Slashdot Mirror

Joy and suffering are the underlying factors. I would not say they are ignored by Greenspan, but professionally he deals with a higher level goal. Specifically, maximizing economic growth is the objective defined by Greenspan's job. It is unfair to assume he will or is expected to pursue this objective at all costs.

While a fast-growing economy may not guarantee a "best society", the converse is not true either. A pragmatic approach might come to the conclusion that a fast growing economy in general leads to a better society, and is thus a worthy goal.

I hope that attempted explanation makes sense. I am off to go look up the definition of apoplectic now.

Ok, I am not angry or furious, I promise. ;)

police state
n.

A state in which the government exercises rigid and repressive controls over the social, economic, and political life of the people, especially by means of a secret police force.

It only takes as long to "coin the meaning of a new term" as it takes you to think of a term, and think of a meaning. Voila! It's coined. Whether it becomes an accepted part of the language is another thing entirely.

"Second Superpower" was a term apparently invented a month or two ago, and spread rapidly throughout certain communities. I'd never heard it myself until I saw this article, but then there's a lot of words I don't know. (Anyone who thinks ve knows all words, is deluding verself.) The author is not saying that Google defines the word or provides a usage for it -- you didn't read the article, did you? -- but rather that the usage of the term was coopted by Google (probably accidentally), because of the placement of a particular article high in the search results for that term. Moore's usage of the term is now more prevalent, according to Google, than the original usage.

Phrases like "Second Superpower" come and go all the time. Remember "Family Values"? Remember "Mistakes were made"? Neither of those have left English entirely, but they are certainly far less prevalent than they were before. Language is a very fluid thing; it is not defined by dictionaries any more than the species of birds are defined by books on ornithology. The key phrase to remember is, "Dictionaries give usages, not definitions" (see this article and this article).

The reference given above for 'decimate' says:

Today this meaning is commonly extended to include the killing of any large proportion of a group. Sixty-six percent of the Usage Panel accepts this extension...

But I don't see that this Usage Panel is necessarily the final arbiter, unless it is drawn from people who are likely to be knowledgeable about words. If it is just a random cross-section of the English-speaking public, then there would be no point in having dictionaries.

Words are determined by usage, yes, but when there are two different usages and one is almost the opposite of the other I think it is reasonable to argue in favour of the 'correct' one, which is often the older meaning.

I think you are dumb!

I think you are dumb!

I think you are dumb!

I think you are dumb!

I think you are dumb!

Ok, I'm going to reply piece-by-piece.

All he said was that sun exposure may be linked with sexual drive and that obesity lowers charisma.
No, this is not what he said at all. First, he wasn't saying that there was a link between sun exposure and sexual drive - he stated that the relationship was cause-and-effect. There's an absolutely enormous difference between the two, but I don't think I need to point that out. Second, his point about being fat was that it decreased ambition and drive to work, but increased sexual drive. Not quite the same as lowered charisma (what is this, D&D? Charisma is personal magnetism and enthusiastic devotion - it's what Jesus had).

The former was a valid speculation based on statistical evidence
You lost me here. What statistical evidence? His supporting evidence to show that thin people are unhappy but ambitious was a slide of a sad-faced Kate Moss. What the hell does that prove? The scientific method is spinning in its grave.

the latter is obvious to anyone even though nobody wants to admit it openly
I don't think you got the latter quite right, but that's besides the point. There have been lots of studies done on obesity - both sociological and biological, covering mental, physical, and social health. It's well-worn territory. Watson was in essence stating his opinion on the matter, and passing it off as scientific research.

And so what if he showed some pictures of scantily clad women to illustrate his point?
This isn't Human Nature science. He was trying to contrast these pictures with pictures of Muslim women to show sexual drive. I'm surprised if you can't see why this would be offensive. Over and over again, his claims are nothing more than assumptions based on racial and cultural stereotypes.

If scantily clad pictures were demeaning to women, bikinis would not have been all that popular. Nobody is forcing women to dress sexy; they dress sexy because they want to, and to suggest otherwise is indeed sexist.
Your logic here is flawed and doesn't have much, if anything, to do with the Watson talk. You're assuming that women, in general, would never do something that's demeaning and so therefore anything that they do do is perfectly ok. This is totally untrue. Just because somebody does something (like wear a bikini) that doesn't mean that they don't also feel demeaned by it. And just because one woman feels completely comfortable wearing bikinis (even though men almost never wear the man-equivalent - a speedo), it doesn't mean that another woman won't feel objectified.

Getting more and more off-topic, you said that nobody is forcing women to dress sexy. Look around you! Watch some TV! Read some Cosmo, for crying out loud. There are societal pressures everywhere for women to look like supermodels, behave like a good girl, and have the sexual drive and experience of a porn star (but only for pleasing their man, not themselves). When somebody wants to do things that they otherwise find demeaning, they've accepted and internalized the idea that those demeaning actions are the norm. That is, they repress their own feelings of being uncomfortable until they can't feel it anymore. It's learned behavior. According to your logic, as long as something is popular, there's nothing wrong with it because lots of people are doing it. Majority always rules. The free market is always right. So does that apply to everybody? How about other countries and cultures? To apply the logic to a more obvious and extreme example, how about countries where women are stoned to death for being seen with a man who isn't a relation? The other women also throw stones, so it must be ok - they've chosen it.

Back on topic - Watson's talk is entirely based on racial and cultural stereotypes. He presented no scientific basis whatsoever for his claims. While he undoubtedly has made contributions to science in the past (DNA, human genome project), as far as I'm concerned he hasn't made much of a contribution as a human being.

Ellison was probably not aware of this (somewhat uncommon) word, and was probably intending "decimate" as a backformation from the adjective "decimated" (which means roughly the same thing as anihilated or eradicated).

This is a much more common usage in practice, and thesaurus.com seems to agree with it.

That said, a prediction to the effect that Windows will be anihilated or eradicated by Linux is grossly premature; I believe several major distros are ready for the desktop and will shortly begin to cut into Windows' market share (in a more tangible way than they have to date -- i.e., people besides utter geeks (e.g., myself) will be involved), but Windows is not going away for the forseeable future. The literal meaning of "decimate" might actually be closer to reality. Even if a supermajor OEM like HP were to start shipping OSS-based systems exclusively as of next week, it would still be a decade before Windows would even lose its market majority, much less cease to be profitable for Microsoft.

Ellison is full of hot air as usual. He's more likely to be made irrelevant by PostgreSQL and MySQL than Microsoft is by Linux and OO (both of which I use myself, BTW, so no whining about FUD).

Then there's what he said about IIS, which is so stupid it doesn't really even deserve a response. Market dominance? /me is incredulous.

Really?

Actually, according to most dictionaries, that's no longer the only acceptable meaning. In fact, many list the original, literal meaning as a secondary definition, not the primary one.

Language, like software, evolves. :-)

It's *WRONG* to say 'disorientate'. It's not a word people, puh-lease!!!

'Decimate' means to reduce by one-tenth.

Decimate derives from a Latin word that refers to a Roman military punishment (for running away from battle, not mutiny) where one in every ten soldiers were chosen by lot for execution. But words change over the years, and using "decimate" to indicate serious destruction is perfectly valid. Or do you also object to people who use the word "senator" to refer to an elected government official, when we all know that senators were about the only Roman Republic officials who weren't elected. And don't get me started on Asia -- do you really believe the Romans were talking about China when they named their little province in western Anatolia? I'm always correcting people on this. Fools.

Actually, according to the dictionary link provided by JaredOfEuropa, the original meaning referred to a Roman punishment for mutinous legions, in which every tenth man was killed. The original meaning would therefore be to reduce by 10%.

I didn't know this myself. I thought it meant reduce to 10% until I read the link. But then I'd have checked that I was right before calling a complete stranger an utter twat.

Uh, it does actually. May I refer you to these dictionaries?

Since you already seem to have a dictionary, I suggest you use it next time.

Uh...Are you surprized that you're such an idiot? We surely aren't.

to paraphrase Pink Floyd, "Mother, should I trust the government?"

And, not to add insult to injury, that was a quote, not a paraphrase. Perhaps if paraphrased it would have better fit with the context of the story.

to paraphrase Pink Floyd, "Mother, should I trust the government?"

And, not to add insult to injury, that was a quote, not a paraphrase. Perhaps if paraphrased it would have better fit with the context of the story.

I would think that LSD or a similar psychotropic substance would be better for the introduction of chaos.

antibody ( P ) Pronunciation Key (nt-bd)
n. pl. antibodies

A Y-shaped protein on the surface of B cells that is secreted into the blood or lymph in response to an antigenic stimulus, such as a bacterium, virus, parasite, or transplanted organ, and that neutralizes the antigen by binding specifically to it; an immunoglobulin.

antibiotic ( P ) Pronunciation Key (nt-b-tk, nt-)
n.
A substance, such as penicillin or streptomycin, produced by or derived from certain fungi, bacteria, and other organisms, that can destroy or inhibit the growth of other microorganisms. Antibiotics are widely used in the prevention and treatment of infectious diseases.

antibody ( P ) Pronunciation Key (nt-bd)
n. pl. antibodies

A Y-shaped protein on the surface of B cells that is secreted into the blood or lymph in response to an antigenic stimulus, such as a bacterium, virus, parasite, or transplanted organ, and that neutralizes the antigen by binding specifically to it; an immunoglobulin.

antibiotic ( P ) Pronunciation Key (nt-b-tk, nt-)
n.
A substance, such as penicillin or streptomycin, produced by or derived from certain fungi, bacteria, and other organisms, that can destroy or inhibit the growth of other microorganisms. Antibiotics are widely used in the prevention and treatment of infectious diseases.

engineering

The application of scientific and mathematical principles to practical ends such as the design, manufacture, and operation of efficient and economical structures, machines, processes, and systems.

Duh.

As a Canadian with a degree in Civil Engineering from the University of Waterloo (Ontario, Canada), I was quite shocked when I first moved to the US and found out you could be a "Sales Engineer" without even needing a high school diploma. WTF is a Sales Engineer anyways. To agree with the poster above, in Canada "Engineer" is a PROFESSIONAL designation, like "Doctor". I very much doubt that this law is making Texas the "laughingstock of the global high-technology community". If anything, it helps prevent the dilution of a professional designation, thereby giving Texas a MORE professional appearance in the marketplace. Dictionary.com defines "engineer" as: 1. One who is trained or professionally engaged in a branch of engineering. 2. One who operates an engine. 3. One who skillfully or shrewdly manages an enterprise. I have a degree in Engineering, and I have my own consulting firm for which I do a lot of "engineering". However, I don't feel that this makes me an engineer any more than having a degree in pre-med would make me a doctor. IMHO "sales engineers" and the like should have their business cards struck by lightning. Just do what I do - go get business cards printed up that say "president" on them, haha :-)

The American Heritage Dictionary defines an engineer as someone who (1) is trained or professionally engaged in a branch of engineering, or who (2) skillfully or shrewdly manages an enterprise. Another definition further down the page says an engineer (3) "uses scientific knowledge to solve practical problems". (I am ignoring definitions revolving around the root word "engine" because they do not apply here.)

In accordance with the second and third definitions, everyone could be an engineer. Most likely, the Texas legislature is using the first definition and is trying to determine exactly what the field of engineering is. Enter AHD:

engineering: 1. The application of scientific and mathematical principles to practical ends such as the design, manufacture, and operation of efficient and economical structures, machines, processes, and systems. 2. The profession of or the work performed by an engineer.

Engineering is mechanical in its roots, having derived from "engine", but insofar as computer technology is the engine of tomorrow, anyone who works in the development of computer technology is an engineer by my understanding of the word. I hope Texas comes to the same conclusion.

p.s.-- Wouldn't this be a decision for the courts, not the legislature?

The American Heritage Dictionary defines an engineer as someone who (1) is trained or professionally engaged in a branch of engineering, or who (2) skillfully or shrewdly manages an enterprise. Another definition further down the page says an engineer (3) "uses scientific knowledge to solve practical problems". (I am ignoring definitions revolving around the root word "engine" because they do not apply here.)

In accordance with the second and third definitions, everyone could be an engineer. Most likely, the Texas legislature is using the first definition and is trying to determine exactly what the field of engineering is. Enter AHD:

engineering: 1. The application of scientific and mathematical principles to practical ends such as the design, manufacture, and operation of efficient and economical structures, machines, processes, and systems. 2. The profession of or the work performed by an engineer.

Engineering is mechanical in its roots, having derived from "engine", but insofar as computer technology is the engine of tomorrow, anyone who works in the development of computer technology is an engineer by my understanding of the word. I hope Texas comes to the same conclusion.

p.s.-- Wouldn't this be a decision for the courts, not the legislature?

The American Heritage Dictionary defines an engineer as someone who (1) is trained or professionally engaged in a branch of engineering, or who (2) skillfully or shrewdly manages an enterprise. Another definition further down the page says an engineer (3) "uses scientific knowledge to solve practical problems". (I am ignoring definitions revolving around the root word "engine" because they do not apply here.)

In accordance with the second and third definitions, everyone could be an engineer. Most likely, the Texas legislature is using the first definition and is trying to determine exactly what the field of engineering is. Enter AHD:

engineering: 1. The application of scientific and mathematical principles to practical ends such as the design, manufacture, and operation of efficient and economical structures, machines, processes, and systems. 2. The profession of or the work performed by an engineer.

Engineering is mechanical in its roots, having derived from "engine", but insofar as computer technology is the engine of tomorrow, anyone who works in the development of computer technology is an engineer by my understanding of the word. I hope Texas comes to the same conclusion.

p.s.-- Wouldn't this be a decision for the courts, not the legislature?

In other words, If you (or someone nearby) has ALREADY purchased an X-Box to play games on, it would be interesting to stop playing games, right? At this time it's hard to count good Linux games. As for *Wine*, it's not stable enough to be used in real life.

By repurpose I meant use for a different purpose, yes - use the X-Box for something other than playing games.

So, paying M$ for Xbox I will help to destroy the evil? Tell me you're kidding. Personally I would rather donate money to some Linux fund or FSF or even better - buy something from ThinkGeek :)

It wasn't my idea, and as I said, I don't recommend it. Speaking of ThinkGeek, it has come to my attention that I need a tie, and their "ties suck" tie would do nicely...

So, the conclusion is that Linux on Xbox at this stage is unreasonable, it's just a research project.

Yes, pretty much. What were you thinking?

This seems like a quibble over the definition of a word (definitely not something worth occupying so much of our time).

I'd like to point out the job title "software engineer". They don't just hand that to anybody.

Secondly, the dictionary definition of engineer (Dictionary.com) states the following:
One who is trained or professionally engaged in a branch of engineering.
One who operates an engine.
One who skillfully or shrewdly manages an enterprise.

These definitions aren't the best, so let's go back to the Latin origins of the word, "ingenium", which means "ability". I think that covers what programmers (especially software engineers) do.

The title engineer can apply to lots of things. You could call a horticulturist a "plant engineer" if you wanted to!

What can I say? I'm a programmer! I'm a software engineer!

-6d

According to dictionary.com, you are partially right. The first definition is actually The quality or state of being sentient; consciousness, which supports my definition, but the second is Feeling as distinguished from perception or thought (which supports your definition).

But being partially right makes you wrong on the idea that the first definition of sentience is a "sci-fi misunderstanding". It's the primary dictionary definition of "sentience", so it's certainly not a misunderstanding.

Daniel

Neither one of those is a good example of the proper use of forte. On the chance that you are not trolling, here is the definition.

No, the US is a phagocyte. It considers the rest of the world to be waste materials or harmful foreign bodies. I can say this with certainty, because I am, embarrassingly enough, an American.

Were I more petit, I'd add "In that, you, sir, are ill-informed."
You did, so I guess you are.

Philips licensed the logo for their use; it's up to Philips to decide if they're in breach of that license agreement.

And Philips has in fact decided to warn the labels about the use of the logo on non-conforming discs.

I dispute the notion that you have the foggiest idea what you're talking about.

The CD-R FAQ, section 2-4, lists the major CD copy protection methods in use. Thus far, I have concentrated on the "static" method, for which I could find the most evidence of potential violation of the Red Book specification.

I also dispute the notion that anything you've said here is even remotely true.

I have presented evidence by linking from my comments to web pages containing evidence. It's your turn to present the flaws in the evidence to which my comments link.

For instance, this web page states: "According to the Red Book standard, the BLER count for a disc must be less than 220. In practice, an average BLER of 50 is more acceptable ... A Burst Error is defined as seven consecutive blocks in which the C1 decoding stage has detected an error [... and] constitutes a Disc Failure." I have presented the evidence; what do you not accept about it?

You are an idiot, therefore nothing you say should be listened to.

"You are a coward, therefore nothing you say should be listened to." See how that sounds?

The onus is then on you to prove that you are not, in fact, an idiot.

What do you think gives me such a burden of proof? I'd guess you don't get along with others well in real life either if you think everybody is an idiot by default.

So far, you've blown it.

id.i.ot n. "A person of profound mental retardation having a mental age below three years and generally being unable to learn connected speech or guard against common dangers" (American Heritage® Dictionary). Given that I have scored 130 on an IQ test and received a B.S. in computer science from a reputable engineering school, I don't see how I match this precise definition of "idiot". If you claim that this definition is in error and that I match some other precise definition of "idiot", please state such a definition, along with why "idiots" under your definition should not be listened to.

doesn't know how to read Google's help page, maybe?

You claimed that Google would phrase enclosed in quotation marks as an exact phrase. Then why does Google's help page state: "Search for complete phrases by enclosing them in quotation marks"?

If you continue to argue without providing evidence against what I have mentioned in this thread, then you are a troll, and I can find all sorts of reasons not to listen to trolls.

I think there's a little miscommunication going on here. Apparently, when someone mentions "rights" to you, your definition isn't inclusive enough that it includes protection from the government. You seem to be equating rights (n. 6a-6b) with freedom .

In this case: We're talking about legal rights (Something that is due to a person or governmental body by law, tradition, or nature) AS protections which were designed to protect citizens corrupt government officials wielding their power unjustly.

Our friend "OneEyedApe" listed the protections (RIGHTS) and freedoms that we lost.

First of all, I'm all for hunting terrorists, and I'm even for the invasion of Iraq. I'm also for the protesting (not their goals, just their protests) as I think I believe they are playing a key part in showing the world that not all Americans are daemons. If it weren't for them, I believe we would truly be having an undeclared holy war much like Israel/Palestine.

You're not talking to a liberal hippie who's just following the crowd chanting anti-corporate ideology. If you check my posting history, you'll see that I'm consistently for free market and free society but most of all I believe that these things can only be achieved by continuing the tradition of limited authority and transparency in government positions.

I understand the government is an integral institution that needs to crack down on organized crime, corruption, terrorism, and everything else that plagues society and prosperity. I also understand that organized crime, corruption, money laundering, and other illegal activity can easily permeate itself WITHEN the institutions which are supposed to protect us from crime and corruption.

Laws, Regulations, and Rights are all subject to circumvention. Criminals, Politicians, and Industry have been circumventing these protections for years. It doesn't necessarily mean politicians and industry is bad (sometimes criminals aren't bad). What it does mean is that we need to give them incentive to keep honest people honest, and make life more difficult for people who wish to not abide by the law.

I suggest you take another look at OneEyedApe's list of lost rights we lost, and then consider how as a criminal, corrupt politician, or lobbyist group could abuse these circumstance.

I invite you to take an active roll researching newspapers for past stories about corrupt politicians, criminal organizations, whistle-blowers, blantent lobbying, and read how they circumvent existing protections, let alone with when the protections are gone.

Having lived in the third-world, where politicians respect rights about as much as you seem to respect them, I can personally attest as to how thier lack of rights and protections from corrupt government officials stagnates any chance for prosperierity.

I thought I would include a brief example of how one MAY lose your rights (There are many ways of taking peoples rights away).

1. Someone finds an exception to the rule. (Pinky inserted into anus)
2. Others test exception, try variations of the exception. (Index finger inserted, followed by Middle finger, and Thumb)
3. People start testing things that appear to be exceptions, which aren't exceptions. (Two fingers)
4. Person discovers form of exception which circumvents the purpose of the rule entirely. (Three fingers)
5. Everybody uses this unique exception. (Anus is fisted and bleeding at this point)

...and that's how the exception becomes the rule...

I understand that many of hippies don't understand the complexity of the situation, but don't throw away this orthodoxy just because they can't explain why it's necessary.

I think there's a little miscommunication going on here. Apparently, when someone mentions "rights" to you, your definition isn't inclusive enough that it includes protection from the government. You seem to be equating rights (n. 6a-6b) with freedom .

In this case: We're talking about legal rights (Something that is due to a person or governmental body by law, tradition, or nature) AS protections which were designed to protect citizens corrupt government officials wielding their power unjustly.

Our friend "OneEyedApe" listed the protections (RIGHTS) and freedoms that we lost.

First of all, I'm all for hunting terrorists, and I'm even for the invasion of Iraq. I'm also for the protesting (not their goals, just their protests) as I think I believe they are playing a key part in showing the world that not all Americans are daemons. If it weren't for them, I believe we would truly be having an undeclared holy war much like Israel/Palestine.

You're not talking to a liberal hippie who's just following the crowd chanting anti-corporate ideology. If you check my posting history, you'll see that I'm consistently for free market and free society but most of all I believe that these things can only be achieved by continuing the tradition of limited authority and transparency in government positions.

I understand the government is an integral institution that needs to crack down on organized crime, corruption, terrorism, and everything else that plagues society and prosperity. I also understand that organized crime, corruption, money laundering, and other illegal activity can easily permeate itself WITHEN the institutions which are supposed to protect us from crime and corruption.

Laws, Regulations, and Rights are all subject to circumvention. Criminals, Politicians, and Industry have been circumventing these protections for years. It doesn't necessarily mean politicians and industry is bad (sometimes criminals aren't bad). What it does mean is that we need to give them incentive to keep honest people honest, and make life more difficult for people who wish to not abide by the law.

I suggest you take another look at OneEyedApe's list of lost rights we lost, and then consider how as a criminal, corrupt politician, or lobbyist group could abuse these circumstance.

I invite you to take an active roll researching newspapers for past stories about corrupt politicians, criminal organizations, whistle-blowers, blantent lobbying, and read how they circumvent existing protections, let alone with when the protections are gone.

Having lived in the third-world, where politicians respect rights about as much as you seem to respect them, I can personally attest as to how thier lack of rights and protections from corrupt government officials stagnates any chance for prosperierity.

I thought I would include a brief example of how one MAY lose your rights (There are many ways of taking peoples rights away).

1. Someone finds an exception to the rule. (Pinky inserted into anus)
2. Others test exception, try variations of the exception. (Index finger inserted, followed by Middle finger, and Thumb)
3. People start testing things that appear to be exceptions, which aren't exceptions. (Two fingers)
4. Person discovers form of exception which circumvents the purpose of the rule entirely. (Three fingers)
5. Everybody uses this unique exception. (Anus is fisted and bleeding at this point)

...and that's how the exception becomes the rule...

I understand that many of hippies don't understand the complexity of the situation, but don't throw away this orthodoxy just because they can't explain why it's necessary.

"Loosing" is a word. It's just not the same word as "losing."

"'Viruses,' Not 'Virii'
Learn more [perl.com]"

STFU, not STFES.

Learn More."

"downloading" is not an infinitive (I'm pretty sure it's not). In English, the infinitive would be "to download".

Yeah, what a bunch of whiners.

Actually, some of them are more like croakers and hissers....

Yeah, what a bunch of whiners.

Actually, some of them are more like croakers and hissers....

Look it up: Dictionary.com definition of order of magnitude

I shall refute this point by point:

>You will notice consistant definitions which are in agreement with the author. Your assertion that most people use the phrase "CD-ROM disc" is anecdotal and unverifiable.

You are incorrect. It is verifiable. And it only takes seconds.

In summary -- use the tools available to you.

>Additionally, you go on to make some rather rude remearks that the author is wrong about the history of acronym for DVD.

If you think bullshit is rude, I would suggest you dislike Penn and Teller, known scpetics who, I'm willing to bet, despise grammarians (Although I haven't asked them this. Perhaps a reading of some old PC Computing rags might shed some light on this matter.)

In essence, there is no consensus as for what the letters stand. Originally it meant "digital video disc"; some tried to shoe-horn "digital versatile disc", but there was never an agreement reached. However, the author of the site never makes a claim as to the current meaning. He states merely:

[O]riginally "Digital Video Disc"-even though some manufacturers now claim the initials stand for "Digital Versatile Disc."

What he says is true. It did at one point stand for "digital video disc" and some manufacturers currently do claim that it stand for "digital versatile disc." The dictionary offers both as a possibility and, in the end, both may end up as satisfactory answers.

Half-true. All manufacturers call it Digital Versatile Disc. I can find none that, today, would call it otherwise, except when they want to point out how a DVD player plays only Videos. Therefore the author was incorrect. It isn't some. It is all. The fact that there is a new logo that has been used by all manufacturers since, and that the DVD group now call it Digital Versatile Disc is just icing on the cake, as it were.

>If what you meant, however, was that "UFO" is the phrase to be applied to a creature not from Earth, then you are mistaken. Both "extraterrestrial" and "alien" already serve this purpose.

Yes, that is what I meant. The fact that there are already 2 words with this meaning does not preclude another word being used as such.

Princeton university supports my definition, and provides no specific definition that supports the argument of the author:

ufo

n : an (apparently) flying object whose nature is unknown; especially those considered to have extraterrestrial origins [syn: unidentified flying object, UFO, flying saucer]

The author is incorrect in his assumption that the term UFO cannot be applied to alien spacecraft. The military would also agree with Princeton University.

>On the matter of usage [of ok], you are correct. However, no one ever disagreed with you.

Bullshit. Read the site with a text browser next time. It clearly states "WRONG: OK". If this is a mistake on the part of the author, so be it. He is an english professor, and not a CS professor.

>He also claims that humanists (believers in the principles of Humanism) are more likely to use the "analogue" spelling.

Being pretentious, are we? I think if I were to lump myself with a group of people I'd know what the definition of Humanism are.

How's about an apology from you, since we apoligize for so much, it would appear.

>The author who wrote the page holds a degree Ph.D in English and is a professor of English at Washington State University. Not only does this qualify him as an expert of the English language, but it also exposes him to more samples of writings than most people. As such, if he claims that one spelling is preferred over another depending

Even that site has errors.

It decides to apply english to computer terms. That's a big mistake.

A list of his errors:

CD-ROM. A CD-ROM is a DRIVE, not a DISC. A CD is a disc, or, if one wants to use the long form, a CD-ROM disc is a disc that fits in a CD-ROM. This is extremely common usage by those in the know, therefore the author is de-facto wrong.

UFO. While I'm not a Raelian, I'm very sure the common usage of the word UFO by such people is to mean anything that is unidentifiable as human.

OK. Flat out stupid griping by a person who has nothing to gripe about. OK is a valid acronym, spelt without periods. Don't like it? TS. Yeah, that's an acronym too. Look it up and be amazed! Oh, and on the internet we rarely put periods in acronyms. Common usage and all that again...

Drive. Please gripe more! Not! What the hell is this all about? Common usage by Billions and Billions (served) is Hard Disk. Don't like it? TS again!

Lite. Hey asshole, I'm a humanist and I spell it analog. Nice job putting words in people's mouths and ignoring how 300 million people spell things. Also good job ignoring entire dictionaries worth of information telling you you're wrong. I'll say it again: Asshole.

How can I trust a site that doesn't accept the common usage of words in their respective fields? Stop treading on people's toes, lest you be trodden on, pretentious grammarian.

Even that site has errors.

It decides to apply english to computer terms. That's a big mistake.

A list of his errors:

CD-ROM. A CD-ROM is a DRIVE, not a DISC. A CD is a disc, or, if one wants to use the long form, a CD-ROM disc is a disc that fits in a CD-ROM. This is extremely common usage by those in the know, therefore the author is de-facto wrong.

UFO. While I'm not a Raelian, I'm very sure the common usage of the word UFO by such people is to mean anything that is unidentifiable as human.

OK. Flat out stupid griping by a person who has nothing to gripe about. OK is a valid acronym, spelt without periods. Don't like it? TS. Yeah, that's an acronym too. Look it up and be amazed! Oh, and on the internet we rarely put periods in acronyms. Common usage and all that again...

Drive. Please gripe more! Not! What the hell is this all about? Common usage by Billions and Billions (served) is Hard Disk. Don't like it? TS again!

Lite. Hey asshole, I'm a humanist and I spell it analog. Nice job putting words in people's mouths and ignoring how 300 million people spell things. Also good job ignoring entire dictionaries worth of information telling you you're wrong. I'll say it again: Asshole.

How can I trust a site that doesn't accept the common usage of words in their respective fields? Stop treading on people's toes, lest you be trodden on, pretentious grammarian.

That is the total number of casualties since January 2003, and not just from the current military action.

The word casualty means injuries as well as deaths. They claim to only report deaths, but it looks like they have a fundamental misunderstanding of what the word means.

Why don't they count the number of civilian Iraqi casualties from Saddam's regime as well? That has been the biggest source of pain and death for the Iraqi people over the past 20 years.

Depending on the genre, rtf may be fully descriptive.

[hint]

This might help you to better understand 'threads'.

This could have been cleared up quite easily had you replied to the correct message. This thread, you see has no response to your messages other than mine (separate thread, because it has split from parent post in both posters and discussion topic).

Now, if you'd like to restart this flame by replying to the proper post, that's fine with me.

-T

Only if you're the one doing the striking, with little or no risk of retribution.