Slashdot Mirror

worker [wur-ker]

noun

1. a person or thing that works.

2. a laborer or employee: steel workers.

3. a person engaged in a particular field, activity, or cause: a worker in psychological research; a worker for the Republican Party.

4. Entomology.

a member of a caste of sexually underdeveloped, nonreproductive bees, specialized to collect food and maintain the hive.

a similar member of a specialized caste of ants, termites, or wasps.

5. Printing. one of a set of electrotyped plates used to print from (contrasted with molder2.).

6.any of several rollers covered with card clothing that work in combination with the stripper rollers and the cylinder in the carding of fibers. From here.

According to http://dictionary.reference.co..., it's been used that way for centuries. This isn't anything new.

Precisely. I challenge anyone here to describe the difference between a "cult" and a "religion".

I'll be reading War and Peace while I wait...

In the lingua franca, a cult is any religious organization whose beliefs and / or practices are incompatible with mine. Throwing out this term adds nothing of value to the conversation, but may used as flame bait.

The dictionary defines cult as "a particular system of religious worship, especially with reference to its rites and ceremonies." Thus almost all religions fall into the category of cults.

And in the era of "every child should learn to code", how do you do your programming homework? Raspberry Pi?

Every child should code is your starting premise. Not everyone agrees with you. Your initial premise is not necessarily accepted as true.

I think the idea is that at some point everyone will become among "some consumers". But perhaps your use of "consumer", meaning someone who only views works created by others and does not create works, is misleading [gnu.org].

My meaning of consumer is the vernacular meaning of consumer. Please don't assume what I mean.

http://dictionary.reference.co...

Read definition number 2. You are wrong, Initialism is a subset of Acronyms, not a separate set. Therefore, calling initialisms acronyms is correct usage.

Interesting how spellcheck keeps keying on initialism like I am misspelling it though...

Those are not acronyms, but initialisms (okay, RAM is an acronym). Acronyms are pronounced as they are spelled, such as S.H.I.E.L.D. Initialisms are not pronounced as a word, but stated as the individual letters that make them up, such as FBI and CPU.

This is Slashdot, let's get it right.

Acronym definition:

a set of initials representing a name, organization, or the like, with each letter pronounced separately; an initialism.

It is listed as number 2, but still valid usage of the term acronym.

OK, so you're now claiming that the general agreement among climate scientists is purely political, not an expert conclusion based on the science they've been doing, and therefore these thousands of practicing climatologists have been steadfastly ignoring the evidence that their observations of the last 40 years have been showing, and the tens of thousands of published and peer-reviewed studies showing increasing global land and sea temperatures, melting glaciers, rising sea levels & acidification etc etc etc are therefore deliberately fabricated, risking their reputations and careers in a massive conspiracy - all in the name of their supposed political beliefs?

Well heck, I'm convinced.

extremist

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

You're confusing science with some imagined bizarro political response to the situation science is telling you about. Try and understand the difference before you go off the deep end next time.

greedy, thick, sticky consistency bitch?

Perhaps you meant vicious?

a statement of an intention to inflict pain, injury, damage, or other hostile action on someone in retribution for something done or not done.

The hostile action would be not paying and bad publicity for starters. The whole point of these gatherings is to make money, like trade shows they rent the space, the venue makes the majority of the money. Crime is not a prerequisite for a threat, nor does scale matter.

OK. I *WILL* say the TPP is wrong per se. That some kind of trade treaty would be desirable doesn't make this, or anything closely similar to this, acceptable. I even assert that voting for this treaty should be taken as positive proof of malfeasance. (I'll agree that it doesn't say anything about the reason for the malfeasance.)

Also, please note the distinction between misfeasance and malfeasance. http://dictionary.reference.co...
Usually malfeasance is a felony, as opposed to misfeasance or nonfeasance.

The OED lists its definitions in historical order. The Oxford Online Dictionary, by comparison, lists "kill, destroy, or remove a large percentage"as the first definition, and only has "kill one in ten" as the second definition. Which is marked as "historical". It also includes a usage note that says, "This sense has been superseded by the later, more general sense."

http://www.oxforddictionaries....

Collins Dictionary also has the one-in-ten meaning listed second: http://www.collinsdictionary.c...

As does dictionary.com: http://dictionary.reference.co...

Wiktionary lists the historical meaning first, but also presents evidence suggesting that this sense is basically never used any more, except when complaining about the change in meaning (at least in the British National Corpus): https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki...

Um... why? Architect is a perfectly valid verb.

http://dictionary.reference.co...

"Decimated nearly half the population" means less than 5%. You can't just ignore the prefix 'deci' because everyone uses it incorrectly, dictionary.

" then denied that the Test Update was issued by MS itself"

Holy shit you are fucking stupid. I didn't say M$ claimed it wasn't from them. I said M$ admitted it wasn't a legitimate update. It was an erroneous test update. You clearly don't know what the word legitimate means either. Holy fucking fuck. Your stupidity astounds.

Oh no, you used the M$, you won the argument, oh shoot, you insulted me, i can't argue with such a strong mind, hahaha, good luck next time dude.

" then denied that the Test Update was issued by MS itself"

Holy shit you are fucking stupid. I didn't say M$ claimed it wasn't from them. I said M$ admitted it wasn't a legitimate update. It was an erroneous test update. You clearly don't know what the word legitimate means either. Holy fucking fuck. Your stupidity astounds.

Panopticon: noun: a building, as a prison, hospital, library, or the like, so arranged that all parts of the interior are visible from a single point. ref

It's widely known that Apple users are the biggest fanboys around. So much so that they are used as an example in the actual definition

"Apple fanboys lined up to buy the new phone."

there's really no point in talking about some pre-Darwinian meaning of the word in this context, that just creates confusion; if you want to refer to some other notion pick another word

Not pre-Darwinian, but extra-Darwinian Evolution. It is a highly modern meaning of the word. While it also happens to be pre-Darwinian but I have no language atavism here - even in today's language evolution continues to mean what it used to mean. Only in scientific and specially in species context it is sometimes taken to mean only the Darwinian sense of the word - hence the clarification. But my usage of the word was intermediate between the two meanings - showing transition from one to another. So using another word would be more incorrect.

To the degree that information encoded in the individuals alters the production of subsequent generations and affects the rate and fidelity of production of individuals with that information, that ...

Yes, so your sentence that I quoted earlier is false :

"When you first get a self-replicating molecular structure that is sufficiently stable that some modifications don't destroy either its stability or its ability to replicate, that's where evolution begins. Until that point, you cannot have any evolution"

Even if we ignore the misuse of the term self-replication, stability is not required along with replication. Stability can be acquired over time and replication can "evolve" (extra-Darwinian) within a set of unstable individuals and a factory. Hence there is no non-arbitrary cutoff.

At some arbitrary cutoff point, this extra-Darwinian evolution will be called Darwinian evolution due to Darwin's main focus on "living" things which as you point out is loosely defined.

Actually, IT DOES HAVE THE SAME FUCKEN MEANING. It is a hypothesis of what is likely to be true based on the evidence in record. Science NEVER EVER claims certainty on anything, even if we have done the experiments a million times. The only difference I will allow is that a scientific theory has been better vetted, has more evidence in record. The reason the word theory is used is is because science must be adaptable to change. If we do not recognize a theory as something who's truth can still be questioned we cannot update what we believe is most likely to be true based on the evidence in record.

http://dictionary.reference.co...

Read the scienftic theory wiki also, and research what other actual scientists have said about the concept over time. The meanings are the fucken same. I think people must think that theory means 'a guess with no evidence" or some dumb shit like that.

When people of science fail to argue this correctly they do damage to progress. Becaus eyou are wrong on this line item, and you are, others will figure all you have to say is garbage and ignore it.

Well, I don't disagree with you on substance, but I have two issues with what you wrote. First, your usage of "theory" doesn't match the specific definition of the word as it is used in the term "Theory of Evolution". Dictionary.com lists that definition first:

a coherent group of *tested* general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena...

[emphasis mine]

So "Theory" in this sense is the highest level of certainty there is in science. Physicists don't regard Newton's "Theory of Gravitation" as conjectural. That more common colloquial sense of "theory" (as something conjectural) is listed as the second definition.

Also, I feel the whole metaphor of science as a Darwinian struggle between ideas gets the spirit of the enterprise wrong; and I think this view of matters underlies misunderstandings we often see here about what "scientific consensus" means.

Scientific consensus is not about establishing a group agreement about what constitutes eternal, unassailable truth. It's about establishing an agreement about where the burden of proof lay. It could be with those who say an idea is true, with those who say it is false, or with both.

For example I think it's pretty clear that faster than light travel is inconsistent with currently accepted theories (sense 1) in physics like Special Relativity. That doesn't mean that some theoretical physicists don't have some ideas of how it might be accomplished, but at present those ideas fall under the heading of "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof". However any physicist is free to assert that FTL is twaddle without having to perform a lengthy re-hashing of all the evidence everyone's already familiar with anyway.

Now why not simply say everyone has the same burden of proof no matter what their position is? Wouldn't that be fair? Well, no. It wouldn't be fair to all the people who worked to gather and defend the evidence behind the current scientific consensus to give some random guy's brainstorm equal weight to that evidence. In any case that would be impractical. It makes no sense to demand that people who support the laws of thermodynamics muster the same level of detailed argument that you'd demand of someone who claimed to have built a perpetual motion machine. It'd be a waste of everyone's time.

Democratic, adj (Sense 2): pertaining to or characterized by the principle of political or social equality for all http://dictionary.reference.co...

Providing equal access to all to these tools would be a process of 'democratization'. It's just what the term means.

1. Nomenclature: An "adjective-noun" should always be considered a subset of "noun". A "dwarf planet" should be no less seen as a type of planet than a "dwarf star" is seen as a type of star.

That's no reason.

you must be American if something less than 100 years ago is a long time

I should have said "extensive" but "long" was easier. It's also perfectly valid. See: The dictionary. HTH, HAND!

It's "frigid".

2C target old idea, phys unsafe,see @KenCaldeira thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/0... "There is some noise around the idea that it useful to think about some amount of 'allowable CO2 emissions budget' that would keep the world under 2 C of global warming. ..." [Peter Shepherd, 2015-08-11]

Then @KenCaldeira should commit suicide immediately. He emits 40,000 ppm CO2. Talk about unacceptable levels! @tan123 [Lonny Eachus, 2015-08-11]

No, Lonny. Your despicable statement was morally and scientifically wrong. He doesn't emit "a rather large amount all by himself" because breathing simply can't raise CO2 levels. [Dumb Scientist]

This is a CLASSIC straw-man argument. There was no claim that he raised CO2 levels. Only that he emits CO2. He does. ... this comment was clearly taken out of context and subsequently misrepresented. Anyone who cares to look can see that for themselves. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-08-13]

Anyone who cares to look can see that Lonny's disgusting statement was a "response" to a statement about anthropogenic global warming, which is primarily caused by raising CO2 levels. That's what scientists mean by "CO2 emissions": adding CO2 to the atmosphere+oceans+biosphere.

Once again, breathing can't do that because it's like a circulation pump in a pool. Therefore mainstream scientists don't include breathing in an "'allowable CO2 emissions budget' that would keep the world under 2 C of global warming." In exactly the same way, plumbers don't include a circulation pump's flow in an "'allowable water budget' that keeps the pool from overflowing."

Are you now saying that you already knew that breathing can't raise CO2 levels, but you made your despicable statement anyway? Hopefully not. Think, Lonny! Think! [Dumb Scientist]

Since the subject of breathing raising overall CO2 levels was not mentioned or even implied by anyone except you, I have no reason to respond to this. Once again, your out-of-context straw-manning gets you nowhere. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-08-13]

Lonny, your disgusting statement was a "response" to a statement about anthropogenic global warming, which is primarily caused by raising CO2 levels. So your original disgusting statement was either accidentally or deliberately "out of context" of the statements you were replying to. Which is it, Lonny Eachus? Are you honestly confused, or are you deliberately trying to confuse others?

emit v. to send forth (liquid, light, heat, sound, particles, etc.); discharge.

There is nothing there about "increasing levels" or averages. Everbody knows what "emit" means, regardless of your attempts to narrow the definition to your liking. He does emit a rather large amount by himself, according to every common definition of the word "emit". ... [Jane Q. Public, 2015-08-13]

As usual, Jane/Lonny completely ignores context and quotes a dictionary to support his disgusting statement. Ironically, Jane has previously said: "Di

The chef gives explicit permission to move the food around when they put a fork, knife, spoon, or chopsticks next to it.

The word you are looking for is implicit. Explicit permission would require them to tell you what the utensils are for (verbally, a sign, etc). Because they could theoretically be part of the 'artwork' (though likely no one would assume that), it's implied, rather than expressly stated.

Nope (at least not exclusively ... ) :)

I guess that 5G slices and dices and makes Julian fries...

That's fine for Julian, I guess the rest of us will have to wait for 6G to make our julienned fries.

2C target old idea, phys unsafe,see @KenCaldeira thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/0... "There is some noise around the idea that it useful to think about some amount of 'allowable CO2 emissions budget' that would keep the world under 2 C of global warming. ..." [Peter Shepherd, 2015-08-11]

Then @KenCaldeira should commit suicide immediately. He emits 40,000 ppm CO2. Talk about unacceptable levels! @tan123 [Lonny Eachus, 2015-08-11]

No, Lonny. Your despicable statement was morally and scientifically wrong. He doesn't emit "a rather large amount all by himself" because breathing simply can't raise CO2 levels. [Dumb Scientist]

This is a CLASSIC straw-man argument. There was no claim that he raised CO2 levels. Only that he emits CO2. He does. ... this comment was clearly taken out of context and subsequently misrepresented. Anyone who cares to look can see that for themselves. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-08-13]

Anyone who cares to look can see that Lonny's disgusting statement was a "response" to a statement about anthropogenic global warming, which is primarily caused by raising CO2 levels. That's what scientists mean by "CO2 emissions": adding CO2 to the atmosphere+oceans+biosphere.

Once again, breathing can't do that because it's like a circulation pump in a pool. Therefore mainstream scientists don't include breathing in an "'allowable CO2 emissions budget' that would keep the world under 2 C of global warming." In exactly the same way, plumbers don't include a circulation pump's flow in an "'allowable water budget' that keeps the pool from overflowing."

Are you now saying that you already knew that breathing can't raise CO2 levels, but you made your despicable statement anyway? Hopefully not. Think, Lonny! Think! [Dumb Scientist]

Since the subject of breathing raising overall CO2 levels was not mentioned or even implied by anyone except you, I have no reason to respond to this. Once again, your out-of-context straw-manning gets you nowhere. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-08-13]

Lonny, your disgusting statement was a "response" to a statement about anthropogenic global warming, which is primarily caused by raising CO2 levels. So your original disgusting statement was either accidentally or deliberately "out of context" of the statements you were replying to. Which is it, Lonny Eachus? Are you honestly confused, or are you deliberately trying to confuse others?

emit v. to send forth (liquid, light, heat, sound, particles, etc.); discharge.

There is nothing there about "increasing levels" or averages. Everbody knows what "emit" means, regardless of your attempts to narrow the definition to your liking. He does emit a rather large amount by himself, according to every common definition of the word "emit". ... [Jane Q. Public, 2015-08-13]

As usual, Jane/Lonny completely ignores context and quotes a dictionary to support his disgusting statement. Ironically, Jane has previously said: "Di

Then I'm afraid you don't know what infrastructure means.

noun
1.
the basic, underlying framework or features of a system or organization.
2.
the fundamental facilities and systems serving a country, city, or area, as transportation and communication systems, power plants, and schools.
http://dictionary.reference.co...

Infrastructure is exactly what the supercharger network is.

No, it just proves that a dictatorship is nod god.

A dictatorship is a government - by definition one WITHOUT "checks and balances"....

Glad you agree that the OP who claimed governments have "checks and balances" is delusional.

http://dictionary.reference.co...

1. the act or practice of censoring.
2. the office or power of a censor.
3. the time during which a censor holds office.
4. the inhibiting and distorting activity of the Freudian censor

http://dictionary.reference.co...

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.
3. an adverse critic; faultfinder.
4. (in the ancient Roman republic) either of two officials who kept the register or census of the citizens, awarded public contracts, and supervised manners and morals.
5. (in early Freudian dream theory) the force that represses ideas, impulses, and feelings, and prevents them from entering consciousness in their original, undisguised forms.
verb (used with object)
6. to examine and act upon as a censor.
7. to delete (a word or passage of text) in one's capacity as a censor.

look up what the word means

Done. Do you have a better argument or are you just butthurt that other people are butthurt and you feel that you just have to spit as much shit into the shitstorm as them?

http://dictionary.reference.co...

1. the act or practice of censoring.
2. the office or power of a censor.
3. the time during which a censor holds office.
4. the inhibiting and distorting activity of the Freudian censor

http://dictionary.reference.co...

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.
3. an adverse critic; faultfinder.
4. (in the ancient Roman republic) either of two officials who kept the register or census of the citizens, awarded public contracts, and supervised manners and morals.
5. (in early Freudian dream theory) the force that represses ideas, impulses, and feelings, and prevents them from entering consciousness in their original, undisguised forms.
verb (used with object)
6. to examine and act upon as a censor.
7. to delete (a word or passage of text) in one's capacity as a censor.

look up what the word means

Done. Do you have a better argument or are you just butthurt that other people are butthurt and you feel that you just have to spit as much shit into the shitstorm as them?

http://dictionary.reference.co...
3. to handle severely or roughly, as in a fight

Just because so many people are retarded and the people making dictionaries want to appease them or themselves, doesn't mean the result is correct.
Do you say jigaton?
jigabyte?
jigabit?
jigaflops?
You may be an American. Almost everybody else in the world speaking English will pronounce it properly.

I'll see your Merriam-Webster and raise you the Oxford dictionary, the Cambridge dictionary and dictionary.reference.com:
http://www.oxforddictionaries....
http://www.oxforddictionaries....
http://dictionary.cambridge.or...
http://dictionary.reference.co...

so you are a niggard

niggards if you prefers

http://dictionary.reference.co...
Upgrade (noun)
a new version, improved model, etc.:

http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Upgrade (noun)
an occurrence in which one thing is replaced by something better, newer, more valuable, etc.


So even if Windows 10 was nothing more than "hello world", it is still, by definition, an upgrade.
and before you get all "hurr it's M$ it's never improved/better AMIRITE?" That doesn't matter, the definition means it can be one or more of those separated by commas

As a member of the public utilizing a public park, he's already GOT a "platform". He's entitled to use it as that's what the word public means. What we're talking about here is the local government actively preventing a member of the public from using a public facility to exercise his free speech rights. Regardless of your opinion of his artistic talents* how can you possibly (I could be wrong) seem to think active censorship by the local government is OK here? Are there other public venues you'd like to see cracked down on or is it just people you don't care for that should be censored?

*"(c)rapper". I see what you did there.

I know this is Slashdot, but the abstracter of the paper is pretty clear:

"Our test campaign can not confirm or refute the claims of the EMDrive"
http://arc.aiaa.org/doi/10.251...

How did we get from that to the summary posted here? Why does the happen every single time an article about this appears on Slashdot?

Because that's what clickbait is all about!

If there's a problem that politicians are taking bribes (be it campaign contributions or the promise of a well-paid job later), the party with the most guilt is the politician.

That is fucking bullshit and needlessly takes away blame from assholes who knowingly use every tactic in the book to get what they or their employers want, even if it fucks over the general public and the world in general.

Both lobbyists throwing resources (in one form or the other) at and politicians accepting any of those are enormous egotistical pieces of shit.

Said differently: taking and offering bribes are equally immoral.

Politicians aren't experts in every domain, so a domain expert explaining the issue can be very useful.

You mean advisors?
Consultants?
Independent parties who don't try to sway the opinion of the person they are talking to in the process? Pretty much the opposite of what the core task of a lobbyist is?

Any 'explanation' by a lobbyist should be deemed extremely suspect and unreliable, to the point that it is better to not consider the 'explanation' at all. Browsing the web on the subject for the time it requires to read or hear the statement by the lobbyist is probably more informative.

Lobbying in principle shouldn't be disallowed, but given the extreme bias of the lobbyists (small or big), very little good can come of it. Countries would be much better off in investing in more research into the subjects at hand and attaining unbiased or at least equally biased information.

It's all explained here

That was my first reactification, too, but apparently that word has been verbed since at least the 19th century.

Hmmm.... not sure what happened to my attempt at putting html into my commment. Let's try that again (and hit preview before submit this time...)

For chrissake look the phrase up in a dictionary.

Okay, that time it worked.

Censorship is when the government steps in and says you can't do that.

That's the Libertarian revisionist definition. Dictionaries disagree with you.

it always makes me laugh when some chucklehead tries to defend censorship and says censorship isn't taking place since the government is not the actor.

It always makes me laugh when some chucklehead misinterprets his freedom of speech as a requirement for someone else to provide him a soapbox.

It always makes me laugh when some chucklehead misinterprets censorship as the act or practice of controlling or suppressing the behaviour of others, usually on moral grounds

I'm afraid that you're the one who needs to revisit the definitions of terms like "censorship" and "censor"!

What happened at reddit, and also the modding here, both very clearly do fall within the scope of those definitions.

The deletion of certain subreddits and the downmodding of /. comments is done to "suppress in whole or part those considered obscene, politically unacceptable, etc", hence it is by definition an act of censorship.

More generally, anyone who "supervises the manners or morality of others" or "controls or suppresses the behaviour of others, usually on moral grounds", as is the case when downvoting or downmodding, is engaging in acts of censorship.

The grandparent commenter is right.

You are wrong.

I'm afraid that you're the one who needs to revisit the definitions of terms like "censorship" and "censor"!

What happened at reddit, and also the modding here, both very clearly do fall within the scope of those definitions.

The deletion of certain subreddits and the downmodding of /. comments is done to "suppress in whole or part those considered obscene, politically unacceptable, etc", hence it is by definition an act of censorship.

More generally, anyone who "supervises the manners or morality of others" or "controls or suppresses the behaviour of others, usually on moral grounds", as is the case when downvoting or downmodding, is engaging in acts of censorship.

The grandparent commenter is right.

You are wrong.

I don't think you understand what the word "vicious" means.

vicious
[vish-uh s]
adjective
1. addicted to or characterized by vice; grossly immoral; depraved; profligate: a vicious life.
2. given or readily disposed to evil: a vicious criminal.
3. reprehensible; blameworthy; wrong: a vicious deception.
4. spiteful; malicious: vicious gossip; a vicious attack.
5. unpleasantly severe: a vicious headache.
6. characterized or marred by faults or defects; faulty; unsound: vicious reasoning.
7. savage; ferocious: They all feared his vicious temper.
8. (of an animal) having bad habits or a cruel or fierce disposition: a vicious bull.
9. Archaic. morbid, foul, or noxious.

Source

The term could be applied to pretty much any crime.

If they are storing their photos on facebook, they ARE storing them in the cloud.

It depends on what you mean "store". Dictionary.com provides this as a definition: "to accumulate or put away, for future use". (emphasis mine)

I don't think Facebook guarantees future retrieval, so it is probably not proper to classify it as storage.