Slashdot Mirror

No I can't. Because any "inference" is yours, not mine. Look it up: inference.

Besides your problem with the language, I never implied what you inferred, either. I spoke only about myself, in response to a direct question about myself in the post to which I replied.

I hold only you, not your generation, responsible for the fundamental errors you just made to invalidate the argument you are implying.

Look at #4 under the following definition. It means to "bring to an end", which he referred to in the verse you quoted (by using the word accomplished). What he was saying was that the law was over and a new one was replacing it. It had done what it was meant to do, but it was time to live a "higher law", which he delineates in the rest of the chapter, ending with "be ye therefore perfect." which is definitely not in the Mosaic law.

For christ's sake, 'methodology' is the study of methods. Stop using big words whose meaning you don't know!

LOL, back at ya, genius.

I thought it was some kind of acronym, turns out it was a word.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/apropos

Dead is dead, it doesn't particularly matter how one goes about it if you are killing someone for a crime by all means enjoy a little sport.

In any case you might enjoy this article. The evidence seems to indicate you are the only one who needs to read it.

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

In spite of the obvious ripoff this site is, (just like redtube, and all those other "tube" sites in the wake of YOUtube) it is worrysome that even a subset of your name can be allowed to be trademarked, or similar sounding things like the MikeRowSoft.com case.

Merriam-webster lists no meaning for the term. at all, with or without a space separating the words. Dictionary.com recognizes that the term is old, but obscures it an etymological note below two more *alternate* meanings, not giving proper honor to the original one. Imagine the same happening to the American "Yellow Pages?" What will we tell our grandchildren?

For years (decades?) before facebook.com, my university also published its face book to acquaint us with the other 500 freshmen coming in your year. I guess the only thing missing was using the term as its name.

..As OSS and other software options gain parity the monopolist looses it's foothold.

Seriously,buddy. What the hell?

..As OSS and other software options gain parity the monopolist looses it's foothold.

Seriously,buddy. What the hell?

By Jove, you're right. "Lasts" is used only in the third-person singular form of the verb. Admittedly, it was only in passing that I stumbled on the title AS a native speaker--maybe I just don't believe "beer's it" so I reassigned bacteria--until I read your comment. Reconstructed with a suitable pronoun, the problem is clear: "They...lasts" is wrong, vs. "They...last", which is correct. Reference

OT digression follows.

Seeing that someone else posted before I got around to replying, you already had your answer, but I kept at it because their* comment makes me think of an even different approach: As a native speaker I wouldn't necessarily read as carefully as a non-native, who's learned the semantics of the language from a different tack. I discovered this when I took foreign-language classes and attempted to deconstruct friend's sentences in those languages; they looked at me both as if I were insane (who cares about this "accusative" vs. "nominative" stuff? It either sounds right to us or it doesn't!). My friends were arguing for "just talk/write and we'll refine", which was an excellent point: the classes to which I'd been exposed taught me an "unnatural" analytical precision, pegging me as a non-native speaker. Native speakers and writers look at word forms (and by that, I mean shapes, not usages), while non-natives tend to take apart what others take as a whole (BAD SHAPES IS ONE REASON WHY ALL CAPS IS ANNOYING: IT FORCES US TO READ LETTERS AND NOT WORDS -- note the clumsy start you should have here as you switch to reading a regular sentence). Unfortunately, I see accepting these grammatical nuances as necessary for integration--and many of them are learned (for example: "known since eight years" is a dead giveaway for foreigners, vs. "known for eight years"). You noticed the object confusion perhaps because you're paying more attention to structure, but I didn't because I'm quickly reading the shape of the sentence. Without your interjection, I would have accepted the title as-is and thought nothing more of it.

Following, I both support and disagree with Anonymous Coward. While I can easily find assertions that the causal sense of "since" is almost as common as the temporal (so a moot point), I agree in the sense that "because" more often defines a causal relationship. The question "Why can you only speculate?" is what leads: "Because I am not a native speaker", while the strict sense of "since" leans towards time: "Since the 1990's...", "It's been 3 months since...", etc. However, I flatly disagree when it comes down to what everyone uses. I hear/use "since" (even: "as") in place of "because" all the time...and this dictionary (and several of its notes) agrees.

* Note: My singular use of "they" is disputed, but after reading an excellent writeup I tend to choose that over the haughty "one", the clumsy "his or her", or indirections like "a person".

Second definition. Whether or not that's the definition intended doesn't change the implication.

What is a Drouge? Perhaps that should say drogue instead? $lt;/Grammar nazi$gt;

What is a Drouge? Perhaps that should say drogue instead? $lt;/Grammar nazi$gt;

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/emergent+property

That was hard.

Emergent properties do not emerge out of properties, they emerge out of parts that are joined together. Yes, an emergent property can influence the parts that produce it. You can decide to shoot yourself in the head, for example. Or smoke pot.

something most all of us do from time to time.

So, do most of us do it, or do all of us do it?

"Most all" is an acceptable informal form of "almost all" in American English.

The adverb most, a shortened form of almost, is far from being either a recent development or an Americanism. It goes back to the 16th century in England, where it is now principally a dialect form. In American English it occurs before such pronouns as all, anyone, anybody, everyone, and everybody; the adjectives all, any, and every; and adverbs like anywhere and everywhere: Most everyone around here is related to everyone else. You can find that plant most anywhere. This use of most is often objected to, but it is common in the informal speech of educated persons. It is less common in edited writing except in representations of speech.

Unfortunately, I have yet to find a dictionary wherein "literally" is described to mean "metaphorically."

There are notes explaining the usage problem of using "literally" as an intensity modifier, but this is not considered correct usage.

Here even explicitly rejects using "literally" as "metaphorically."

Languages need not be regular to be useful, but a minimum degree of rigor is necessary for them to function (and hence exist). Languages exist to facilitate communication, which they can't do [well or maybe even at all] if words also properly mean opposite things. Definitions may be loose, but not that loose, otherwise no one could understand anyone else.

In the end, it's possible, but unlikely. Thus, citation please.

I don't think that word means what you think it means.

Notoriety: the state, quality, or character of being notorious or widely known; synonyms: disrepute, ill-repute, shame, infamy

profit /prft/
-noun
1.
Often, profits.
a.
pecuniary gain resulting from the employment of capital in any transaction. Compare gross profit, net profit.
b.
the ratio of such pecuniary gain to the amount of capital invested.
c.
returns, proceeds, or revenue, as from property or investments.
2.
the monetary surplus left to a producer or employer after deducting wages, rent, cost of raw materials, etc.: The company works on a small margin of profit.
3.
advantage; benefit; gain.

-verb (used without object)
4.
to gain an advantage or benefit: He profited greatly from his schooling.
5.
to make a profit.
6.
to take advantage: to profit from the weaknesses of others.
7.
to be of service or benefit.
8.
to make progress.
-verb (used with object)
9.
to be of advantage or profit to: Nothing profits one so much as a sound education.

Source: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/profit

Definition of Incremental

From dictionary.com: "Even though less has been used before plural nouns ( less words; less men ) since the time of King Alfred, many modern usage guides say that only fewer can be used in such contexts. Less, they say, should modify singular mass nouns ( less sugar; less money ) and singular abstract nouns ( less honesty; less love ). It should modify plural nouns only when they suggest combination into a unit, group, or aggregation: less than $50 (a sum of money); less than three miles (a unit of distance). With plural nouns specifying individuals or readily distinguishable units, the guides say that fewer is the only proper choice: fewer words; fewer men; no fewer than 31 of the 50 states."

You know, that quote continues. The next sentence after you cut it off: "Modern standard English practice does not reflect this distinction."

Note that they said standard. The entry is actually endorsing the use of constructions like less words and less men.

It's no surprise that people don't understand this distinction. Look at the confusion around the word data, which has become popular over the last decade or two to treat as a plural ("The data suggest..." when it should be "The data suggests..."). I'm quite certain that many people will protest this post, that "data" is plural, and treating it as such is correct.

Um, from dictionary.com: "data (noun): a pl. of datum." Yes, the very same source that you misleadingly cite as an authority above for less/fewer.

If "data" is plural, then so are the following: sugar, information, hair, media, agenda...

Care to actually argue why? I can't tell you how wrong you are about that unless you spell out why you think so.

From dictionary.com: "Even though less has been used before plural nouns ( less words; less men ) since the time of King Alfred, many modern usage guides say that only fewer can be used in such contexts. Less, they say, should modify singular mass nouns ( less sugar; less money ) and singular abstract nouns ( less honesty; less love ). It should modify plural nouns only when they suggest combination into a unit, group, or aggregation: less than $50 (a sum of money); less than three miles (a unit of distance). With plural nouns specifying individuals or readily distinguishable units, the guides say that fewer is the only proper choice: fewer words; fewer men; no fewer than 31 of the 50 states."

It's no surprise that people don't understand this distinction. Look at the confusion around the word data, which has become popular over the last decade or two to treat as a plural ("The data suggest..." when it should be "The data suggests..."). I'm quite certain that many people will protest this post, that "data" is plural, and treating it as such is correct.

If "data" is plural, then so are the following: sugar, information, hair, media, agenda... The agenda are prepared. My hair are blonde.

Idiots. :-p

No, what I describe is 'evidence'. Seriously, go look it up. For example: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/evidence 'Evidence' can mean proof, it can also mean grounds for belief. My use of the word evidence is clearly not incorrect based on the dictionary definition; I think we're splitting hairs here though. :)

The H1B is a subsidy in the sense that it artificially suppresses the wages of the H1B workers

A benefit given by the government to groups or individuals usually in the form of a cash payment or tax reduction.

I don't see any of that in the H1B system.

Do you have links to show these spiraling poll numbers?

Supermajority?

Man, you can disagree all you want. It's a free country, after all. But for chrissakes, do your own research. Glenn Beck is LYING to you, and Rasmussen has an agenda beyond selling graphs to USA Today.

"Swag" is actually an acronym for "Stolen With A Gun".

I'm afraid that's a totally implausible backronym. There's no mention of any such etymology in these references, and I sort of doubt there is in the OED either.

Anytime someone suggests an acronym as an origin for a word which predates the 20th century, it's almost certainly false.

You are correct that "free swag" is redundant, though.

Incomplete knowledge isn't a problem. When that incomplete knowledge results in new attack vectors, that's a problem. The IRA and Israel bombings were primarily acts of ongoing war with known enemies, where intelligence can be expected to be faulty and incomplete. The WTC attacks were unexpected. We weren't expecting anyone to be capable of that scale of attack. That's a problem. Again, I don't expect we'll know everything about everyone, but we should at least know what our threats are.

Activist is the right word. It's the general term for someone who takes action to effect a change. The fact that it's associated primarily with militants is an unfortunate consequence of the popular media. The public usually just doesn't hear about the quiet ones. The closest alternative is "advocate", but that implies being in favor of something, so use of the word would need qualifiers like "advocate of the repeal of X" or "advocate for the cause opposing X". Simply "activist" is the best word I know of.

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

I can see you LOVE to play semantics games (the BS about Lincoln and your "test"), but you're getting customer mixed up with user.

BTW, Booth was a traitor. Period. End of story. Take your test and shove it.

really, thats insightful? A simple, two sentence answer with about as much insight as a Family Circle (Now Family Circle is funny, sometimes clever, but rarely insightful) comic strip. here is a link to the Dictionary.com entry for insight. how in the heck can this be called insightful in any capacity and especially since timothy seems like he wants to avoid litigation. you reh-tarts with your mod points, who are in effect responsible for what people will look at on this site, should consider more wisely where you spend your points.

And, timothy, just sue. Its the only way to get shit done anymore. that or war. Also BoingBoing took the image down, so posting on /. may be a new viable alternative.

really, thats insightful? A simple, two sentence answer with about as much insight as a Family Circle (Now Family Circle is funny, sometimes clever, but rarely insightful) comic strip. here is a link to the Dictionary.com entry for insight. how in the heck can this be called insightful in any capacity and especially since timothy seems like he wants to avoid litigation. you reh-tarts with your mod points, who are in effect responsible for what people will look at on this site, should consider more wisely where you spend your points.

And, timothy, just sue. Its the only way to get shit done anymore. that or war. Also BoingBoing took the image down, so posting on /. may be a new viable alternative.

No, he used the plural form of the noun "Japanese" which is the same as the singular form -- look it up.

I was right there with you, until A WILD DICTIONARY APPEARS:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/niggardly
1. reluctant to give or spend; stingy; miserly.
2. meanly or ungenerously small or scanty

Origin:
1520–30

Whereas the word you object to has origins of 1640–50 ( http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/nigger )

So, how's that foot tasting?

I was right there with you, until A WILD DICTIONARY APPEARS:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/niggardly
1. reluctant to give or spend; stingy; miserly.
2. meanly or ungenerously small or scanty

Origin:
1520–30

Whereas the word you object to has origins of 1640–50 ( http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/nigger )

So, how's that foot tasting?

Uh, the birds aren't recharging.

Really.

Uh, they are.

Really.

See definition 4

It's derived from the same place we get the word nigger.

The two words are not derived from the same place.

Definition and history of "niggardly". Possibly Scandinavian origin, 14th century.

Definition and history of "nigger". French and Spanish origin, 17th century.

It's derived from the same place we get the word nigger.

The two words are not derived from the same place.

Definition and history of "niggardly". Possibly Scandinavian origin, 14th century.

Definition and history of "nigger". French and Spanish origin, 17th century.

On impeachment: Why is that "crazy"? Impeachment is merely calling a formal inquiry.

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

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

On impeachment: Why is that "crazy"? Impeachment is merely calling a formal inquiry.

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

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

On impeachment: Why is that "crazy"? Impeachment is merely calling a formal inquiry.

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

They "shopped it"? Do you mean that they went visited various stores with the intention to buy it? (see http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/shopped) It may have been better for them if they had simply altered the images.

right before frobnicate ...

actually there are eight accepted meanings for the term Irony - I think at this stage it can mean whatever you want it to.

From TFS:
"Along with this release, NASA is contributing technology from its Nebula Cloud Platform"

I'm still trying to decide if someone at NASA was intentionally trying to be witty or not, as the word "nebula" is a Latin adaptation of Greek the word for "cloud, haze, or fog".

this is not insightful, this is just a confused recounting of the press conference. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/insight

carefully raise them in a climate-controlled hanger at the Kennedy Space Center

That's hangar, not hanger. Like with separate, it's annoying how few people manage to get it right...

carefully raise them in a climate-controlled hanger at the Kennedy Space Center

That's hangar, not hanger. Like with separate, it's annoying how few people manage to get it right...

Presence of the hardware is not conclusive evidence that the functionality works as described, but it is indicative.

Or maybe this difference is exactly why the GP used "demonstrative" instead of "indicative"?

The the term "demilitarize" is older than the term "Newspeak" by several decades. More importantly, if you bother to read the dictionary definitions I've linked to, it's usage in regards to the strip of land between the recognized boards of North and South Korea is entirely consistent with established historical usage of the word. No matter how unfamiliar you personally might be with a word, it's not an example of Newspeak if it's being used according to it's customary and dictionary definition.

The the term "demilitarize" is older than the term "Newspeak" by several decades. More importantly, if you bother to read the dictionary definitions I've linked to, it's usage in regards to the strip of land between the recognized boards of North and South Korea is entirely consistent with established historical usage of the word. No matter how unfamiliar you personally might be with a word, it's not an example of Newspeak if it's being used according to it's customary and dictionary definition.

I did read what you wrote. Did you read what I wrote? I don't care how the iPhone 4 compares to an iPhone 3GS or a ham sandwich. Your anecdotal evidence of the miracles you have witnessed is great but a more apt comparison would be to other phones of the same generation, in any case.

The problem seems to be with your definition of "flawed." flawed - characterized by flaws; having imperfections. You are conceding a flaw and questioning whether or not the device is flawed. I have an answer: it is. That it works better than other things does not mean it works as well as intended or should be expected.

No... Statute is right. Look it up. ... Oh, no, nevermind. Can't trust you to do that yourself. Let me do it FOR YOU. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/statute And, for the follow up. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/statute+of+limitations

No... Statute is right. Look it up. ... Oh, no, nevermind. Can't trust you to do that yourself. Let me do it FOR YOU. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/statute And, for the follow up. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/statute+of+limitations