Slashdot Mirror

IC, so it's not about having more precise outlook regarding current societies (about being part of given society, political level, etc.; for example), it's following to the letter a definition made in the times long past...

Either way, even if you really like to exclude some groups of people from de facto contributing to their surroundings...well, they just do it.

I didn't just make it up, actually. Here, I'll save you the trouble of Googling for the definition of ever yourself.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ever
http://www.yourdictionary.com/ever
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/ever

Please notice the definition "at any time" and "at all". At any time means past, present and future. Does the word "ever" always mean this definition by default? No, but context clues were not provided for any other definition.

You misunderstand the term 'meta.' Video games do not "abstract" from other forms of art. Video games are not "derivatives." Well except for parody video games, as parody implicitly means derivative.

Video games are "amalgamations" of other art forms. Video games are simply art. If you must attach a qualifier to the term use "multi" as in Video games are multi-art.

Originally, "meta" was simply a Greek word/prefix for "after,” “along with,” “beyond,” “among,” or “behind” (scroll down to the fourth entry of the link, the one from the Random House dictionary). Therefore, if you use either the meaning "along with" or "among" it is a perfectly sensible usage of the word to say games are meta art.

If this were true, it wouldn't require a label, and people wouldn't feel the need to badge themselves with that label on slashdot.

Lack of evidence is hardly the only criteria for 'delusions', yet this dogmatic rhetoric belies the intention to assert your faith onto others.

If you look at the definition of religion, and the definition of atheism, its clear that atheism is not a religion.

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

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

I don't really get why your against giving a name to way people describe what they think on a given topic. It seems you'd rather everyone explain their ideas in full, even when a single word describing it would do equally well.

If this were true, it wouldn't require a label, and people wouldn't feel the need to badge themselves with that label on slashdot.

Lack of evidence is hardly the only criteria for 'delusions', yet this dogmatic rhetoric belies the intention to assert your faith onto others.

If you look at the definition of religion, and the definition of atheism, its clear that atheism is not a religion.

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

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

I don't really get why your against giving a name to way people describe what they think on a given topic. It seems you'd rather everyone explain their ideas in full, even when a single word describing it would do equally well.

In his April speech outlining NASA's future, President Obama said there would be $3.1 billion for the development of a new heavy lift rocket to fly manned and unmanned spaceflights into deep space. Obama said he wanted this technologically advanced rocket to be designed and ready to build by 2015

Funny. I always thought "deep space" was like "other star systems". So I looked it up.

One definition: any region of outer space beyond the system of the earth and moon

And another: space beyond the limits of the solar system

I'm guessing he meant the former definition since it's such a short timeframe.
Just thought I'd share!

The distinction between ethic and moral is not clear-cut at all.

ethics /ks/ Show Spelled[eth-iks] Show IPA
-plural noun
1.
( used with a singular or plural verb ) a system of moral principles: the ethics of a culture.
2.
the rules of conduct recognized in respect to a particular class of human actions or a particular group, culture, etc.: medical ethics; Christian ethics.
3.
moral principles, as of an individual: His ethics forbade betrayal of a confidence.
4.
( usually used with a singular verb ) that branch of philosophy dealing with values relating to human conduct, with respect to the rightness and wrongness of certain actions and to the goodness and badness of the motives and ends of such actions.

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

For some weird reason I kinda feel sorry for Microsoft on this one. They were trying to do something different. Of course every nerd knows if you try too hard to be cool... you fail.

The name wasn't so crazy
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/kin
If it became a hit, the name would no longer be strange.

Corporatocracy == Fascism. Plain and simple.

The dictionary appears to disagree, at least somewhat. From http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fascism: "a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism." While tight coupling between government and corporations is part of fascism, it's not the only characteristic. Also, in fascism, it's usually the government exerting control over the corporations (for mutual benefit, of course, but primarily to increase the power of the government), whereas corporatism is primarily to increase the profit of the corporation (with the politicians just enjoying the free ride).

Yes, it can be used more generally, but I was using a specific, excessively precise definition for humor. Those more general definitions are still wrong in this instance though; USB is not a false outward show, pretense, or façade. It isn't pretending to be anything it's not. They are hiding implementation details behind a USB driver, but it's not some sort of elaborate disguise; you know exactly what you're getting. There is a distinction between hiding your flaws and disguising flaws as something else. Only the latter would count as a masquerade (take a look at your own definition; it only covers disguise, not concealment). Masking covers concealment as well as disguise, and would therefore be appropriate.

Sheesh. Can't believe I needed to explain that.

Also, you meant "masking" not "masquerading." Unless you really think there is a costume party out behind "USB headquarters," and disk limitations are in attendance.

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

3.
false outward show; façade; pretense: a hypocrite's masquerade of virtue.
4.
activity, existence, etc., under false pretenses: a rich man's masquerade as a beggar.

Your link is to a subscription service. More accessible (though not as impressive) is the dictionary.com definition:

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

So, because I think a woman should pay her bills instead of exploiting her husbands death to get out of her (not his, HER) legal obligations, I'm disgusting?

It's the irrational and irresponsible people like you that make me proud to get flamed for advocating personal responsibility.

There's more to life than money. For instance, I think this woman would gladly pay far more than $350 dollars for her husband to be alive and well or even just to make the pain she will likely fell for a long time go away.

If you must think of everything in terms of money though, for a rather trivial expense Verizon could have made the widow's currently rather difficult life slightly less difficult and probably bought themselves more than $350 worth of good PR. Even if she never signs on with them again she'd remember Verizon as understanding and nice during and far more likely to speak well of the company to people she knows, than even now as she will remember Verizon as the company that caused her even more hassles while her life was already in disarray.

Also IMHO, it might be useful for all involved, including commentators, to familiarize themselves with the meaning of the word "magnanimous".

I appreciate the clarification on the point of statistics; I'll attempt to be a bit clearer in the future. My expectation was that offering an amount of disclaimer at the outset would be enough to dissuade any harsh criticism. Live and learn.

To continue on the path of the hypocrite criticism, I don't think it's exactly a hypocritical statement to declare "based on my experiences" and then label everyone's intuition "wrong". When I think "intuition", I imagine someone saying "My intuition is to choose these numbers for my lottery ticket"*. The only real problem that I see with my assertion is the lack of a broad measurement. It is correct to say "Every Saab is prone to mechanical failures" if I've only ever experienced one Saab; however, it is clearly misleading, especially since I've only experienced one. We both are aware of that, so I'm just beating a dead horse. The issue I see with this harsh criticism is that I stressed my inexperience and lack of information, and I'm still being attacked for being misleading. In a more tangible setting: assume I just sold a laptop without a power supply, and I specifically stated that I don't know about the functionality of any components, so I'm selling this "as-is". After the sale, the buyer demands their money back because all of the hardware is useless. Who's wrong there?

Again, on the point of my statement about objectivity made with a small sampling, I was considering offering a bit more insight. Instead of just saying something about women and their objectivity, I was also going to relate it to auto mechanics. In this instance, the problem is largely that mechanical repair of automobiles is (for whatever reason) simply something that interests men more than women. Not explaining this idea is something that I chose because I'm so accustomed to people replying "too long, didn't read". When so little of my posting is done on slashdot, where the audience is exponentially more capable than anywhere else that I post (other than ilovephilosophy.com), I become accustomed to tailoring my arguments to just one point, not any of the other closely related points. Sadly, I let this bad habit bleed into my involvement where it has no place.

*In that situation, there is no way one could have any prior experience to use for drawing conclusions (no conclusions about lottery numbers can be drawn with any points of reference, they don't exist). Using "a priori" http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/a+priori can mean that one is stating characteristics about something without having actually experienced it (a man describing something from the perspective of a woman). Again, I seem to be sacrificing clarity for brevity. I'm assuming that we already agree about a couple of definitions (or uses) of these various words, and it's clear that we don't. I am making a few small jumps when using "ex nihilo", and I really shouldn't be doing that. To truly be making an assumption (intuitive judgement or whatever) from nothing would also require the creation of anything that actually references it, and I haven't addressed those points.

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

It's not my intention to pick on you and I freely admit I'm being a spelling nazi.

Could anyone elucidate me in the procedure for stem cell extraction? Where do they get those kind of cells on an adult human?

I think you mean "Could anyone elucidate the procedure" or "Could anyone educate me on the procedure". When elucidate is used with an object, that object is the thing being explained, not the person to whom it is being explained. Oh. And by the way, I don't know anything about stem cells.

Seriously. Google the word "Trivial". It doesn't mean what you think it means.

The second you want to argue semantics in the face of positive points I have made and backed up is the moment you admit to having a weak position. But since it seems unduly important to you, I am proceeding from this definition of "trivial" from dictionary.reference.com:

1. of very little importance or value; insignificant: Don't bother me with trivial matters.

A bug that is insignificant has that status because it's easily corrected.

Now, if you're about done using straw men, arguing semantics (uselessly, I might add), and pulling other very weak tactics that consist of something other than refuting my logic or disputing a single point I've made, maybe you can stop with the very easily deflected non-objections and make your case. If you have one, that is. Furthermore, I notice you do not disagree with my observation that you attempted to use a straw-man fallacy and must assume you aren't disputing that because you know this to be the truth.

I note you seem careful not to dispute me in an active conversation with an audience of others. You seem to cherry-pick old discussions in which most users are no longer participating. That's wise, though in a devious sort of way, for I am not alone in recognizing the weakness of the tactics you are choosing to use. It seems to be your silent acknowledgement that you'd only humiliate yourself. It's providing amusement for me but has no value otherwise.

'Is there a word for "small tidbits of information that someone believes to be true and which may or may not be"?'

Good news, everyone, there is!
-os

Thats the definition I get by reading from an actual dictionary, where the very first definition is "truth".

Its a sad kind of thought process that insists that "facts" depend on the observer.

"Facts" correctness has nothing to do with what you believe. Facts are by definition correct.

This shouldn't be modded up because it's wrong. All it takes is a simple glance at a dictionary.

"something said to be true or supposed to have happened: The facts given by the witness are highly questionable."

"Something believed to be true or real: a document laced with mistaken facts."

Our health care choices are already far too restricted -- ever notice how the word "prescription", which actually means "recommendation" is used as if it means "license"?

If you're going to make asanine points, at least be correct when you make them. Prescription has never simply meant recommendation - especially in the legal sense. Even the obvious roots of the word - pre, "before" and script, "write" refer to the historic necessity of having a written claim to property.

Definitions are easy to come buy. Might help next time.

That's "Typos"

Possibly a prescriptive version.

The American Heritage Dictionary's usage note for "utilize" is informative.

Just because it's in a printed book doesn't mean it's a good idea.

You might want to correct Websters then...

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

pay1
[pey] Show IPA verb, paid or ( Obsolete except for defs. 12, 24c ) payed; paying; noun, adjective
–verb (used with object)
1.
to settle (a debt, obligation, etc.), as by transferring money or goods, or by doing something: Please pay your bill.
2.
to give over (a certain amount of money) in exchange for something: He paid twenty dollars for the shirt.

I cannea take it no more cap'tin

To damp - to reduce

To dampen - to make moist

So unless you got some quantum sponge or something, yer getting it wrong! Please use "inertia dampers" instead.

You're going to need to back up your assertion with a dictionary of some kind, because the resources I have handy say either word can take either meaning.

dictionary.com "dampen"
dictionary.com "damp"

I cannea take it no more cap'tin

To damp - to reduce

To dampen - to make moist

So unless you got some quantum sponge or something, yer getting it wrong! Please use "inertia dampers" instead.

You're going to need to back up your assertion with a dictionary of some kind, because the resources I have handy say either word can take either meaning.

dictionary.com "dampen"
dictionary.com "damp"

Considering the definition: "to talk lightly and rapidly, esp. of trivial matters", it is in fact quite correct to use "tweet" in reference to "Twitter" in this case.

Actually, wreck means to inflict or execute.

Wreck means to demolish or damage.

Actually, wreck means to inflict or execute.

Wreck means to demolish or damage.

penultimate means second to last. I think you used the wrong word and meant to use "Ultimate".

It doesn't matter what medical conditions he has, it doesn't matter WHY he was doing it, he hacked government servers.

Extenuating services.

Wow, the English language actually disagrees with you.

I read that as patents at first, but jokes aside I decided to do a brief search on patents. There seems to be a method out similar to that described in the article, although my guess would be the article is more about the all important application too...
 

Abstract
Germanium-containing organic polymers are obtained by polymerizing 3-trichlorogermylpropionic acid obtained by reacting halogermanium-phosphoric acid complexes with acrylic acid. The polymers are markedly effective in treating opthalmological disorders.
[2/29/1980] http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/4296123/fulltext.html

But I will save judgment there because I do not know the details.
Also in the article:

Storsberg helped develop a new version of an opthalmological polymer which the eye will bond to and still allow to function properly.

Anyone who cannot do a simple spellcheck on that word...haha nevermind I enjoyed the read. (Spelled: ophthalmological)

Calling someone a criminal (pedophile who actively preys on children in this case) without any proof and with what appears to be great malice of forethought is not a parody. None of the definitions of parody fit the bill for what she did. It is libel. Pure, unadulterated, libel. The girl and her family should have been sued into the ground by the principle instead of her getting suspended.

Child molestation is a sex act.

I'd suggest that's a sloppy use of words in the context of a subject where words are regularly abused. From a random source:

molest
-verb (used with object)
1. to bother, interfere with, or annoy.
2. to make indecent sexual advances to.
3. to assault sexually.

Origin:
1325-75; ME molesten - L molestare to irk, deriv. of molestus irksome; cf. moles mass, burden, trouble

--Synonyms
1. harass, harry, trouble, plague, hector, torment. See attack.

Is a "sexual offender" someone who was convicted of forcible rape, convicted of urinating in public, a teenager caught making out, or someone with unsavoury content in his browser's cache? Similarly ambiguous is "child pornography". In rare cases it involve scenes of actual sex, but most of what's found on the intarwebs is cheese-cake photography.

Words should mean something, yes? If not, then you'll have to report my dog to the authorities. He regularly performs sex acts on my knee, and I've seen him do the same to children. And because everyone knows that dogs are predators by nature, you'd have to have to call him a "sexual predator", too.

Down boy!

Philosophers produce insight. Scientists produce data.

You must be using a very special definition of insight, because neither wikiedia, nor dictionary agree with you.

Especially notable is the meaning (hinted at by both wikipedia and dictionary) : apprehending the true/inner nature of a thing.

Many scientific studies can be considered to do this. Maybe less frequently by a contemporary scientist, but scientists surely are in the insight business. All scientists produce data. But a scientist who produces insight (i.e., explain/unify/"apprehend the inner nature of" the data) is remembered for centuries. I would surely call the work of Darwin/Einstein/Tesla/Bohr/Heisenberg to be insightful.

I believe every scientist strives to produce insight, may end up producing only data.

This must be a different meaning of the word "Treason" than I'm familiar with. Why don't you try this one.

Also, you're really, really, really stupid if you think this story is true and accurate.

I'm a Tin-foil Hat wearing paranoiac? Because of my wild allegations?

That the Conservatives care little for the poorest members of society and instead develop laws and try to structure society to give the greatest rewards to those who already have?

How about their utter opposition to Labour's minimum wage legislation? Right now they've just scrapped a multi-million pound scheme to get training and jobs for young people, whilst proposing that the unemployed are subjected to Welfare for Work (scrubbing grafitti of walls and sweeping streets) in return for their benefits, which they've paid Nat Ins for and where they will be working for rates far below the minimum wage (a policy which they've imported from the US and which, I believe, the current US administration has described as ill-thought out and entirely undesirable).

Perhaps it's the 'neo-stalisist' Labour party you were referring to? The party which has implemented and tried to implement the greatest explosion in surveillance of the UK population's behaviour, communications and reading habits in the Western World, all the while removing the assumption of innocence (RIPA), habeas corpus, right to jury trials, etc?

Clearly I'm a "tin-foil-hat-wearing rabid paranoiac". Could I suggest you politely (if such a thing is possible) shove your gracious willingness "to withdraw this classification" up your arse?

As a spiritual supporter of the Pirate Party, I'm a little horrified to see someone holding such a senior position in the party speak in such an impolitic manner, alienating a supporter (myself) and possibly other potential supporters by casually dishing out slanderous comments and insults (albeit ones appended with gracious offers of withdrawal should the slandered party prove themselves worthy!)

I think that the Pirate Party and its cause has more to fear from your support, Peter, if this is any example of it, than from the Tories keeping new parties from power though their opposition to electoral reform.

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

Probably using the definition of conceit where it means a far fetched idea or metaphor.

2.something that is conceived in the mind; a thought; idea: He jotted down the conceits of his idle hours. ...
5.an elaborate, fanciful metaphor, esp. of a strained or far-fetched nature.

taken from: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/conceit

Makes perfect sense to me; the idea that you meet a lot of people is far fetched, but makes the game play work, so you use your imagination to pretend it isn't unrealistic...

Priceless?

Oh no this indeed does have a pricetag, many of them in fact and they are big.

I think you need to employ a dictionary.

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

communism [kom-yuh-niz-uhm] Show IPA
–noun
1. a theory or system of social organization based on the holding of all property in common, actual ownership being ascribed to the community as a whole or to the state.
2. (often initial capital letter) a system of social organization in which all economic and social activity is controlled by a totalitarian state dominated by a single and self-perpetuating political party.
3. (initial capital letter) the principles and practices of the Communist party.
4. communalism.

Note how all versions of the definition use the word "state". Cleary such a thing exists ...

You don't get to make up the meaning of words.

If you don't agree : you qowerq q346oiod a8045k a;l4488ljk ! (and your mother too !)

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

It is hardly doublespeak to use the word "gaming" to refer to the practice of gambling. Indeed, the first definition of the word "gaming" in every dictionary I check refers specifically to gambling.

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/gaming

1. (gambling) The business of offering games of chance for money.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gaming

Main Entry: gaming
Function: noun
Date: 1501
1 : the practice of gambling

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

gaming [gey-ming] Show IPA
–noun
1.
gambling.

http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=gaming

Noun

S: (n) gambling, gaming, play (the act of playing for stakes in the hope of winning (including the payment of a price for a chance to win a prize)) "his gambling cost him a fortune"; "there was heavy play at the blackjack table"

No, humans pretty much hate seeing other humans succeed in general, deserved or not. It's an emotion allied with envy. The Germans actually have a word for the good feeling you get from seeing successful people screw up: "Schadenfreude."

You're trying to rationalize your emotional reaction to this news rather than interrogate its validity.

You're stretching the definition of the word "Schadenfreude" to fit your point: it does not. Schadenfreude has no connection to success or successful people, and it's hardly on the same page as envy. You would be better off applying it to the popularity of "America's Funniest Home Videos" than you would using it to illustrate the concept that people don't like a winner.

How anybody who isn't a member of a religion could be committing blasphemy within the framework of that religion is beyond me.

Let's take a look at the definition of blasphemy :

blasphemy /blæsfmi/ Show Spelled[blas-fuh-mee] Show IPA
–noun,plural-mies.
1.impious utterance or action concerning god or sacred things.
2.Judaism.
a.an act of cursing or reviling God.
b.pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton (YHVH) in the original, now forbidden manner instead of using a substitute pronunciation such as Adonai.
3.Theology. the crime of assuming to oneself the rights or qualities of God.
4.irreverent behavior toward anything held sacred, priceless, etc.: He uttered blasphemies against life itself.

So, you don't need to be a member of a specific religion to be guilty of blasphemy against that religion. You only need to conduct "irreverent behaviour toward anything held sacred" by that religion. And that's very possible.

And yes, this is a terribly silly concept which translates even more poorly into law.

Seriously now... Do you think I am trying to trick you with reversed phycology?

Yes, yes I do. I think this conversation can be summed up like so:

Donut[AFK]: RIPOSTE
Donut[AFK]: ADDON RIPOSTE
Eurakarte: COUNTER-RIPOSTE
Donut[AFK]: COUNTER-COUNTER RIPOSTE
Eurakarte: NONSENSICAL STATEMENT INVOLVING PLANKTON

Seriously now... Do you think I am trying to trick you with reversed phycology?

Yes, yes I do. I think this conversation can be summed up like so:

Donut[AFK]: RIPOSTE
Donut[AFK]: ADDON RIPOSTE
Eurakarte: COUNTER-RIPOSTE
Donut[AFK]: COUNTER-COUNTER RIPOSTE
Eurakarte: NONSENSICAL STATEMENT INVOLVING PLANKTON

Really?

Is the state of your communication such that you're limited to swearing where clearly it doesn't convey any sense whatsoever other than your own limited vocabulary?

He made a joke. It was topical. It was a non-standard way of answering the first post, designed to induce a comical reaction. The poster communicated his intent very well, precisely because he used a swear word. Your post seems to indicate that you didn't get it.

You also begin a string of ridiculous, prejudiced, unjustified, and redundant assertions and insults directed towards people who use profanity.

Seriously, I've often wondered how people who swear constantly, and use the F-bomb as noun, verb, adverb and pronoun ever communicate anything useful other than their own ignorance and lack of literacy.

People who swear are ignorant and illiterate? Yada yada yammer, more bollox from Archangel_Idiot.

I'm not a prude or anything, I just find that most people who swear all the time have almost nothing useful or interesting to say, or otherwise full of self importance.

This is where your post starts getting funny. Prude: a person who is excessively proper or modest in speech http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/prude . You are excessively modest in speech, therefore a prude.

Blah blah more redundant crap about people who swear, but wait! Something new! You weakly defend a perception that you are obviously afraid of being typed with. I'm sorry to report you are too late. Everyone knows what you are now.

They use swearing as some sort of over compensation, trying to sound important, but only coming across as the dimwit they are.

Your final blanket, unsupportable, illogical assumption. How many times do you need to tell us you think people who swear are stupid and useless? We get it. Thank you. I've already dismissed your argument as the ignorant tripe it is, or I'm nodding my head stupidly going "RIGHT ON BROTHER, PREACH IT!" for the third time.

The funny thing is, while I stand with the ACLU on this one, at least on principle, I find that their legal support of such people as some sort of "enlightened" viewpoint is almost just as shallow.

I can't understand this paragraph, I think it might be that time I swore at some moron on the internets.

What's funny about standing with the ACLU on principle, but finding their legal support morally shallow? Im not laughing. It's not funny at all. The poster above you, he was slightly amusing. This is not.

Further, how can you stand with something "on principle", but turn around and call it "shallow". It's a contradictory statement. It makes no sense, much like the rest of your post.

You seriously suck.

Those are not examples of violence. Just because something is violent, does not make it translate into violence. A storm can be violent but no one would say it is impacting violence.

No one except the DICTIONARY:

violence [vahy-uh-luhns]
–noun
1.
swift and intense force: the violence of a storm.

There's always a fucking moron to argue about the meaning of words without bothering to open a dictionary. There needs to be a new captcha, one where you have to prove you understand what you're typing before being allowed to just type ignorant tripe and press "submit". *sigh*

Those products are not "state of the art". You do realize that "state of the art" is defined as, "the latest and most sophisticated or advanced stage of a technology, art, or science."

The iPad is less powerful and less capable than tablets that HP released years ago. What's worse is that HP's tablets let you run whatever software you wanted, while Apple tells you EXACTLY what software you're allowed to run. The iPad is less advanced that systems released years ago.

Motorola, HTC, RIM and others offer phones that are much more advanced than the iPhone. More importantly, these other phones allow much more freedom when it comes to running your own software.

The MacBook Pro is a laptop no different than those put out by HP, Acer, Lenovo, Sony and others. In fact, these days it's about equivalent to the laptops those non-Apple vendors released two year ago, in terms of features, resources and processing power.

In general, Apple products are two or three generations behind everyone else's in terms of features and power. Apple just uses liberal amounts of marketing and the stupidity of its customer base to mask these very obvious flaws.

Colloquial/idiomatic.

ways
–noun (used with a singular verb)
way (defs. 7, 14, 20a).

Usage Note: ... In American English ways is often used as an equivalent of way in phrases such as a long ways to go. The usage is acceptable but is usually considered informal.

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