purpose of suppressing parts deemed objectionable on moral, political, military, or other grounds.

I don't understand why you libertard types can't understand that not only government can violate civil rights. Corporations do it on a daily basis and we have essentially zero recourse against them in most cases, especially when a cartel or monopoly decides to violate them (like ISPs). Yet, you go around saying things like "the government didn't, as a matter of policy because of the content, take down the video," which not only missed the definition of censorship, but totally absolves private organizations of violating your rights. We are increasingly corporatist because of this bullshit line of thinking.

I did not say that it was perfectly fine.

Sorry, my misunderstanding.

The discussion of whether or not a violation of intellectual property is morally wrong (regardless of laws put in place) is rather complicated and many people have differing viewpoints on the subject. It irritates me when the issue is muddied when so many people cry 'thief!' when no theft has taken place.

I agree, it's not a simple matter in any way. I mistakenly took your post to be stating that it's OK do download what ever you want. I agree that in the traditional sense, it's not a theft of property. However It's not as simple as at copyright violation either.Times have changed and I assume that we are going to be adding new words to the English (and other) language(s), or the definition of "theft and stealing" are going to change. Even Dictionary.com gives the following example sentence:"These examples both describe the theft of intellectual or creative labor." While I find the term intellectual property nauseating, it is commonly excepted. However once that becomes such, then downloading material that is not paid for could be construed as theft of a sort. In some places you can be charged with theft for taking data from a company (as an employee, or otherwise). I fail to see the difference between making a copy of company data and entertainment data. In both cases the effect is the same. The company has lost nothing physically. The real problem, IMO, is that the copyright and patent systems are seriously broken.

Sneaking into a local movie theater without paying would also not be stealing. I suspect it would be some form of trespassing.

Very possibly. However I would guess this would vary from state to state. There's a good chance that this is defined at theft in some localities. But that's just speculation on my part.

You're not allowed to change the definition of a word to make your argument work.

You're the one changing definitions.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/credit : "9. a. An arrangement for deferred payment of a loan or purchase: a store that offers credit; bought my stereo on credit. b. The terms governing such an arrangement: low prices and easy credit. c. The time allowed for deferred payment: an automatic 30-day credit on all orders."

http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/float : "4. A sum of money representing checks that are outstanding."

The check is your explicit statement that you have the money in the bank, and the float is the time it takes to go through the system. When you charge your American Express card, they are giving you a short-term loan. Your ability to call on that loan at any time is credit. It's that simple.

Moreover, the act of writing a bad check and the debt that it represents are separate things in the court (check fraud is a crime but debt is a civil matter), so even while you'd face criminal charges for purposely writing a bad check, you'd still have to handle the debt owed by some means and that's exactly the same as not paying a bill to AmEx for the card.

But it's more than just not paying the bill. Charging your card and writing a check are synonymous steps in the process, but you'll never be charged with a crime for making an American Express charge that you didn't have the money for, because you never claimed to have the money. It's a loan and you can only go into debt.

Misrepresenting that you have the money when writing a check is fraud. Of course, once you have committed fraud and not actually given payment, you are in debt, too.

In this instance, fucking is a correctly used adverb which adds emphasis in a manner similar to very, only more so.

It is what is known as an intensifier.

In this instance, fucking is a correctly used adverb which adds emphasis in a manner similar to very, only more so.

It is what is known as an intensifier.

That's just impossible: highly educated people tend to be libertarian.

Citation??? There are so many important philosophers, economists, scientists, etc... who were not Libertarian. Now if you had said that "highly educated people tend to be less religious" then sure... but Libertarian? Do you not realize how many highly educated socialists there are?

Sorry, I haven't realized that thanks to US political propaganda the word is so loaded.

I meant of course "libertarian" in its original sense, not the loaded one.

To quote the dictionary:

libertarian
noun
1. a person who advocates liberty, especially with regard to thought or conduct.
[...]

Can you cite your definition? It's cute, but it is neither in line with my understanding and use of the word, nor the definitions I found by quickly looking around the internet. In every case for my whole life, "republic" has always meant "indirect democracy".

Republic (n) a state in which the supreme power rests in the body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by representatives chosen directly or indirectly by them.

Even if you can cite your definition, and even if it is the first or only definition given by that source, I still object to your implication that it is the common definition used by English speakers.

I gotta say I've been enjoying watching people have fun with the headlines. My favorite was :"Romney squeezes out Santorum"

Probably that headline author knew full well what Santorum means, and did it on purpose! Ew, still gross.

And you'll find "santorum" means precisely bupkis. "sanitorium", on the other hand, does have a meaning, and one that is distinctly not "gross".

Literature. a.) A technique of indicating, as through character or plot development, an intention or attitude opposite to that which is actually or ostensibly stated.

Ironic literature exploits, in addition to the rhetorical figure, such devices as character development, situation, and plot to stress the paradoxical nature of reality or the contrast between an ideal and actual condition, set of circumstances, etc., frequently in such a way as to stress the absurdity present in the contradiction between substance and form. (enbolden mine)

In this case, I suggested a "simple" solution in the Subject only to then detail altering the Earth's orbit around the Sun which is, of course, not simple. I also offered it as a simpler solution than the "simple" suggestion of the Summary to alter the calendar "using computer programs and mathematical formulas" - which would actually be much simpler, though neither would, in practice, be simple. There might have been a little sarcasm thrown in.

So, ya, I know what irony means. Oh, and my wife was an English teacher...

Then there's this alternate definition: "—adj: of, resembling, or containing iron" which, of course, the Earth does. :-)

Yeah, it's not like there's no precedence for this sort of thing.

rant And it's not like there's no precedents on slashdot for misusing precedence. How many times does someone have to point this out before people start using the correct word? /rant

What did you expect? They were quoting Wikipedia, where proper spelling is optional.

Yeah, it's not like there's no precedence for this sort of thing.

rant And it's not like there's no precedents on slashdot for misusing precedence. How many times does someone have to point this out before people start using the correct word? /rant

What did you expect? They were quoting Wikipedia, where proper spelling is optional.

[Ir]Regardless, the use of the term "ironically" to indicate contradicting actions and intentions is very much valid.

Yeah, it's not like there's no precedence for this sort of thing.

rant
And it's not like there's no precedents on slashdot for misusing precedence. How many times does someone have to point this out before people start using the correct word?
/rant

Yeah, it's not like there's no precedence for this sort of thing.

rant
And it's not like there's no precedents on slashdot for misusing precedence. How many times does someone have to point this out before people start using the correct word?
/rant

Will these do?

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/bankruptcy
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hyperinflation

Will these do?

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/bankruptcy
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hyperinflation

From: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/evil
evil [ee-vuhl]
adjective
1. morally wrong or bad; immoral; wicked: evil deeds; an evil life. (Apple)
2. harmful; injurious: evil laws. (Apple)
3. characterized or accompanied by misfortune or suffering; unfortunate; disastrous: to be fallen on evil days.
4.due to actual or imputed bad conduct or character: an evil reputation. (Apple)
5.marked by anger, irritability, irascibility, etc.: He is known for his evil disposition.

Three out of five!

You inadvertently made a (chilling, big-brother-esque) joke, but infer does not mean what you, or indeed, many people, think it does.

It's 'lose', not 'loose'. The distinction is important and not difficult to grasp. To make it even easier for you to understand the difference, I've done the hard part for you:

Lose
Loose

Read them, learn the difference, and improve your command of the English language.

It's 'lose', not 'loose'. The distinction is important and not difficult to grasp. To make it even easier for you to understand the difference, I've done the hard part for you:

Lose
Loose

Read them, learn the difference, and improve your command of the English language.

Actually, I am a Brit - and it is the standard English English use of the term I am defending.

Seriously?!? This makes it twice as disturbing as before. For your benefit I will copy my post from above just to make damn sure you see many examples of how wrong you can be:

I don't see what difference it makes having a qualifier attached to the word, as anyone with a basic grasp of conversational English will have heard the word state being used in this manner.

However, since you insist on an example, please see here
You'll probably complain about State Aid being a qualifier - but if you look further down you will see exactly the example you want, on a .Gov site from a State within the EU:

(I've emphasised the relevant parts just in case you are as daft as you seem)

Is the measure granted by the state or through state resources? As well as central government departments, this includes regional or local authorities and other public, or private sector, bodies designated or controlled by the state. State resources include tax exemptions and also funds not permanently belonging to the state but under state control, e.g. lottery funding.

There are a shit-load of examples of this use of the word 'state' all over that site and in everyday conversational English (UK English that is) that refer to 'the state'. Here's a few more:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/state

15. of or pertaining to the central civil government or authority.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/state

5
a : a politically organized body of people usually occupying a definite territory; especially : one that is sovereign
b : the political organization of such a body of people
6: the operations or concerns of the government of a country

http://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/british/state

2: a nation, or a country
3: the government of a country

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/state_1

[C or U] a country or its government
The drought is worst in the central African states.
Britain is one of the member states of the European Union.
The government was determined to reduce the number of state-owned industries.
Some theatres receive a small amount of funding from the state.
formal His diary included comments on affairs/matters of state (= information about government activities).

in state
If a king, queen or government leader does something in state, they do it in a formal way as part of an official ceremony
The Queen rode in state to the opening of Parliament.

This is too stupid and arrogant to actually be a troll right?

I don't see what difference it makes having a qualifier attached to the word, as anyone with a basic grasp of conversational English will have heard the word state being used in this manner.

However, since you insist on an example, please see here.

You'll probably complain about State Aid being a qualifier - but if you look further down you will see exactly the example you want, on a .Gov site from a State within the EU:

(I've emphasised the relevant parts just in case you are as daft as you seem)

Is the measure granted by the state or through state resources? As well as central government departments, this includes regional or local authorities and other public, or private sector, bodies designated or controlled by the state. State resources include tax exemptions and also funds not permanently belonging to the state but under state control, e.g. lottery funding.

There are a shit-load of examples of this use of the word 'state' all over that site and in everyday conversational English (UK English that is) that refer to 'the state'. Here's a few more:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/state

15. of or pertaining to the central civil government or authority.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/state

5
a : a politically organized body of people usually occupying a definite territory; especially : one that is sovereign
b : the political organization of such a body of people
6: the operations or concerns of the government of a country

http://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/british/state

2: a nation, or a country
3: the government of a country

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/state_1

[C or U] a country or its government
The drought is worst in the central African states.
Britain is one of the member states of the European Union.
The government was determined to reduce the number of state-owned industries.
Some theatres receive a small amount of funding from the state.
formal His diary included comments on affairs/matters of state (= information about government activities).

in state
If a king, queen or government leader does something in state, they do it in a formal way as part of an official ceremony
The Queen rode in state to the opening of Parliament.

The summary meant "trawled" of course. Trolling the users would imply Facebook posting fake messages from friends telling them to do it.

Except, outside of the internet, that word doesn't always mean what you describe.

In this case, 'troll' is a perfectly legitimate usage of the word.

an electronic device designed to accept data, perform prescribed mathematical and logical operations at high speed, and display the results of these operations.

Since neither of the examples you gave (power steering and ignition) have output displays, by definition you're still wrong - they're not run by computers.

"Projectile" can technically mean anything that moves, including something like a cruise missile that's powered the whole way. From the context of this thread, it's clear that "projectile" is being used as in definition 1 here, to mean something that does not propel itself. A ballistic missile has a rocket engine and propels itself. "Ballistic" doesn't imply "projectile."