Slashdot Mirror

Walking down the isle

1. The word is "aisle"

2. The main approach to the altar is, more accurately, "the nave", not "the aisle". Most people would know what you meant well enough though.

HTH HAND

How dare you correct his English, you knave.

But "we" did become a contributor, according to his story the code ended up being GPL/MIT. In any case, whether it's "we should" or "we did", it's still "we" - which in both cases imply the employer ("we") had an ownership interest in the code. As for "day and night", it's you my friend who are stretching too far. "Working day and night" is a very common English idiom that means without stopping - 100% effort - either literally or hyperbolically - see e.g. http://dictionary.reference.com/idioms/night+and+day -this is even a recommended phrase in resume writing courses, because it shows commitment to working hard, and putting 100% effort into it. If he was putting 100% into his employment, when did he write the framework independently? In any case, I've asked him to clarify some of these less clear details on his blog, so we'll see what he says - that is if he doesn't moderate out my comment.

Walking down the isle

1. The word is "aisle"
2. The main approach to the altar is, more accurately, "the nave", not "the aisle". Most people would know what you meant well enough though.
HTH HAND

Walking down the isle

1. The word is "aisle"
2. The main approach to the altar is, more accurately, "the nave", not "the aisle". Most people would know what you meant well enough though.
HTH HAND

Dictionary.com : unlimited

1. not limited; unrestricted; unconfined...
2. without any qualification or exception; unconditional...

Just reading the AT&T website :

Stay connected anytime, all the time. For a low monthly fee, Messaging & Data Unlimited gives you unlimited text, picture, video, and instant messaging, as well as unlimited access to mobile Web, search, email, apps, and more.

Plain and simple, it's marketing speak, apparently with no truth behind it.

These new changes sure sound like a restriction / condition to me. As I see it, go ahead and make the changes. Just be sure to remove references to the term "unlimited."

Please realize that we've got to do better than this if we want to defeat the likes of ABB.

ABB claims to want to use the easily predictable reactions to his misdeeds to ostracize anyone and everyone even remotely close to his own views from democratic peaceful political methods and thus radicalize them into violence and civil war: you have unfortunately fallen right into his trap,

If ABB really holds the convictions he lays claims to, and if ABB indeed is not outright certifiable insane, then the above seems to be the only coherent explanation (and the one he professes).

AC from Norway (er ikke du norsk du og? Kunne ha skrevet alt på norsk men siden dette ikke er norsk side...).

Oh and btw this is why just about everyone took heart from the prime minister's well-chosen words immediately after the attacks: we need more democracy, more openness, more tolerance of opinions we don't like, and more inclusion if we want to defeat the attacker and his aims.

Please spread this because as it is right now we're doing pretty badly at defeating him (candles, roses, and hugs are not enough on their own to avoid ABB number 2, 3, 4, ..., n).

Before I forget (and please don't take this the wrong way) are you familiar with the actual definition and meaning of the word "bigot"? We all need to try to avoid it and one can't avoid it if one doesn't know what it is.

The word they should be using is translucent.

Guess what, the English language is constantly evolving. Either way you're wrong:

2fail noun

Definition of FAIL

1
: failure —usually used in the phrase without fail
2
: a failure (as by a security dealer) to deliver or receive securities within a prescribed period after purchase or sale
  See fail defined for English-language learners
First Known Use of FAIL

13th century

And here:

–noun
13.
Stock Exchange .
a.
a stockbroker's inability to deliver or receive security within the required time after sale or purchase.
b.
such an undelivered security.
14.
Obsolete . failure as to performance, occurrence, etc.
—Idiom
15.
without fail, with certainty; positively: I will visit you tomorrow without fail.

Maybe next time actually know what you are talking about before speaking up?

*Spelling Nazi alert*

You meant paring, not pairing.

Hurt: 1. to cause bodily injury to; injure. 2. to cause bodily pain to or in. [...]

You are assuming definition #2. They are using definition #1, which does not imply pain.

(they were very discrete)

They were separate and distinct? You do mean "discreet", yes?

(they were very discrete)

They were separate and distinct? You do mean "discreet", yes?

Ok, I hate the grammar police as much as the next guy but you seriously need to look up the definitions of effect and affect. You managed to use them both incorrectly in your post. I'll give you a pass on one, but not two.

Ok, I hate the grammar police as much as the next guy but you seriously need to look up the definitions of effect and affect. You managed to use them both incorrectly in your post. I'll give you a pass on one, but not two.

Psst! I'm sure you feel superior and all, but making up words like that actually comes across as ignorant and pretentious.

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

        -dZ.

See, I also said the bolded part, which you cut out of your reply.

I cut it because it wasn't relevant. Your assertion that my definition of attacking the messenger is non standard is irrelevant to the fact that you didn't indicate any actual attack on the messenger that I had made, standard or not. And you still haven't pointed out one. It makes me think you figured out you were wrong and decided to just play rhetorical games to run and hide from the facts.

This (and the direction your posts slant in) suggests to me that you inhabit a fantasy world where Republicans are evil and Democrats can do no wrong. You're too far gone, but I want to make sure others reading the topic know how wrong you are.

You've pointed out nothing that indicates any errors on my part. Not for IDs, not for usage of "cite" and not for usage of "ad hominem." I am not a Democrat, and have said nothing positive about them, so for you to assert that I think they can do no wrong indicates that you aren't reading what I write, but instead reading what you think I'm thinking based on what I'm writing, and they vomiting unrelated words out to the Internet because they make you feel better, even if unrelated to the topic at hand.

This is the only reason I replied, because I'd like /.ers to not make this error.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/cite It's not an error. It may not be your preferred usage, but that doesn't make it an error. In fact, I deliberately used it as I did there, not by error, but because of the homonym with 'site' because the citation was to a site.

Orion's cock is really his sword? Makes sense, did you know what "scabbard" is in Latin? See -> here <-

Perhaps he was just verbing a noun?

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

No, the crappy motor in the lawn mower is real and tangible. It's not heartbreaking though, the strawman is quite sad. Starving Ethiopians are not tangible.

Actually, I bet they are very tangible*. They're just not sitting right beside you, so it's harder to get worked up about them and therefore harder to get the kids involved in fundraising for them. Whereas that lawn mower is breaking the planet, so mommy and daddy should absolutely go out and buy an eco-certified one right now. And by the way, kids, here's a handy list of eco-friendly lawn equipment suppliers to show your parents...

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

Indeed. I was going to mention that 'hack' has two or three definitions now days, but upon looking at dictionary.com, it appears there are *twenty three* known uses of the word! And another 15 if you consider the definitions of 'hack' that are derived from 'hackney', and yet another 6 if you consider the definitions of 'hack' that are derived from 'hatch'. With 40 variations of 'hack' currently in use, I think the English language will survive if we add one more, related to 'cracking'.

7a. Computers . to devise or modify (a computer program), usually skillfully.
7b. Computers . to break into, illegally




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

–verb (used with object)
1. to cut, notch, slice, chop, or sever (something) with or as with heavy, irregular blows (often followed by up or down ): to hack meat; to hack down trees.
2. to break up the surface of (the ground).
3. to clear (a road, path, etc.) by cutting away vines, trees, brush, or the like: They hacked a trail through the jungle.
4. to damage or injure by crude, harsh, or insensitive treatment; mutilate; mangle: The editor hacked the story to bits.
5. to reduce or cut ruthlessly; trim: The Senate hacked the budget severely before returning it to the house.
6. Slang . to deal or cope with; handle: He can't hack all this commuting.
7. Computers . to devise or modify (a computer program), usually skillfully.
8. Basketball . to strike the arm of (an opposing ball handler): He got a penalty for hacking the shooter.
9. British . to kick or kick at the shins of (an opposing player) in Rugby football.
10. South Midland and Southern U.S. to embarrass, annoy, or disconcert.

–verb (used without object)
11. to make rough cuts or notches; deal cutting blows.
12. to cough harshly, usually in short and repeated spasms.
13. Tennis .
a. to take a poor, ineffective, or awkward swing at the ball.
b. to play tennis at a mediocre level.
14. British . to kick or kick at an opponent's shins in Rugby football.

–noun
15. a cut, gash, or notch.
16. a tool, as an ax, hoe, or pick, for hacking.
17. an act or instance of hacking; a cutting blow.
18. a short, rasping dry cough.
19. a hesitation in speech.
20. Curling . an indentation made in the ice at the foot score, for supporting the foot in delivering the stone.
21. British . a gash in the skin produced by a kick, as in Rugby football.

—Verb phrase
22. hack around, Slang . to pass the time idly; indulge in idle talk.

—Idiom
23. hack it, Slang . to handle or cope with a situation or an assignment adequately and calmly: The new recruit just can't hack it.

Can photo be used as a verb? Not according to online sources.

Apparently this word goes back to at least 1874 http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Irregardless

Things like "god bless" and "he's in a better place" are just like "gesundheit" for sneezing.

No, they're not the same thing; gesundheit is used to wish good health. That's why, as an atheist, I feel comfortable saying it instead of "bless you". It may be pointless, but it's also considered rude not to respond to someone sneezing.

As for non-believer responses to someone dying, you can with some certainty say that the person will not suffer anymore.

Not gay at all? Metrosexuals are, by definition, straight.

Without Manning - the accused - there would be no story and the event of PBS getting hacked wouldn't have happened. Trying to put blinders on the conversation: "Only look at this event, not it's causes" is short-sighted and disingenuous.

I still got one of these.

I beg to differ.

Origin: 1535–45; ( Middle French ) Medieval Latin devolution - (stem of devolutio) a rolling down, equivalent to Latin devolut( us ) rolled down (past participle of devolvere; see devolve) + -ion-

Not only is it a word meaning "to roll down" or "roll back" dating back almost 500 years, it can also mean to de-evolve. This is not a word has been made up recently as an opposite to evolution in the Darwinian sense.

Sources here and here.

There are multiple accepted spellings of http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/archeology

No, archaeology is the only correct UK/British spelling, I assume archeology is the US version.

There are multiple accepted spellings of http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/archeology

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

Moreover, I'll warrant that "incentivize" is the more common parlance.

not affecting the majority does not imply not screwing the userbase

Yes it does.

Customers are not only the majority slice.

No, but the customer base is. Hence the term base, as in the most substantial part; not the fringe elements or corner cases.

Actually the userbase is all of the users.

  http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/user+base

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

The phantom tracking software is just waiting to get you.

"Compute" has been a noun since the 16th century. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/compute

trial is still worth holding, or if the case is now moot.

Not to be too pedantic but I can't help myself: the question is actually whether the case is no longer moot. Moot means debatable. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/moot

Altruism (noun): The principle or practice of unselfish concern for or devotion to the welfare of others - dictionary.reference.com

According to the strict definition, I don't think any theory of evolution could ever explain true altruism, because for altruism in it's pure definition, there simply is no reason. If it has a personal reason, then it is, by definition, not altruism.

Now that's out of the way, there are a number of ways that the less-strict form of altruism (let's call it 'altruistic behavior' rather) would be able to evolve. Firstly, as mentioned in TFA (yes, I skimmed it.. there were only 2 comments at the time) - it makes sense to exhibit altruistic behavior if it improves the odds of your immediate relatives to survive, thereby carrying on part your genes. The more genes your share, the closer the relative, and the more likely you are to care 'selflessly' for them.

But in humans, carrying over genes is not the only reason. There is also the matter of respect, and trustworthiness. In order to convince your allies that you are trustworthy and 'good', you would exhibit selfless acts, with no expectation of return from the person concerned, but definite returns from those you know. By always tipping waiters more than required (selfless by any means), your partner sees your selflessness and gains trust in you. Business partners sees this and are more likely to trust you in business ventures. This all improves your chances of reproduction and survival.

all this is made possible by our fantastic ability to remember and build mental models of specific individuals and relationships, keep tabs on how others acted in the past, and spread the word of any 'egotistic' act to other members of society by means of language. Anyone who is /not/ altruistic (at least as far as others perceives it), is therefore placing himself in distrust, and a disadvantage for carrying over his genes.

So no, it's not much of a surprise that altruistic behavior evolves in robots with a built-in desire to spread their own genes. But it still is pretty damn cool.

Belief requires no proof, I will never accept your redefinition of it, nor should anyone else. You certainly may follow whatever religion you choose. In the U.S., our First Amendment rights allow you to follow your beliefs freely. And the Declaration of Independence plainly states, that your rights come from our Creator, Kind of ironic. You may even believe there is no god OR that there are cosmic unicorns, neither of which would require proof to be a religion. In fact, if there were hard evidence of unicorns we could state categorically that no belief in them is necessary.

Belief is required in religion, proof is required by science. These concepts DO NOT cross over no matter how much you wish them to.

90+ percent of the Forefathers believed in the Bible and were Christians. Thomas Jefferson carried the words of Christ in his pocket through out his adult life. He considered them the purist teachings of Christianity. Funny you should bring him up.

Christianity was our moral foundation which is why Congress ordered Bibles printed and distributed to Americans twice, Congress always opened with prayer, and church services were held in the Congress building on Sundays up until the Civil War Reconstruction. It is our American heritage.

I was curious as to whether bi-annual would actually mean every two years. Apparently it can mean either, but semiannual and biennial specify six month and two year periods respectively. Amusingly to sad bastards like myself, this means both the regular and LTS releases are biannual.

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

Follow-up: Enlive is in the dictionary:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/enlive
n*live"\, v. t. [Pref. en- + live, a.] To enliven

OOPS, hit submit too soon.

A gimp is someone with a bad, or "gimpy", leg. The word and that definition is way older than I am; I've heard it all of my 59 years. Look up GIMP you find the Gnu Image Manipulation Program with a link to "disambuigation" that lists your BSOM; and I'd bet money that the sex term is newer than the Gnu IMP. Also, I notice that wikipedia doesn't mention the now-politically incorrect original meaning of "gimp".

Gimp

You don't watch Monty Python? They used the slang dictionary useage in the skit that starts out with men in a rowboat and one asks "How long is it?" one of the sailors is to be eaten and the response is "ugh, with a gimpy leg?"

Also, there are some fairly gimpy mathematics."

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

Why? It's a perfectly valid word (at least when spelled correctly).

Great comment, however it's an interesting mix you've got going there...

"you're" = "you are"

"your" = "form of the possessive case of "you" used as an attributive adjective" (Source: dictionary.reference.com) e.g. "your server", "your safety", "your smoking jacket"

and to round things out, "yore" = days of old mi hearties aharrrr

If you are a US citizen then you would not have a country to call home if it where not for these "bad" people in history. The founding fathers of this country were traitors.

Not quite. The founding fathers were rebels. They didn't pretend to hold the kings country dear then work to destroy it. Instead, they rebelled. There is a huge difference there.

Traitors are now and have always been necessary for countering governmental corruption. We would be a much better country, and world for that matter, if more people had the courage to be traitors.

You obviously do no know what a traitor is and do not know what you are talking about. The soviets got Nukes because of traitors that think like you. Was the cold war and military buildup something that made this country better?

Most people who have been labeled hero's in history were also traitors.

Look up the definition of traitor then name a few. I bet they do not fit that definition.

So your statement that "a traitor is simply bad all the way around" does not seem to hold true over the course of time.

It certainly does when you have a dictionary at your disposal. The key defining word there would be betray.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/betray
â"verb (used with object)
1.
to deliver or expose to an enemy by treachery or disloyalty: Benedict Arnold betrayed his country.
2.
to be unfaithful in guarding, maintaining, or fulfilling: to betray a trust.
3.
to disappoint the hopes or expectations of; be disloyal to: to betray one's friends.
4.
to reveal or disclose in violation of confidence: to betray a secret.
5.
to reveal unconsciously (something one would preferably conceal): Her nervousness betrays her insecurity.
6.
to show or exhibit; reveal; disclose: an unfeeling remark that betrays his lack of concern.
7.
to deceive, misguide, or corrupt: a young lawyer betrayed by political ambitions into irreparable folly.
8.
to seduce and desert.

A revolutionist, rebel, or separatist does not betray. They abandon maybe but not betray.

If Manning is the person that revealed this information, then he has already be responsible for more democratic change than any US official in history (with the possible exception of the founding fathers).

He also deserves the punishment to the fullest extent of the law. You see, unlike the heros you pretend he is akin to, Manning did still pretend to be loyal to the country he rebelled from. There are plenty of legal ways to create change without being a traitor. That's one of the key foundations of a democracy and the separation of powers.

Thank you for elevating the level of discussion.

The point is that before yesterday's press conference, whenever the NISA mentioned Chernobyl, they said that Fukushima was not comparable to it. The (scant) numbers they provided on the total amount of leaked radioactivity were many orders of magnitude lower than the Chernobyl release. Now they have revised their estimate upward by many orders of magnitude to 10% of the Chernobyl release which is why they spent most of the press conference comparing and contrasting Fukushima with Chernobyl.

The headline of the Japan Times Online was:

Fukushima crisis now at Chernobyl level.

Are they stupid anti-nuclear scare-mongering idiots too? Whether you like it or not, whether it suits your agenda or not, the big news in Japan right now is that for the first time since the accident the NISA is comparing Fukushima to Chernobyl even though the damage caused by the Fukushima accident is, so far, much less.

Calling me a stupid pedant for using words as they are defined is rather ridiculous. If your definition of the word differs from what is in the dictionary, that's fine. Just say so and we can be done with it. It doesn't necessarily mean you are stupid. Likewise, I'm not stupid just because the definition I use happens to agree with definition in the dictionary.

I've spent over a week reporting the news about Fukushima I have gotten from the Japanese media before it trickles into the Western press, often delayed and garbled. For my efforts I've been called a stupid know-nothing idiot by people who have preconceptions that don't match the news I'm reporting.

No, the money spent on military contractors is much more likely to be spent on foreign imported products and labor, rather than spent immediately in the economy on groceries and local sales clerks as social programmes are.

As has been demonstrated by you Republicans for generation after generation, cutting money to poor people is more certain to create a recession than is cutting military spending. That's why we're in the worst recession ever, despite the most spending on military programmes ever. Even the most overwhelming evidence cannot convince you Anonymous Teabagger Cowards to talk straight.

BTW, "programme" is a proper English spelling, that's distinguishable from the "program" that means "software". But I guess it's too "French" for you Teabaggers or something.

Faith is defined as trust in something (or someone).

Before you make up a definition, you could look it up:

• religion: a strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny;
• complete confidence in a person or plan etc;
• religion: an institution to express belief in a divine power;
• loyalty or allegiance to a cause or a person;

Or how about this one:

• 1. confidence or trust in a person or thing
• 2. belief that is not based on proof
• 3. belief in god or in the doctrines or teachings of religion
• 4. belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.

...and so on.

There are multiple distinct definitions here. I was wrong to say that it isn't "faith" by any definition, but the definitions here are talking about entirely different things. Take the above list -- do you really think definition 1 is talking about the same thing as definition 2?

Religion is a subset of all things in which one can have faith.

But is that faith based on definition 2 or definition 1? If it's definition 2 faith, we need some evidence that religion actually works, that it actually is the truth, and that we can rely on it for, well, anything.

If it's definition 1 faith, then that's not the same thing at all, as I hope I've already demonstrated: My trust (or "faith" if you insist) in science is based on evidence, including the repeatable test I outlined for exploring and testing the veracity of and support for scientific claims.

Saying you don't understand, nor is it possible for you to understand, all aspects of science, thus you must take some of it on faith (in the scientific method and the people that are applying it) has absolutely nothing to do with religion.

I think we agree on this much, but the problem is when people make an equivocation fallacy and want to say that my "faith" in science is of exactly the same sort as their own religious faith. This article, and many commenters here, present exactly this fallacy, in a form which ultimately boils down to "We all have faith, you have faith in science and I have faith in God, therefore religion is at least as valid as science."

It's the same sort of problem as saying that evolution is "just a theory."

By whose definition?:

Well, by your definition actually:
2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.

-1 intellectually dishonest.

Pug

The first definition of faith at dictionary.com: confidence or trust in a person or thing. You're arguing that two synonyms don't mean the same thing. You can "disagree" all you want and make up your own meaning for words... but that doesn't change the facts.

So while you need to defer to other people in almost every part of your life, I don't think this qualifies as "faith". Do you "believe" in your CPA, or do you trust him enough to let him do your taxes for you because of his track record and reputation? Do you "believe" in your auto mechanic, or do you just trust that he won't screw up your brakes because of his track record and reputation? IMHO there is a big difference.

First definition of faith (from dictionary.com): n. confidence or trust in a person or thing.

As far as I can tell, you're arguing that two synonyms don't mean the same thing. Unless you are an expert in every possible area of study and accomplishment in the world... you have to believe/trust/have faith that other people know what they're doing and talking about... because you can't specialize in everything on earth.