Slashdot Mirror

about a search engine who can't even spell their name correctly: google isn't googol

In fact take a look at Google-Watch. May enlighten some of the /.'s around here.

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

"Vivisimo" can *somehow* come up with a better engine than google, will people use it? Google is getting bigger and bigger not necessarily by their search results (or lack thereof) but also because of how the phrase "google" has caught on in mainstream culture. Face it - when your competitor makes it into the dictionary, it's going to be EXTREMELY hard to get people to change the way they search. If you ask many non-techs how they find information on the web, they don't say "I search for it" they say "I google it".

Now, that being said, one thing the CNN article doesn't talk about in great detail is the technology behind this company - Google started out at a major university - what's the background of this company? While I agree something should be done with all the advertising that occurs with PageRank, I find it highly doubtful that it's going to be another company (rather than Google itself) that will fix it.

If you really want to get technical, the definition of truth starts with conformity to fact or actuality. If you pay attention to usage (the final arbiter of definitions), you realize that the things that are considered to be "truth" are those things which are not currently provable, and are therefore subjective. Examples of this are religion (check out truthforlife.com), and politics (we hold these Truths to be self-evident...).

One of the biggest abuses of this word is religion, where facts and evidence are non-existent. Even given the premise that these details about God's existence have a fixed and objective state, it is utterly, completely, and totally impossible to objectively demostrate the actual state of reality one way or the other. All arguements attempting to prove God's existence or qualities are either self referential (God exists because the Bible says so) or purely subjective (I have faith, therefore he is).

We very often use the word Truth when we want to convince the other side that our opinions are the only possible explaination, especially when our research is faulty, or when we don't want people to compare what we have to say against facts. A good example about this is the web page "Truth About Bowling (for Columbine)". While he does site a number of facts, the spin he puts on it is significantly different than the account given by Michael Moore himself. BOTH OF THESE ARE TRUTH. You get to pick which one you prefer, or build your own.

When it comes down to it, any time you see the word "truth" these days you have to assume that it means that someone wants you to swallow their version of things. To get something that better fits reality at large you have to pick the facts out of several accounts and build your own "truth".

Please consult a dictionary before complaining about another's use of language.
From
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=gender

Gender
3. a. The condition of being female or male; sex.

If you shoot your grandmother, everyone agrees its murder.

What if I didn't believe it was murder? Would that make it different? Of course not!

But if my wife has an abortion, some people think its murder, some people think it isn't.

If it isn't to save her life, it's murder.

At any rate, murder is the unlawful killing of people. Abortion is legal, so legally its not murder.

The unlawful killing of one human being by another is ONE definition of murder. There are others, such as "To kill brutally or inhumanly." or "To put an end to; destroy:" and " To kill with premediated malice".

One of my favorite examples of a legal crime is this, I am in the state of Pennsylvania. In this state, up until the late 1980s a man could not be charged with raping a woman that he was married to or living with. He could beat her into unconsiousness and force sex upon her and it was not considered rape under the laws of this state. Would that have been acceptable to you?

In point of fact, I don't believe there's anything wrong with abortion.

That's your right. Just as if you wanted to believe that the moon was made of green cheese, that would be your right as well.

I can't see a single valid non-religious based argument against it in fact.

Only if you equate ethics with religion.

LK

You and those responding above seem mix up possible taboos, alternative constructs of games/sports, and discussing the validity of certain couplings of race and fitness/ability, based on extrapolation from some observations

. Using race as a criteria for almost any selection/qualification is a taboo. Sports is no exception, but that taboo is not unique to sports. On the other hand we routinely use sex as a selection critera in sports, which is interesting (but not a taboo). If we simply acccept that as tradition - and go from here.... You imply that allowing male/female discrimination (use of distinctions) is inconsistent with disallowing racial discrimination (which is a taboo).

That inconsistency isn't a taboo, it's merely an inconsistency. Even if it was, it isn't the problem. The problem is the discrimination, based on sex, and people gripe about it, that sex determines who they are allowed to complete against. (As a side note, I find it amusing that golf, often lauded for it's handicap+tee system that normalizes scoring so that everybody competes, eh... on par (sorry, couldn't resist) with everybody, still has separate professional tournaments.)

You implicitly suggest solving that problem by introducing another, which I don't think makes sense, even if you this time do trigger a taboo. To paraphrase; we discrimnate based on sex, which makes little sense, so why can't we discriminate based on race, which makese sense since ability is obviously tied to race. Just look at basketball, man - those black dudes just outperform the pasty white boys. (I didn't read you as racist in it's usually accepted meaning btw, but since distinuishing by race is a taboo, I'm sure someone immedately assumes you were.)

Anyway, far easier to simply say: take sex out of it, everybody competes on ability. Just make the mental switch from Women's / Men's to the distastefully bland 'Divisions 1 and 2'. Don't immedately equate Women and 2, Men and 1 - if anything, that's the most common, and often defensible, gripe with the current system. But, if you really want to saturate your brain with 100% gender/capability blandness, Good Thoughts, then think of it as two entirely parallell divisions.

Practically speaking, absolutely no change occurs to anything we do today except for some changing room logistics (Which does trigger a few taboos!) when the play-book/board/briefing stuff goes on. Of course, it's entirely possible that such a change might trigger some other changes in the sport/game/contest itself. These vary in their construction, and in what make them fun. In one case, two current leagues might become two divisions, in another the merged population of players are differently (re)organized. AFAIAC, here I let those who practice, preach.

One more thing. I realize there must be a gazillion people out there who have tried to solve this particular problem for years. Yes, there is ample understanding from this side of the scren that othing's ever perfect. If you were a woman who were faced with being ranked 10th in the Women's league or 150th in the Unisex league, you might rather keep it the way it is. Fine by me, but you can't do that and gripe when you advance to 1st and want to move on. I guess divisions that's how divisions come in, when there are clear clusters and gaps in performance(?).

Anyway, I don't really know much about sports. I mean, I haven't even used my jogging shoes for jogging in ... hmm.... 3 years? I am just trying to make some practical examples while really talking about the taboos and not so taboos.

Hmmm... what to think of a post scored as +3 Funny that simply summarizes a bit by the Dead Alewives without giving credit where credit is due?

Funny. Sad. Whatever. Listen to the original routine should you be so inclined.

Sorry, I've seen this way too many times on /. to let it slide again.

The word is "niche"
.

Nuff said

How this got modded to +5 I do not understand. Mods and Gleng: here

It's called hyperbole.

Having a bad day?

Obviously, when you read my post exaggeration never entered your mind...

Let me explain: I was using exaggeration to say that our judicial system cannot seem to get it right. We release a murderer after a few years but have virtually no mercy on someone who was caught with drugs.

Becuase redundant doesn't mean what you think it does maybe? redundant

Umm, I beg to differ with you " Etcetera ", that is unless your last name is Webster.

Dictionary.com defines wrap around as what was defined in the first post, which was collective information.

See these

Wrap Around
Tick
Epoch

Umm, I beg to differ with you " Etcetera ", that is unless your last name is Webster.

Dictionary.com defines wrap around as what was defined in the first post, which was collective information.

See these

Wrap Around
Tick
Epoch

Umm, I beg to differ with you " Etcetera ", that is unless your last name is Webster.

Dictionary.com defines wrap around as what was defined in the first post, which was collective information.

See these

Wrap Around
Tick
Epoch

Dictionary says

2. Lack of interest; indifference.

Close the door on your way out.

Not to get you started or anything, but the good folk at The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language seem to think that incentivize is a perfectly cromulent word. That's American english for you...

Maybe the Li-Ion batteries exploded...

(brief explanation)

"Affectation of manners and tastes commonly thought to be artificial, vulgar, or banal" .

.

1. Take this and shove it.

2. I'm Jewish. Come back when your vocabulary and/or your sense of humor grow some testicles.

1. The offense of persistently instigating lawsuits, typically groundless ones.
2. An unlawful breach of duty on the part of a ship's master or crew resulting in injury to the ship's owner.
3. Sale or purchase of positions in church or state.

To say that the Matrix is an allegory gives it too much credit, I think. Sure, there's lots of symbolism in the movies (especially when you include the... bleh... second and third installments), but it's such a mishmash of stuff, it really doesn't have the kind of cohesion required to start considering it allegory. In a broad sense, it fits the definition of allegory, but I shudder to imagine any classification that puts the Matrix in the same category as works of literature like Moby Dick (the quintessential example of an allegorical tale).

Of Progres...

The definition of Encyclopaedia does not include 'credentialed information'. Your argument is based on the fact that you have been taught to trust credentials. This is not necessarily a bad thing, but it does eliminate a lot of information that could be useful for others.

Authoritative information does not necessarily have to come from someone with credentials. A Mechanical Engineer with a PhD may be able to explain the concepts of the Wankle Rotary engine, but it takes a *Mechanic* to tell you how to maintain it. And it takes a driver to tell you how to drive a car with a Wankle.

You do not focus on the person, I agree. You focus on trails of letters; you focus on the alphabet soup, and that's worrisome. If credentials stood for everything authoritative, medical doctors wouldn't be paying malpractice insurance.

What's more, with the technology of the Wiki, the kid can write what he knows, and others can build it into something more representative over time. And from what I've read of, he's writing about how people get ripped off by Psychics. Could you tell me what sort of qualification he should have for that? Psychic Police Academy?

You're spending a lot of time trying to prove something, but your conclusion escapes you - like all the threads that you've stopped responding on.

Quit picking on a young mind that is trying to do something to improve the world, and perhaps take the time to improve the world yourself.

Idiots, this is not a troll. Its called parody. The author was making fun of the BSD is dying trolls.

>Stealing is stealing

Stealing is stealing even when it isn't stealing, eh?

If downloading is stealing, why is it that I can't put BMG out of business by continually downloading all their work?

I mean, stealing is stealing. Seems pretty obvious that enough stealing should put anyone out of business. If I (somehow) sucessfully stole BMG's office building, they'd be out of business pretty fast.

Explain, why is it that illegally downloading a BMG song (or any other company) 200,000,000,000 times won't put them out of business, yet it still comes under "stealing is stealing"?

If I managed to steal that many CDs, hell, they'd not only be broke, they'd probably have to get a loan to build the new factory it'd take to make that many discs for me to steal!

>It's called rentals. You know, blockbuster, netflix, etc.??

Did you know that at the people who fed you the line "stealing is stealing" consider it stealing when you lend your DVD to a friend? Don't believe me? Read the fine print on your discs.

If "stealing is stealing" and stealing is lending, then stealing really isn't stealing, or is it just that stealing isn't really a crime? In all those cases, stealing has ceased to be a useful word if stealing simply means letting someone else use something you sold in a manner you'd rather them not. We already have a good word for that: Lending.

Of course, this can all be mitigated by calling your version of stealing by the word we already have plundered: Piracy.

Because, if you ask a judge, stealing really ISN'T stealing unless:

1. (Law) The act of stealing; specifically, the felonious taking and removing of personal property, with an intent to deprive the rightful owner of the same; larceny.

Note: To constitute theft there must be a taking without the owner's consent, and it must be unlawful or felonious; every part of the property stolen must be removed, however slightly, from its former position; and it must be, at least momentarily, in the complete possession of the thief. See Larceny, and the Note under Robbery.

And no pirate I've ever known has been successful in more than just making a copy. They've never been able to actually prevent the author of the work from enjoying their copy, which, alas, is required to constitute what you're talking about about.

Thanks dictionary.com!

Besides, I know a lot of pirates who'd much rather be charged with stealing. Even armed robbery often seems to carry a lesser sentence than piracy. I just suppose the people of this world are more afraid of people using Kazaa than people shooting AK-47s in banks.

An American (this joke fails in Autralia, Britain and Japan unless the yuppie is also left-handed) YUP, driving home drunk, loses control and swipes a power pole, tearing his left arm off, then rolls the car and gets thrown clear (no seatbelt: top marks for brains, that man).

Tumbling to his feet, he amazes a passerby by flinching back and screaming "My BMW! My BMW!" The passerby coughs to draw attention to himself, and then asks, with a concerned expression: "You do realise that you arm's been torn off, don't you?"

The yuppie's eyes go wide, he screams "Yeeargh! My Rolex! My Rolex!" and turns to start casting about on the ground...

a lot != allot != alot ("alot" is not a word). Get it? Got it? Oh, never mind.

Sorry if you feel ranted at, you were the straw the broke the camel's back. One language abuser too many.

a lot != allot != alot ("alot" is not a word). Get it? Got it? Oh, never mind.

Sorry if you feel ranted at, you were the straw the broke the camel's back. One language abuser too many.

a lot != allot != alot ("alot" is not a word). Get it? Got it? Oh, never mind.

Sorry if you feel ranted at, you were the straw the broke the camel's back. One language abuser too many.

>Dude, shut the hell up

Dude, look it up. Are some ACs just sad or what?

When I'm sitting in front of the internet I am.
colon

...and please don't get the definition confused with the colon that you have your head stuck in.

It was a joke. Here, check this out.

You do have a faint idea of what a being a communist country means, right? Not the old Cold War "evil commies" definition, but the official one.

No, it's two words: nose cone

Maybe if game developers could dream up a genre other than fantasy, problems like this would be averted...

There's nothing wrong with the fantasy genre that a little imagination can't cure...

How about a fantasy setting where lawyers have taken control of all three branches of government and wield the mighty One Dollar to control all aspects of human life?

My Quote So he is really "unelected."

Yes. Notice the "Quotation Marks" around it.

Your Quote but playing with words to try to take legitimacy out of Paul Martin's appointment to Prime Minister is idiotic

If you think my words are taking the "legitimacy" of his appointment, you are overreacting. I described the situation exactly as to how he derives his legitimacy. But I did point out that the Slashdot Editor had a good point when he used unelected for Paul Martin. Elections are of different kinds, and /. readers form an International Audience. In most of the countries Paul Martin is "unlected" no matter how you spin your words. And, God, with 6 posts already and more coming for this story, you are spinning for sure.

Your Quote I also find it idiotic that this example could be taken as muffling of this website owner's voice.

Muffling To repress; stifle

If this was a commerical site I could buy and arguement that by having another site the original sites "paying customers" are being siphoned off. A different set of laws come into place. So, in a commercial situation maybe muffling would not necessarily be repression but trying to capture the dollars that you deserve.

But this is political satire. And if the visitors aren't smart enough to see that this is a satire, then Paul Martin is indeed a political pygmy.

Your Quote the fact that the domain is obviously meant to draw visitors from mistyping

Well it is Paul Martin Times - Times like in a newpaper New York Times, Los Angles Times, etc. People type nytimes.com and latimes.com NOT nytime.com and latime.com And in the spirit of political speech check out www.whitehouse.gov and www.whitehouse.com as another reader pointed out. And I think Paul Martin Time is quite different, and importantly it is political speech not commercial speech. Why the hell did Paul Martin have to choose paulmartintimes.ca and not paulmartin.ca ? Cause Times means something. And so does Time.

Your Quote the fact that the graphics and layout were stolen from their website. .... Either the website owner was too lazy to make his own goddamned layout, or he stole it to mislead people.

The word is copied not stolen. Given the Wordsmith that you obviously are, you should know that there is a big difference between copied and stolen. Esp. if it not commercial speech but political speech/satire. And it was not "stolen" (notice the "Quotation Marks) because they website owner was lazy or wanted to mislead, but because it was an important part for the political satire to be effective.

Your Quote He's free to say whatever the hell he wants.

I rest my case. Thank you very much.

At least American Heritage Dictionary lists "instalment" as a recognized variant.

I say the estate of JRR Tolkein gets their lawyers to draw up papers against Mythic, since their Dark Age of Camelot has elves, dwarves, hobbits (which they call "Lurikeen", which are *supposedly* leprichauns, but we all know they are hobbits), swords, archers, axes, orcs, trolls, magic, etc.

After they sue the pants off Mythic, they can go after almost every other fantasy work since then as being highly derivative.

Thanks for pointing that out.

Don't thank him. It's a snow-job. Neither the sources quoted on that page, nor the definitions it presents, are correct.

First it starts with a quote from the Pledge of Allegiance, which has no legal weight in the USA. It means nothing. It was first printed on a Corn-Flakes box. It also refers to the US Constitution. Back when that was written, "republic" had a specific meaning: not ruled by heriditary royalty.

Then it goes along to present definitions of "Republic" and "Democracy" that are patently false. (Democracy is basically right, but republic is completely off) Get out your own dictionary and check. The page goes on to make further (intentional?) errors in reasoning, I won't bother with all of them.

What it comes down to is that the USA is both a Republic and a Democracy. There's no conflict between those words- no reason one country can't be both.

Some other countries:
France, India: democracy and republic
Japan, United Kingdom: democracy, but not republic
China: republic, but not democracy
Saudi Arabia: neither democracy nor republic

Thanks for pointing that out.

Don't thank him. It's a snow-job. Neither the sources quoted on that page, nor the definitions it presents, are correct.

First it starts with a quote from the Pledge of Allegiance, which has no legal weight in the USA. It means nothing. It was first printed on a Corn-Flakes box. It also refers to the US Constitution. Back when that was written, "republic" had a specific meaning: not ruled by heriditary royalty.

Then it goes along to present definitions of "Republic" and "Democracy" that are patently false. (Democracy is basically right, but republic is completely off) Get out your own dictionary and check. The page goes on to make further (intentional?) errors in reasoning, I won't bother with all of them.

What it comes down to is that the USA is both a Republic and a Democracy. There's no conflict between those words- no reason one country can't be both.

Some other countries:
France, India: democracy and republic
Japan, United Kingdom: democracy, but not republic
China: republic, but not democracy
Saudi Arabia: neither democracy nor republic

The irony here is that you must pump the water out of the pot.

These people are called Pharisees.

S

Admit it... what you really wanted to say was:
You are an asshole

Admit it... what you really wanted to say was:
You are an asshole

Admit it... what you really wanted to say was:
You are an asshole

You are an asshole.

You are an asshole.

You are an asshole.