Slashdot Mirror

reasoned

Either sense would work, but I intended the first.

Since that definition is heavily dependent on another, here you go:

reason

Noun sense 7b and most of the ones from the verb from of the verb are relevant.

The only contradiction here is between you and the English language. Disbelieve means to not believe. It does not imply certainty of a claim's falsehood.

Origin:
1250–1300; Sclvus Slav, so called because Slavs were commonly enslaved in the early Middle Ages; see Slav

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

So now they're insulting everyone of Slavic (eastern European except Hungary, Slovenia and Czech republic) heritage.

The difference is, the words "checkers" and "chess" do not have any other meanings in the English language besides the games, so there is no ambiguity.

Oh? Really

Both words have more than one meaning in English. You should stop making random assertions like that.

You beat me to it.... I had to be sure, so I looked it up on dictionary.com and it's not there.

I'm sure that it will be in the Urban Dictionary shortly though, right next to convertablization.

Let's look at the definition of censor :

censor /snsr/ Show Spelled[sen-ser] Show IPA
–noun
1.
an official who examines books, plays, news reports, motion pictures, radio and television programs, letters, cablegrams, etc., for the purpose of suppressing parts deemed objectionable on moral, political, military, or other grounds.
2.
any person who supervises the manners or morality of others.

According to the definition, if someone is actively engaged in suppressing information "deemded objectionable on moral, political, military or other grounds" then that person is engaged in censorship. Knowing that, it becomes pretty obvious that if Amazon is actively engaged in suppressing information that they deemed objectionable on those grounds then they are guilty of engaging in censorship. There is no room for doubt.

censor
1.
an official who examines books, [] etc., for the purpose of suppressing parts deemed objectionable on moral, political, military, or other grounds.
2. [...other meanings less relevant here]

Technically, a censor is someone who controls what others publish, not a publisher or seller who will always have selection criteria. But when the publisher has the kind of market control that Amazon has, the line blurs. The real problem is monopoly itself, not the decisions the monopolist makes and the superstitions that guide them. Expecting monopolists to be impartial and fair and appealing to them as if they were some kind of authority is part of that problem.

I suspect that your spelling is a touch loose. I think you meant "lose".

I suspect that your spelling is a touch loose. I think you meant "lose".

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

http://www.google.com/search?sclient=psy&hl=en&site=&source=hp&q=define:rape&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=&pbx=1

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/rape http://www.google.com/search?sclient=psy&hl=en&site=&source=hp&q=define:rape&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=&pbx=1

Is three sources that disagree with you enough for you yet?

Harrow != Harrowing

Reading comprehension fail!!

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

How was this incident "harrowing"? Was the land surface of Manhattan torn up to several inches deep? Were people's feelings deeply and permanently hurt by this flight? Or is this another journalist using a long word that he/she does not actually have any idea of the meaning of but thinks it makes them sound good?

See http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/harrow

You're right: before dictionaries, nobody learned how to spell because the art of writing was so difficult, only about thirty people in the world could read and write English. If there was any business to be done, it was either spoken (which is processed completely differently), or it was written in French, which people had agreed on how to write. Standardization of English made it something that could be taught to the masses.

Who is this mythical "the reader" by whom you judge the efficacy of written communication? Is it your lazy buddy who can't be bothered to use his own language correctly, or the Shanghai businessman who's trying to export his toys to the West, and for whom "lead paint" and "light red paint" actually mean different things? A significant portion of English speakers today (in fact, by some estimates more than half) are not in fact native Anglophones (people who'd gladly allot you one, two, or even a lot of rectal sticks if that's what you asked them for), but rather people who took deliberate effort to learn the language, and who tried to learn it right, dadgummit.

You're right: before dictionaries, nobody learned how to spell because the art of writing was so difficult, only about thirty people in the world could read and write English. If there was any business to be done, it was either spoken (which is processed completely differently), or it was written in French, which people had agreed on how to write. Standardization of English made it something that could be taught to the masses.

Who is this mythical "the reader" by whom you judge the efficacy of written communication? Is it your lazy buddy who can't be bothered to use his own language correctly, or the Shanghai businessman who's trying to export his toys to the West, and for whom "lead paint" and "light red paint" actually mean different things? A significant portion of English speakers today (in fact, by some estimates more than half) are not in fact native Anglophones (people who'd gladly allot you one, two, or even a lot of rectal sticks if that's what you asked them for), but rather people who took deliberate effort to learn the language, and who tried to learn it right, dadgummit.

Mack argued that "the Internet has progressed and thrived precisely because it has not been subjected to the suffocating effect of a governmental organization's heavy hand."

Iron fist, may I introduce you to Mr. Velvet Glove?

Further, copyright violations are the basis of the current push to regulate the internet. "Think of the Children" only goes so far.

yes

The Gawker hack has completely disenfranchised their users

That's quite a hack, depriving users of their right to vote...

disenfranchise verb \dis-in-fran-chz\ Definition of DISENFRANCHISE transitive verb : to deprive of a franchise, of a legal right, or of some privilege or immunity

franchise (noun)

2 b. a constitutional or statutory right or pirvilege; especially the right to vote

Bold mine, italics not.

The Gawker hack has completely disenfranchised their users

That's quite a hack, depriving users of their right to vote...

disenfranchise
verb \dis-in-fran-chz\
Definition of DISENFRANCHISE
transitive verb
: to deprive of a franchise, of a legal right, or of some privilege or immunity

The Gawker hack has completely disenfranchised their users

That's quite a hack, depriving users of their right to vote...

See the various meanings (and word origin) here: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/redaction

Like these, which agree with Wikipedia's definition?
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/redaction
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/redaction

1. done, made, or conducted without the knowledge of others

2. kept from the knowledge of any but the initiated or privileged

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

If everybody knows it because it's plastered over the front page of the New York Times it is no longer a secret. Your thief analogy is inaccurate. Regardless of the legitimacy of how it got there, you can not reasonably believe that it is, any more, 'secret'. To look at it another way: a thief stole your vase and smashed it. It is now a broken vase. Just because they had no right to do so doesn't unbreak the vase.

May be because the real word is advertisement? Of course that word has 600 years, while the abbreviation ad has merely 200 years, which makes it even sillier not to use it.

Fine, you really want citations? Here are some. Wow. If you look up definitions of "theory", you find that "theory" means "theory", even when (or especially when) talking about science.

This isn't hard. But it *is* stupid.

So, when you said, "I'm not going to readily accept a drastic and nonsensical redefinition of well-established words on the insistence of a poor thinker," the "poor thinker" bit was redundant, because you infer that from the fact that it's a "nonsensical redefinition."

Way to prove that you're not one of those pedantic douchebags I was complaining about.

This is exactly the same as the two definitions of "theory" we're considering. Colloquially, a theory is "a good idea."

No it's not. There are plenty of good ideas that aren't theories, and there are theories which aren't good ideas. The definition of theory, whether talking in science or colloquial, is something along the lines of "a speculative explanation" generally including the connotation that it has not been proven.

And the difference is, when we talk about "work" in physics, we're talking about a specific measurement which was derived in order to be able to quantify work. When I move a heavy box from point A to point B, I have done some "work". The physics definition is essentially trying to quantify that work. Regardless, there are other metaphorical uses of words that are very different from the original meaning, and all of that is fine. The problem is when you arbitrarily try to make up a new conflicting definition because you don't know how else to win your arguments and you're too petty to say "I don't know".

And this is the whole problem. In a stunning misuse of words, Creationists dubbed their theory "science". You apparently can't figure out a useful response, so you're employing an equally stunning misuse of language by redefining "theory" to mean "fact". If such poor argumentation works, then we'd be better off redefining "creationism" as "wrong" and being done with it. At least that way, we wouldn't be subverting scientific thought for the sake of petty political battles. Do you think "science" is still a field with validity if it is held captive to political motives?

If your going too be pedantic, better you are in right!

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/couple
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/couple

Cheers!

The definition of broadband from dictionary.com is: pertaining to or denoting a type of high-speed data transmission in which the bandwidth is shared by more than one simultaneous signal.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/broadband

The term has evolved really, as it used to mean what you said and only that. It's going to continue evolving, just as disturbing as the word 'sick' means tight/cool/rad/knarly/def now.

Try here: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/violence

1. swift and intense force: the violence of a storm.
2. rough or injurious physical force, action, or treatment: to die by violence.
3. an unjust or unwarranted exertion of force or power, as against rights or laws: to take over a government by violence.
4. a violent act or proceeding.
5. rough or immoderate vehemence, as of feeling or language: the violence of his hatred.
6. damage through distortion or unwarranted alteration: to do editorial violence to a text.

Only one of those definitions mentions anything about physical force. And #3 is quite appropriate.

A verbal attack isn't violence.

Yes it is. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/violence

Only one of the six definitions lists physicality as a requirement, the others can be satisfied by a verbal attack as well as a physical one. Doing mental harm to an individual can and is just as much violence as physical harm.

I hate to provide some agreement with a post so crass as that provided with Yvan256, but do you understand what a coordinate is? May I suggest a dictionary?

In what universe does rou sound like roh?

this one.

Bought that G4 used but the osx filesystem started to have that particular problem Apple's fsck can't fix (but a few commercial disk repair wares can, wtf Jobs?)

It's called planned obsolescence. Jobs mustn't have counted on third parties fixing the issue.

I asked what was making the U.S. cellular market fail and you claimed a government granted monopoly was the cause.

So, either you have no idea what a monopoly is or you are, in fact, claiming that there is only one cell provider.

It's you who has no idea what a monopoly is. Let's correct that now.

1. something that only one person or group of people has
2. What Does Monopoly Mean?
   A situation in which a single company or group owns all or nearly all of the market for a given type of product or service. By definition, monopoly is characterized by an absence of competition, which often results in high prices and inferior products.
3. Legal Dictionary
   1 : exclusive control of a particular market that is marked by the power to control prices and exclude competition and that esp. is developed willfully rather than as the result of superior products or skill —see also ANTITRUST Sherman Antitrust Act in the IMPORTANT LAWS section
4. Monopoly
   Market situation where one producer (or a group of producers acting in concert) controls supply of a good or service, and where the entry of new producers is prevented or highly restricted.

A monopoly does not necessarily mean only one entity controlling a market. For instance though MS Windows and MS Office both have dominate but not exclusive monopolies of Operating Systems and Office suites, MS is a monopoly. Let's also make it clear, being a monopoly is not necessarily bad or illegal, how the monopoly is used determines that. For instance MS forcing OEM computer manufacturers not to sell PCs with operating systems other than MS OSes such as BeOS and Linux, and not allowing them to install Netscape as the browser or WordPerfect or other office suites instead of MS Office is what was illegal.

Meanwhile, power companies have nothing to do with the discussion at hand.

You asked about monopolies and power companies are monopolies.

I'm thinking you're trolling so I'm not going to reply again.

Falcon

Not only had this better not see one red penny of taxpayer money

Maybe I'm splitting hairs, but it sounds like they are just allowing them to pay less tax. Its not like they are giving them the actual dollar notes from your tax.

If people want to build these things and run them with private money, even for a profit, I don't care. But the second you start taking my money to proselytize your religion, I get VERY agitated.

Yes, agitated, irrational and completely out of control of your dictionary. Try this:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/proselytize

How many of the dozen or so open minded atheists do you think are going to willingly walk through the gates? Are you planning to go and get proselytized? Like the theme or not, this is going to influence believers not unbelievers.

Brought to you by the letter I and a spelling nazi ;)

I left out the extra i intentionally because it results in a more proper spelling which also looks more like a real element name, such as titanium or germanium, whereas there are no real element names which end in ainium. The "correction" you suggest is actually an alternate form.

I'm afraid you'll have to turn in your spelling nazi license now. ;)

http://dictionary1.classic.reference.com/help/faq/language/g09.html

Which is correct: I could care less or I couldn't care less?

The expression I could not care less originally meant 'it would be impossible for me to care less than I do because I do not care at all'.
It was originally a British saying and came to the US in the 1950s.
It is senseless to transform it into the now-common I could care less. If you could care less, that means you care at least a little.
The original is quite sarcastic and the other form is clearly nonsense.
The inverted form I could care less was coined in the US and is found only here, recorded in print by 1966.
The question is, something caused the negative to vanish even while the original form of the expression was still very much in vogue and available for comparison - so what was it?
There are other American English expressions that have a similar sarcastic inversion of an apparent sense, such as Tell me about it!, which usually means 'Don't tell me about it, because I know all about it already'.
The Yiddish I should be so lucky!, in which the real sense is often 'I have no hope of being so lucky', has a similar stress pattern with the same sarcastic inversion of meaning as does I could care less.

You have a very narrow view of "violent". Violence is equatable to agression. This is one of the key tennents of Libertarianism.

Check the dictionary for the definition of violence.

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

The first definition: swift and intense force defines wht O:P is doing.

The third definition is actually more appropriate: an unjust or unwarranted exertion of force or power, as against rights or laws: to take over a government by violence.

In fact, of the 6 definitions, only one refers to any kind of physical force.

I am sick and tired of nerds calling their PCs rigs and referring to their IT workplaces as a windows "shop" or linux "shop". You guys are not blue collar workers and you would be laughed out of any bar that had real blue collar workers in it.

rig - noun - apparatus for some purpose; equipment; outfit; gear: a hi-fi rig; Bring your rod and reel and all the rest of your fishing rig.

Thank you for confirming that you have some irrational hatred of PC gaming and that your opinions on the subject are therefore irrelevant.

Let's make one thing very clear: these are not pat downs. What I went through when I traveled last year was a (sloppy) pat down. When the TSA needs to inspect your vagina because you're wearing a non-standard menstruation undergarmet, you've gone well past a pat down. Depending on your interpretation of what rape is, it may be appropriate to call the TSA's actions rape or sexual assault.

Let's make one thing very clear: these are not pat downs. What I went through when I traveled last year was a (sloppy) pat down. When the TSA needs to inspect your vagina because you're wearing a non-standard menstruation undergarmet, you've gone well past a pat down. Depending on your interpretation of what rape is, it may be appropriate to call the TSA's actions rape or sexual assault.

Let's make one thing very clear: these are not pat downs. What I went through when I traveled last year was a (sloppy) pat down. When the TSA needs to inspect your vagina because you're wearing a non-standard menstruation undergarmet, you've gone well past a pat down. Depending on your interpretation of what rape is, it may be appropriate to call the TSA's actions rape or sexual assault.

The definition of dictatorship does include a country being ruled by a small group of people, not only individuals.

Hence, and unless you're being pedantic, the dictator is that small group.

The Romans invented concrete.

That's only 1600-2200 or so years ago.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/several -> several is more than two.

IMO "several hundred" was correct.

There's nothing mysterious or obscure about CVS. But it might be described as "archaic"

> both conclude there is and can never be no credible evidence
That is true that one man's "evidence" is another man's skepticism.

However, that is an incorrect conclusion based on a faulty assumption, even though a quite reasonable conclusion, lack of experience. Here is an analogy:

A blind man says there is no such thing as color. From his perspective (pardon the pun) he is absolutely correct - he has no valid frame of reference to even understand what color is.

Theists, Atheists, and the Agnostic are the blind men all arguing over what constitutes color when they really don't have a clue what the spectrum is.

It's like saying there is no life after death. If you have NEVER been dead, you don't KNOW, so you can NOT assert this claim. Once you have been dead, you will KNOW that Reality is much, much more complicated than the average human could even comprehend.

> how can you provide evidence of something you cannot define in clear non-supernatural terms,

If _you_ are unable to define it, that is _your_ problem. For example, as a baby did you understood Differential Calculus? Why Not?? The same applies to spiritual understanding. The fact that you are unable to understand the answer does not imply there is no answer.

Furthermore, ALL KNOWLEDGE is subjective. The objective relies upon the subjective experience/evidence. How do you KNOW that 2+2 = 4? If you can't do math or even know what numbers are, you DON'T, let alone come up with a proof.

> Your mistake is that you think atheists declare there is proof there is no god
Can you show me where I said that please?

a-{word} = without, or lacking

Theism = has-a belief
Atheism = has-no belief (due to lack of evidence)
Agnostic = has-no knowledge (due to lack of evidence or experience)
Gnostic = has-a knowledge (due to experience and evidence)

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/theism?&qsrc=

Note: Faith is DIFFERENT than belief. Everyone has faith, in some form or another, even if they are unwilling to admit it.

The problem is the "blind faith" that religion ignorantly tries to use as a crutch for "God".

--
Death is only a change in state.

I know you think you're being clever but "virii" is not a word and using it just makes you look like a moron. It's spelled viruses.

Is that why it takes so f'ing long for those browsers to load a page after I hit return? Lucky for me, my browser (OmniWeb, free as in beer (tho' I paid, back when they charged for a license)) just does a text insertion in the address: I type omnigroup and it turns it into www.omnigroup.com without asking Google for permission.

It'll do other, more or less arbitrary, user-defined substitutions too!

g $search_term -> http://www.google.com/search?ie=utf8&oe=utf8&q=$search_term

slas -> http://slashdot.org/

d $word -> http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/$word

It's sweet!

im not sure spell check would have picked up on "tam" http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/tam

You are revealing WAY too much about your own intellect with your angry, uncontrolled ranting.

calling a software feature a "bug"

You seemed to have completely missed what is being discussed here, despite the extensive discussion over that exact subject. This isn't "bug" as in "software error". This is "bug" as in the following:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bug
"a concealed listening device"

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/bug
"a hidden microphone or other electronic eavesdropping device."

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/bug_4
"a very small device fixed on to a telephone or hidden in a room, that allows you to listen to what people are saying without them knowing"

a "web bug" is merely the web based version of an eavesdropping device.

So yes, the conversation is indeed ENTIRELY about only ONE form of the word....the form I just documented.

Definition of steal - look at the first one:

to take (the property of another or others) without permission or right, esp. secretly or by force

Your original examples are not this.