Slashdot Mirror

I think automated spell checking is a poor way to learn grammar and that such tools are frequently wrong.

A quick review makes me suspect that the correct possessive form is still someone else's. (Sources: a dictionary, a writing guide, and a google test)

It's not as bizarre as it first seems, that sense of the word is only used in the context of psychiatry. The M-W entry should have indicated that, though. Other dictionaries do mark it (and even the M-W Medical entry is more explicit).

The reason for a penitentiary is to make people sorry for doing something wrong to remind them not to do it again. If they were really set up to do that still, they would remove all TVs, weight rooms, suspend privileges, and impose hard labour, and corporal punishment. They would make prisons a very bad place to be so that criminals would try hard not to go back. But society is full of people who can't seem to take responsibility for their own actions any more and want to sue everyone instead of taking their lumps. Of course to maintain and justify this type of thinking, they push their thinking on others including how prisons are run now.

The reason for a penitentiary is to make people sorry for doing something wrong to remind them not to do it again. If they were really set up to do that still, they would remove all TVs, weight rooms, suspend privileges, and impose hard labour, and corporal punishment. They would make prisons a very bad place to be so that criminals would try hard not to go back. But society is full of people who can't seem to take responsibility for their own actions any more and want to sue everyone instead of taking their lumps. Of course to maintain and justify this type of thinking, they push their thinking on others including how prisons are run now.

If reference.com is be trusted, the term "war hammer" (TM?*) has been around and considered part of the general English language, as a variant of the term pole hammer.
It looks like JRR Tolkein used the term "war-hammer" (TM?) in LotR. The exact spacing/lettering used by Warhammer Online (TM) is probably best avoided by another commercial organization.
I think it would be clever if they renamed the site "PoleHammerAlliance".

* (TM?) indicates something that probably is not trademarked, or at least ought not to be, nor be recognized as one, IMHO. I use TM? to indicate a problematic ambiguity, not to recognize a possible trademark.

-os

Well of course losses are not real if they are hypothetical. Hypotheticals are not considered real until proven, by the very definition of Hypothetical: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Hypothetical syn: suppositional, theoretical, speculative.

Hypotheticals should never be used in courts of law because they are not yet truth, but thats just my opinion, and nobody cares about that ;)

The other statement you referenced is based on that most arguments I've seen, and were made by my original post's father and were hypothetical in nature. There were assumptions made on the hypothesis that the company would have made money if the thief had not stolen the item, which is unfounded, because in that statement they do not disprove that they wouldn't have made money if he hadn't. The company's intent was that this should be taken as fact (when it is not fact yet) and thus be applied as an opportunity cost, which only has basis in fact, not on hypothetical possibilities of an unproven nature.

See you are using one of the old definitions of what a "right" is. The new definition of a right is "Whatever the fuck I want because I want it and I mean now!!1!one1!1elventy! So, hand it over BITCH!"

...having a circular plan and usually in the form of a portion of a sphere...
...a domical roof or ceiling.
...any covering thought to resemble the hemispherical vault of a building...
...anything shaped like a hemisphere or inverted bowl.

Maybe 1.c.?

a polygonal vault, ceiling, or roof.

Still, "box" would get the point across better, IMO.

the "g" in gnu is enunciated.

Really?!?

I was not referring to JavaScript and what you're saying might technically be correct, but... we should not forget that the language constantly evolves and definitions of yesterday could be expanded today.

• google results for "html markup": about 294,000
• google results for "html code": about 103,000,000

• google results for "css markup": about 26,300
• google results for "css code": about 773,000

and besides http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/markup Computing Dictionary markup definition (1995-03-30):

In computerised document preparation, a method of adding information to the text indicating the logical components of a document, or instructions for layout of the text on the page or other information which can be interpreted by some automatic system*.

and http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/code Computing Dictionary code definition (2000-04-08):

1. Instructions for a computer in some programming language, often machine language (machine code). The word "code" is often used to distinguish instructions from data*

* emphasis added

I was not referring to JavaScript and what you're saying might technically be correct, but... we should not forget that the language constantly evolves and definitions of yesterday could be expanded today.

• google results for "html markup": about 294,000
• google results for "html code": about 103,000,000

• google results for "css markup": about 26,300
• google results for "css code": about 773,000

and besides http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/markup Computing Dictionary markup definition (1995-03-30):

In computerised document preparation, a method of adding information to the text indicating the logical components of a document, or instructions for layout of the text on the page or other information which can be interpreted by some automatic system*.

and http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/code Computing Dictionary code definition (2000-04-08):

1. Instructions for a computer in some programming language, often machine language (machine code). The word "code" is often used to distinguish instructions from data*

* emphasis added

Freedom of the press does not give the media free reign to interfere

You mean free rein.

No, I don't, it's not code.

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

Computers. the symbolic arrangement of statements or instructions in a computer program in which letters, digits, etc. are represented as binary numbers; the set of instructions in such a program: That program took 3000 lines of code. Compare ASCII, object code, source code.

There are no instructions or statements in HTML/CSS. It's not code.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/rhetorical+question

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

Your kids picked restaurants that had graceful movements that made them look buoyant?

Where do they build restaurants that move like this? I've only ever seen buildings that just sit there and do nothing but shelter the same patch of ground from the rain day in and day out.

Either is correct grammar nazi. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/cancel

Actually, NASA and BBC are both initialisms.

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

Greed - noun. excessive or rapacious desire, esp. for wealth or possessions. (ref, my emphasis).

First off we have to ask if a fictional entity has the necessary mens rea to be greedy. That's questionable but I think beside the point, because we don't really care if it is "the company" or rather the collective result of it's management that is greedy.

Determining whether something or someone is greedy is a personal judgement. We are all at least a little greedy but it is silly to set the bar so low that everyone qualifies, it renders the term pointless. In my view, a company is not greedy simply because it exists to make money, it depends on the lengths it is willing to go to make money.

Branson's ability to convince himself that his airline is due money, that he can rationalise this perspective into a belief so strong he evidently thinks the general public would support the notion of giving him their money, suggests to me he is greedy. That Virgin engaged in price-fixing provides some backup, particularly since:

Asked if Virgin had considered firing [Virgin Atlantic CEO Steve Ridgway], a spokesman said: "Not at all. The board discussed all this in 2006 and they fully supported him and the business has moved on." Neither did he offer to resign.

...real data to anonimize it...

There is a similar word in the English language: Anonymize.

"Repulsion field," indeed.

Democracy helped our society break free from the rule of the mob.

Er... democracy is rule by mob; a democratic republic O.T.O.H. sets some basic ground rules on what the mob can do. Unfortunately a democratic republic is an unstable state that eventually erodes away.

Citation needed.

Democracy most certainly is not mob rule:
democracy

.. many people are losing faith in science.

IMHO Faith and Science are exact opposites.

Come on. It's an expression. I think you knew that. It's perfectly clear what the GPP meant.

1. confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.

Who are the customers of a site such as this; the users, or the advertisers?

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

1. a person who purchases goods or services from another; buyer; patron.

Emphasis mine, hope this helps.

I didn't say that you were working for the music industry. I suggested that, considering you both hold a disjointed view of the definition of the word "steal", you may wish to seek gainful employment with them.

FWIW, Google is not a dictionary
1. to take (the property of another or others) without permission or right, esp. secretly or by force
2. to appropriate (ideas, credit, words, etc.) without right or acknowledgment.

You might think that 2. fits your description. It does not. Nothing was appropriated (to take without permission or consent; seize; expropriate:) It was duplicated. Google still retains the code.

I grow tired of making this distinction on every single post which deals with an infringement of copyright or other licensed work.

I didn't say that you were working for the music industry. I suggested that, considering you both hold a disjointed view of the definition of the word "steal", you may wish to seek gainful employment with them.

FWIW, Google is not a dictionary
1. to take (the property of another or others) without permission or right, esp. secretly or by force
2. to appropriate (ideas, credit, words, etc.) without right or acknowledgment.

You might think that 2. fits your description. It does not. Nothing was appropriated (to take without permission or consent; seize; expropriate:) It was duplicated. Google still retains the code.

I grow tired of making this distinction on every single post which deals with an infringement of copyright or other licensed work.

I looked at the source he cited and found this:

Legal Dictionary

Main Entry: censor
Function: transitive verb
: to examine (as a publication or film) in order to suppress or delete any contents considered objectionable

I don't see any requirement that the one doing this be a government. Did you read the dictionary link, or not? Incidentally, I agree that Apple's actions are legal. I just think that they're ridiculous.

Why argue? Just use a dictionary:

To censor

People no longer become under the influence of substantives which make them more dangerous? (note - I know that not all drugs make you dangerous, but some certainly do impair your judgement)

*psst*...hey! Watch out for that guy! He knows his parts of speech. I wouldn't go near him, if you value your innocence....

Oh my, "their own devices", really?

Pray tell me, how is it's Apple's device after they've sold it to me, you, or someone else?

I think you're confused on what the term "ownership" means. Let me help you out: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ownership?&qsrc=

tinker [ting-ker]

1. a mender of pots, kettles, pans, etc., usually an itinerant.

2. an unskillful or clumsy worker; bungler.

3. a person skilled in various minor kinds of mechanical work; jack-of-all-trades.

4. an act or instance of tinkering: Let me have a tinker at that motor.

5. Scot., Irish English.

a. a gypsy.

b. any itinerant worker.

c. a wanderer.

d. a beggar.

6. chub mackerel.

–verb (used without object)

7. to busy oneself with a thing without useful results: Stop tinkering with that clock and take it to the repair shop.

8. to work unskillfully or clumsily at anything.

9. to do the work of a tinker.

–verb (used with object)

10. to mend as a tinker.

11. to repair in an unskillful, clumsy, or makeshift way.

Put it this way...

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

Unless anyone but Apple is an unskilled gypsy, that is.

Debian's business model is to provide a quality product that other companies can rip off. So that kinda evens things out.

Canonical has found a way to make money to support its work (and maybe profit too, I don't know), fully respecting the license agreement Debian provided. Not that Debian has much choice if they want to distribute Linux, but it's what they provided. As long as you don't step on trademarks, ripoff isn't even an insult in this context.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ripoff
"3. a copy or imitation."

Sure it has a negative connotation, but that #3 definition is quite neutral in its denotation. I'll assume you're using that meaning, in the given context.

You see it as a byline on a newspaper but those stories are just something to yawn at these days.

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

Isn't it ironic that Ham Radio is meant to be a communications system for amateurs?

Amateur has a number of meanings. The relevant one is:
a person who engages in a study, sport, or other activity for pleasure rather than for financial benefit or professional reasons. Compare professional.

In other words, with some extremely limited and very specific exceptions, hams cannot be compensated for their work.

Your house rules are pretty much the actual rules of the game, with maybe the exception of #2. But you don't really need #3. If you're playing English Scrabble, the spellings of foreign letters (in this case, they're not even latin letters) that have become words in the English langauge should be perfectly acceptable. E.g., alpha also means first or top, beta means in test or unfinished, delta means change or river delta, omega means last. But something like psi shouldn't be a valid word, nor rho, as neither has an English definition.

As for en, it actually is an English word with a meaning other than the letter "N". Of course, the meaning is derived from the letter (it came from the width of the letter "n" being half that of the letter "m"), but that's not relevant in determining whether it's an actual word or not.

Hm, weird... The original post in the "reply" page has a second list of numbers next to the first. It's also in the preview page.

I find the way Steam handles DRM the least draconic of any DRM and am actually fairly okay with it.

Spelling Nazi alert!

You meant to write draconian or drastic. But I'll admit, the accidental compression is... interesting because lucky.

I find the way Steam handles DRM the least draconic of any DRM and am actually fairly okay with it.

Spelling Nazi alert!

You meant to write draconian or drastic. But I'll admit, the accidental compression is... interesting because lucky.

All terrorists are try to start a revolution in one way or another. A lot of those in the middle east are trying to force people to believe in muslim. That right there is what a revolution is. We slap terrorist on them since they are trying to change the way our government works through means not controlled by the government. The Americans in the American Revolution were considered terrorists against the crown. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/revolutionary

of, pertaining to, characterized by, or of the nature of a revolution, or a sudden, complete, or marked change: a revolutionary junta.

1. Homogeneity: Apple maintains disparate systems as long as it makes sense to. The Apple II series was going nowhere when it was dropped, and that's the only example I'm coming up with.

Do you even know what "disparate" means. Apple have never tried to maintain multiple versions of their operating system, as soon as one version is released the old one is killed off. Hint OS 9 to OS X, PPC to Intel. Try harder in future.

2. Control: Apple, despite thriving on the basis of its software, makes its money by selling hardware. That's why they hate hackintoshes. It's not a desire for control so much as a desire to keep the money flowing in.

Not really, if Apple wanted money they'd sell OS X in whatever form they could, in addition to the hardware. Apple would make an absolute killing doing what MS does even if it reserved certain features for Apple only hardware.

This doest account for the de-listing of certain applications or certain classes of application on the iphone app store. After all many of the de-listed applications were making money for Apple.

By the way, have you noticed that every Macintosh sold comes with a full high-quality development environment on the accompanying media, with no restrictions on use?

If you honestly believe that, read the EULA, there are a heap on restrictions (including the famous "forbidden to use whilst working on nuclear/chemical/biological weapons" clause). Appearance of freedom is not freedom, like the ability to swap out the video card with an identical non-Apple approved one. With MS, they try to lock you in to their software, with Apple you are locked in to their software and hardware.

3. They can: No personal computer has tried such a thing for a long time.

Do you mean like the walled garden environment on the Iphone, that's proof right there son.

You are missing the point, the Iphone proved that consumers will accept any abuse so long as they believe what they need to believe (it makes them special/cool, otherwise known as Cognitive Dissonance). Apple will bring this thinking to the desktop, many fanboys already argue that the Mac is a consumer electronic device as opposed to a computer.

4. Numbers are irrelevant. Cashflow is relevant

Here you argue against yourself. Not only does apple make a huge margin on the Iphone, get greater control and distributions (numbers are relevant if cash flow is relevant, HINT: higher numbers == higher income) they also get a continued revenue stream (app store, contract kickbacks). So your justification helps my point.

Could you at least keep your argument consistent, after that we'll work on logical.

Nor do I understand what you mean by shooting themselves in the foot before. They had a period under uninspired leadership when they almost died, but they're over that now, back under Jobs.

Try and sound a bit less of a fanboy, I know you like to forget how they lost the entire PC market in the 80's, sacked most of the engineers, stabbed Woz then Jobs in the back and had to be bailed out by MS in 1997 (without this US$150 mil, you wouldn't even be able to be an Apple fanboy in 2010).

You have proven yourself to be a good example of cognitive dissonance, you believe that Mac desktops and laptops come with no restrictions, yet point out that you need to run them on Apple hardware. This does not contradict itself in your world.

de- duplication

de- duplication

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

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

It's not that hard.

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

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

It's not that hard.

There's a big difference between "a Red Bull can" and "a can of Red Bull". One implies it's just the can, the other implies it's a can of something. Can you guess which is which?

Using your example, consider these two phrases:

1. a gasoline can
2. a can of gasoline

Which implies that it contains gasoline? Yeah, same for the Red Bull. Here's some homework you can take to your English tutor:

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=54975&dict=CALD (definition: "containing")
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/of (definition 4: "substance or contents")
http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?lextype=3&search=of (definition 4: "containing a particular substance")
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/of

You get the picture. Maybe if you're in deep redneck country, words have a different meaning. But the majority of the world parses "a can of Red Bull" as it being a can which contains Red Bull. Otherwise, it'd be a Red Bull can, wouldn't it?

Let's all stop for a moment to remember that we are talking about the entertainment industry. Let that sink in. Entertainment: something affording pleasure, diversion, or amusement, esp. a performance of some kind. (ref)

All of these people--RIAA, MPAA, and their equivalents across the world--are fighting tooth and nail because some people do not consider entertainment to be worth the sometimes exorbitant fees required to access it, and because some people get their entertainment and chafe at being told they have to jump through hoops to enjoy it.

There are still people starving in this world. There are people fighting for their lives and their beliefs. There are human rights violations. And there is so much else.

And these people are fighting for the right to overcharge and micromanage your entertainment.

Wrong. The term can apply to anything of mixed origin.

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

"I would definitely fire anyone who specifies Oracle in my organisation."

Since you can't even spell organization, I doubt you're in a position to fire anyone at all... (grin)

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

What's a faire?

Oh this makes me sooooo grumpy. FFS, who does the International System of Units think they are. 1024 does equal 1 kilobyte ... always has been. That's what I was taught in school. If I had answered 1000 bytes = 1 kilobyte, it would of been zero marks.

According to the Oxford Dictionary: noun Computing a unit of memory or data equal to 1,024 bytes.
According to Websters Dictionary: A unit of information equal to 1024 bytes.
According to Cambridge Dictionary: a unit of measurement of computer memory consisting of 1024 bytes
According to http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/kilobyte:

–noun Computers.
1.1024 (2^10) bytes.
2.(loosely) 1000 bytes. Symbol: K, KB

So until the guardians of the English language change .... 1 kilobyte = 1024 bytes. Finished.

3. excessive patriotism; chauvinism.

The problem with nationalism is that it tends to make race the basis of political loyalty. It is just tribalism on a grand scale. Wikipedia does a nice job on this:

Nationalism generally involves the identification of an ethnic identity with a state. The subject can include the belief that one's nation is of primary importance. . . . In some cases the identification of a homogeneous national culture is combined with a negative view of other races or cultures. In former eras, people were generally loyal to a city or to a particular leader rather than to their nation.

Much later it goes on discussing criticisms:

Nationalism is inherently divisive because it highlights differences between peoples, emphasising an individual's identification with their own nation. . . . Nationalism has often been exploited to encourage citizens to partake in the nations conflicts. Such examples include The Great War and World War Two, where nationalism was a key component of propaganda material. . . . Famous pacifist Bertrand Russell criticizes nationalism of diminishing individual's capacity to judge his or her fatherland's foreign policy. William Blum has said this in other words: "If love is blind, patriotism has lost all five senses." Albert Einstein stated that "Nationalism is an infantile disease... It is the measles of mankind."

Not to Godwin the thread but in this case it is quite appropriate, Nazis were nationalists par excellence.

Re: your comment, GP's user ID *IS* a palindrome. It helps if you know what a word means before you correct someone else's use of it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palindrome
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/palindrome
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/palindrome
http://sarahpalin.typepad.com/

Oops, well 3 out of 4 anyway ;)

I see you are a Kennedy apologist.

If by that you mean apologist under the original Greek meaning of the word as "one who defends/explains a position", than yes I am. I see no problem with this and accept the term willingly because intellectual discourse of any kind requires some level of apologia from multiple perspectives. Also despite what you imply, there is no innate shame or guilt in attempting to rectify misconceptions about someone who can no longer speak for themselves.

Furthermore my understanding of Ted Kennedy is born-out by an objective look at both the man's words and deeds while in public office. He was the broker of many compromises between political parties and other ideological divides in situations where he thought such compromises would ultimately be better than gridlock or the status quo.

First trying to distance him from it, then saying this when shown he proudly took whole credit for it.

No I tried to correct your incorrect belief that Ted Kennedy thought HMOs were the best system. Then I also explained why there is no contradiction for him to feel some sense of achievement because he helped implement a system he thought would be an improvement at the time over letting the current problem continue because his most favored solution was politically infeasible. You can blame him for being wrong about the efficacy of HMOs but not for hypocrisy, which seemed to be what you where implying.

Most people who want single-payer don't think the new law creates the ideal system.

Myself included, but I see the entire bill as "two steps forward, one step back". It is far from ideal but it does provide some improvement over the current situation. Which BTW isn't controlling rising health care costs either, yet allows health insurance companies wide latitude to rescind or deny coverage to people otherwise willing and able to pay for it while continually driving down the amount of revenue they actually apply towards participant care (which even if private insurers could stabilize costs relative to inflation would still be a reduction in value for their customers). I'm not claiming this bill will be the total solution of our country's health care crisis. However, it does significantly reduce the ability of the insurance companies to abuse the American public and it leaves the door open for reforms that will actually address costs later.

Will it make things better, or become the bane of the existence many that Kennedy's HMOs did?

We know the track record, so it is more likely the latter.

I see so your argument is "The past attempts by Democrats to address health care costs failed, so therefore all future attempts by Democrats are likely to fail." This is of course possible, but do you have anything to support this beyond rhetoric and perhaps a significant personal dislike for a dead politician?