Slashdot Mirror

I will not publish a stupid comment until I look stuff up.

Dictionaries have always described language, and never prescribed it. Words exist if and only if people use them to encode memes that can be decoded by others. Sad to say, even "aint" is a word, and the most that you can claim is that it's a "lowbrow" word, or some such elitist sentiment. The good news, though, is that you are free to invent words, and your only barrier to making them "real" is getting someone else to adopt them.

Regardless, it's not just wordnet that recognizes "ironical", so you'll have to do better even if you insist on the same rhetorical strategy.

I know your post was a intended as sarcasm but I just wanted to point out something, how come Americans use the word "liberal" as though it meant supremely biased people, when if you look it up in the dictionary, the word liberal means "free of bigotry", and "tolerant of the ideas and behaviour of others". Why so is it usually used as and insult by most Republican supporting Americans in the U.S. as an insult? Being outside of the U.S., I am a little confused.

But if you look it up here, you'll find that it is a word, indeed and perhaps you'll agree with him on that count, too.

I think unpredictable is synonymous with random

I think unpredictable is synonymous with random

I think unpredictable is synonymous with random

I think unpredictable is synonymous with random

I think unpredictable is synonymous with random

I think unpredictable is synonymous with random

I think unpredictable is synonymous with random

"Virii" isn't a real word.

Sorry to spoil your fun.

I think you meant pored.

But to explain further, the GPL pretty much grants one the right to make copies, and the only condition is that, if you alter the source, you are requested to contribute your alterations.

That, unto itself, is a copyright license - it grants the right to copy to whoever uses the product licensed under such.

But it is not a copywrite.

This explains copyright.,p> This explains what a copywriter does, which is write copy. Copywrite is what a copywriter does, and it's broadcast radio jargon. You can copyright a copywrite, and copywrite a copyright, bu they are not interchangeable.

Maybe you mean anything that satisfies the standard definition of human: "bipedal primate having language and ability to make and use complex tools; brain 1400 cc?" Fetuses possess neither language, complex toolmaking ability, or a 1400cc brain. They're not bipedal upon fertilization. Where's your distinction?

Yes they did. A hybrid is "2a) Something of mixed origin or composition."

Words have more than one definition. We talk about hybrid cars without dorks saying the cars can't be hybrid because they aren't "1) The offspring of genetically dissimilar parents or stock".

--
me

I've studied atmospheric phenomena for many years and I have yet to see bird contrails.

Perhaps the word you are looking for is this.

Although, I admit that bird contrails would be an interesting sight. =)

I've studied atmospheric phenomena for many years and I have yet to see bird contrails.

Perhaps the word you are looking for is this.

Although, I admit that bird contrails would be an interesting sight. =)

Check debCONF for the birthday party nerest you!

That would be nearest, presumably?

walla

voila

For some reason, when people get this one wrong, it really annoys me...

Todd

walla

voila

For some reason, when people get this one wrong, it really annoys me...

Todd

Not only have I neither read the original article nor the summary, but I have not read the parent post. I can unequivocally say that the parent poster is wrong, however.

Actually, thats copied exactly from here.

From Dictionary.com, Than is used to compare or contrast things, as in "He is a lot smaller than his older brother." Then refers to time or consequence: "And the Canaanite was then in the land" (Gen. xii. 6.); "If all this be so, then man has a natural freedom" (Locke).

So if one thing follows or results from another, use then.

Than is also used before a pronoun, as in "Paul loves pizza more than me."

I found this review to be lacking in content. It doesn't discuss the content of the book to any extent; instead it talks about how it got him a job promotion to UNIX Engineer. How did it do this? What did you learn from the book that gave you such an additional skillset to be promoted to UNIX Engineer? What are the differences between the UNIX Administrator and the UNIX Engineer you are referring to?

I am constantly amazed at Unix books that are mostly printed man files, and things that can easily be googled. This book explains with great precision why Unix is the way it is, and what separates it from other OS paradigms.

I've not found any books that are mostly printed man pages. Nor have I found any circumstances where the man pages don't cover things I need to know. In any case, what parts of UNIX does it explain? Is it explaining Linux or UNIX? What OS "paradigms" are you referring to? You are going by this definition aren't you?

I realized the importance of this book after reading it, and being forced to do interviews for a Unix Engineer at my office.

What importance did you realize this book serving after you had read it? Are you sure this gave you applicable knowledge to separate "UNIX Administrators" from "UNIX Engineers"? What is the difference here?

Although I appreciate any book that loosens the RFC style nature of so many technical books, sometimes it can go a little too far.

Why? If it's discussing that you need to know an RFC to understand why something works the way it does (you've stated that this book talks more about the why than how), how does it make it "not-so-good"?

So, depending on your threshold for python-esque puns or corny Elvis jokes, the book may not be for you...

Do the few puns in the book really take that much of the quality away?

I don't think that this book should be re-read from time to time. I think new editions should be published as UNIX and Linux continue to evolve in their own separate directions (yes, they're going in somewhat separate directions).

Your listing of the TOC didn't give me any idea about what was covered? WTF is "Now THAT'S Leverage" about? What "Lesser Tenants" are being referred to? What "One Thing" does UNIX do well?

You've left me with more questions about this book than I would have had otherwise. Please try to do a more thorough review next time.

And, to get on a technicality that will probably cost me this comment as a Troll, Linux IS NOT THE NEW FACE OF UNIX. Most distributions also don't even come close to being something that would compare to a UNIX certified system.

Finally, please excuse my harshness. I just feel you could have done a better, much more descriptive job. Don't take it personally.

A vaccine is not something that stimulates the immune system with antigens, but rather an administration of pathogens which enable the immune system to deal with the illness. I invite you to look at the definition as defined at Dictionary.com.

A true HIV vaccine would be given to individuals so that if they were to be exposed to HIV, their bodies would be able to fight off the virus.

You can't generalize about people. Though that's a generalization, isn't it?

It works well when there are separations between the markets, either geographical or informational.

It worked best in the pre-telegraph days when, for example, you could buy spices in the the East Indies for a bag of nails and sell them for their weight in gold in Amsterdan

On the internet arbitrage is at best a short term play, because information moves so fast.

tyre ( P ) Pronunciation Key (tr)
n. Chiefly British

Variant of tire2.

Found here

Not necessarily

Not necessarily

Which one? Dictionary.com? Merriam-Webster? The American Heritage? The Oxford English Dictionary? I can't find it.

flavor vs. flavour.
Next!

flavor vs. flavour.
Next!

His jaw literally dropped....

Did he pick it up?

Also... by using aggression (e.g. profanity) makes you seem very accepting to others opinions, which is probably why people hammer you down.

Nope, it's definitely there - I checked. Now who looks stupid..?

FYI, that would be "by-and-large"

euphemism n. The act or an example of substituting a mild, indirect, or vague term for one considered harsh, blunt, or offensive: "Euphemisms such as 'slumber room'... abound in the funeral business" (Jessica Mitford).

Look it up yourself

-uso.

What is actually being referred to is a reprint or collection book, no matter what size and type of cover. As we're talking about the previous issues of a comic, we're also not talking about the special stories which are only released in book form. ...and with some comics, you have to figure out which universe's story you want to begin with.

Sir, I suggest you look up facetious in the dictionary.

If I were you, I'd learn to distinguish between stupid and unknowledgeable. Those links should help you to distinguish between lack of knowledge and lack of intelligence.

If I were you, I'd learn to distinguish between stupid and unknowledgeable. Those links should help you to distinguish between lack of knowledge and lack of intelligence.

There's no such thing as intellectual property. There's copyright law, trademark law, and patent law.

I would suggest refining that argument. "Intellectual Property" is widely understood. The American Heritage Dictionary includes a definition. In practice, intellectual property means "copyright, trademark, patents, and trade secrets." Arguing that it doesn't exist is going to get you ignored by some people and will waste your time playing word games with other.

Now, just because it exists doesn't mean it's a good term. As you point out, it does confuse multiple extremely different areas of law. Use of the term encourages sloppy thinking and the sort of confusion that leads to incorrect statements like "You must defend your patents, or you lose them." That's the meat of your argument, and it's a good argument. Stick to it.

OMFG, "masoquism"? I assume you meant masochism. Did you really believe for a second that's how it's spelled?!

per dictionary.com:

unsubstantiated allegation adj: 1. unsupported by evidence; 2. a claim made by a Republican U.S. Senator or by a UNIX vendor by the name of SCO, characterized by detailed fantasy, delusions and self-importance absent material foundation [syn: uncorroborated nonsense].

It's most likely a typo for "psyched", which the American Heritage dictionary defines as "excite[d] emotionally".

Youve used the UN version of the word. Ive used the literal. I have also been referring to the continued use of the word 'terrorist' by the North American media as if the person is a seperate species entirely.

Youre points are still interesting and informed.

Intimidation is not in and of itself terrorism

Organizations intimidate civilians for various purposes. This is most likely to subjugate the population or drive them out in an exhodus such as the intimidation of Chinese in Indonesia. Intimidation to subjugate has been used in Pakistan by the Sippah e Sahaba on Shias to impose their control. They are both examples of 'terrorizing' in the literal sense. I'm not sure but they might also be terrorizing in the Geneva Conventions definition.

The US campaigns you mentioned were overwhelmingly aimed at enemy combattants

I'm pretty sure of disagreements of facts now. I can point out the enormous 'increase' of 'mistakes' of bombing in Afghanistan in which Pashtun civilians in the south were killed. Same pretty much seems to be true of the Tikrit region in Iraq these days, although I'm not as sure of that as in Afghanistan. The USSR's fear tactics in Afghanistan are well documented about pouring chemicals in hiding places, summary executions of all males in many villages and other 'terrorizing' ways.

little used deliberately against civillians

You are admitting here terrorism was carried out. I'm not as informed about Iraq as an Iraqi but I assure you the Soviet terrorism against civilians was not 'little'. We're talking about hundereds of thousands (conservative numbers) of civilians directly killed.

You're drawing lines where there are none. Al Qaeda's express aim is to deliberately target American civillians

The line is between deliberately targetting civilians and supporting them for another reason. The Taliban claimed to be harbouring for other reasons, but that makes their definition of terrorists on this basis fuzzy. They were surely terrorists for doing unto Afghans what Al Qaeda tried with America. Religious relations are strong in Afghanistan and there are high moral principles on protecting guests, especially from other 'terrorists'. I'm only showing the facts as presented by the Taliban in their defence which were somewhat valid. I doubt they really had any such moral principles driving them.

"They were terrorists because they terrorized Afghans."

No, they were terrorists because they systematicly slaughtered Afghan civillians

I dont see the difference.

Some dictionary definitions link up terrorism with intimidation and the 9/11 attacks were exactly that. Currently in the events and by republican spokespeople, the word along with the rest like evildoers, WMD and freedom has been changed in definition. A terrorist is now a bearded muslim who supports the idea of a religious government in muslim countries. This isnt too different from the witch-hunt against the commies a few decades ago, who possibly were sincere to their own countries but not the form of government. I am hoping this word is longer used as a slapped label to assist the frenzy of the witch-hunt, which itself has gone against the Geneva Convention in many ways.

It is a word. Equivalent to "lit" but carries more weight depending on context. Here ya go.