Slashdot Mirror

Given that he said "Science needs women and you should do science despite all the obstacles, and despite monsters like me." doesn't the joke itself count as satire?

I had not "said" that idiot, I had "basically said" that. http://dictionary.reference.co...

I had guessed from your unsubstantiated claims that you consider emotions more important than logical arguments. But I have not expressed my emotions more clearly because emotions are completely irrelevant.

Methinks people doth follow wend the times changeth. As a Canadian, I think I see your dogma and raise you definitions for "amendment", as well as the actual text of the constitution. If you can find "Google", "private enterprise banning products", or anything else in there... well, give me some of what you're drinking! Or if you're not willing to share, at least invest an equal amount of effort to correct this Canuck; this was a lot of work! :)

http://dictionary.reference.co...
    1. the act of amending or the state of being amended.
    2. an alteration of or addition to a motion, bill, constitution, etc.
    3. a change made by correction, addition, or deletion

Amendments
        Articles in addition to, and amendment of, the Constitution of the United
        States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the several states,
        pursuant to the Fifth Article of the original Constitution

Amendment 1
        Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
        or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech,
        or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to
        petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The Constitution of the United States: Article. V.
        The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary,
        shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the
        Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, [...] when ratified by the Legislatures
        of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof [...]
        Provided that no Amendment [...] shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses
        in the Ninth Section of the first Article [...]

        Clause 1, Section 9, Article 1
                The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think
                proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight
                hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten
                dollars for each Person.

        Clause 4, Section 9, Article 1
                No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, [...]

Apparently this flag thing is a pretty big deal to a lot of people, and private enterprise has decided to express their disdain for the message it sends. Wake me up when someone gets jailed for making their own flag. Or when the government decides to tax the flag so heavily that it can't be purchased or sold by anyone. Or when the government runs around silencing people who try to talk about the flag issue without unanimous support. // now where did I put my popcorn...

See definition #2 for acronym.

Rule #1 for being a pedant is to be correct. Being a wrong pedant just makes you an idiot.

We're talking about the post-Capitalist United States.

Despite the declines, contemporary United States is still reasonably well-governed.

Here's your evidence

The evidence you cited is that rich people don't care about others:

But research suggests the opposite is true: as people climb the social ladder, their compassionate feelings towards other people decline.

and

Rich People Just Care Less ... Turning a blind eye. Giving someone the cold shoulder. Looking down on people. Seeing right through them.

However unpleasant the traits, that's not sociopathic... There is simply no pathology there...

And then you still need to demonstrate, that our society is particularly rewarding of such attitudes — a claim you made without substantiation earlier. And that we'd be better off electing the compassionate poor to run our affairs — despite their demonstrated inability to manage their own.

But I do agree, that control of government is dangerous. My solution to that is to limit the government's power to the bare-bone things, that can not be done outside of it: defense of borders and fighting crime. The fewer benefits there can be derived from being a politician, the lesser the danger of crooks running for and winning an office.

Many, many years ago, Sourceforge used to be not bad (or even good), plus until some years ago there were no good alternatives - then, some years ago (especially after DICE bought it), Sourceforge decided to make money with the worst possible way (especially since it was against the "spirit" of many/most projects/developers hosted there): by fraud (sure, i am bad with my English, but in Greek i would had call it... "fraud", plus -from the first definition of a dictionary- i quote: "deceit, trickery, sharp practice, or breach of confidence, perpetrated for profit or to gain some unfair or dishonest advantage.").

A fraudster (Sourceforge) can continue to commit his fraud as long as some people continue to trust him (because either they are ignorant of his fraud or forgive him) - we can inform those ignorant about Sourceforge's fraud (which are the majority of those who still trust it), and criticize those still trusting Sourceforge (especially after the latest incidents), but better not do it in a "questioning/interrogating" way, because it may appear that we also blame the victim (e.g., the fellow Slashdoter who as developer hosted his project there, but now informs us that he is leaving - yes he is also a victim, since Sourceforge abused his good faith as a developer and his project as lure for other victims).

You are a fucking idiot.

Atheism is exactly the belief that there is no god(s).

http://www.oxforddictionaries....
http://www.merriam-webster.com...
http://dictionary.reference.co...

Try learning something, you stupid little shit.

nadaou was quite clearly referring to the AC's use of a specific cliche ... In any event, refuting the claim "using cliches is stupid" isn't the same thing as rufuting "using cliches weakens an argument" or "cliches contain no truth".

Actually my criticism included that specific cliche, and my later examples referred to that specific cliche, and demonstrating a kernel of truth in that specific cliche refutes the assertion that the cliche is stupid. Its merely unimaginative.

From http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/cliche

So what? From Wikipedia

an expression, idea, or element of an artistic work which has become overused to the point of losing its original meaning or effect, even to the point of being trite or irritating, especially when at some earlier time it was considered meaningful or novel.

I never said one definition is superior to another, I merely pointed out that *some* definitions indicate that the use of cliches could be meaningless and therefore detrimental to a coherent argument.

Actually it seems a quite rare definition, possibly erroneous, buy hey its wiki. The wiki references include several dictionaries and they agree with the loss of impact. The wiki editor apparently lifted the definition from a literary device website. So we can go with dictionary, after dictionary, after dictionary, after dictionary, or some guy's literary device website.

Yeah, I really did check 4 dictionaries, I thought maybe I got lucky with the first but all 4 agreed.

He was implying cliches shouldn't be used because they are inherently stupid.

You're seeing things that aren't there. nadaou was quite clearly referring to the AC's use of a specific cliche, not cliches in general. Further, if one takes the word stupid to mean unintelligent, ignorant, dense, foolish, dull-witted, slow, simpleminded, vacuous, vapid, idiotic, imbecilic, obtuse, or doltish, AC's post certainly qualifies.

In any event, refuting the claim "using cliches is stupid" isn't the same thing as rufuting "using cliches weakens an argument" or "cliches contain no truth". Those are the positions you've been prattling on about, and the word "stupid" is nowhere to be found in your original post or in any of your subsequent posts - until now.

From http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/cliche

So what? From Wikipedia

an expression, idea, or element of an artistic work which has become overused to the point of losing its original meaning or effect, even to the point of being trite or irritating, especially when at some earlier time it was considered meaningful or novel.

I never said one definition is superior to another, I merely pointed out that *some* definitions indicate that the use of cliches could be meaningless and therefore detrimental to a coherent argument.

But since I've already acknowledged your position that cliches contain an element of truth, I'm not sure why you've dug up a dead horse in order to beat it some more.

When I look at your original response, what I see is you refuting an argument that nadaou didn't make. Nowhere in nadaou's post does he claim that cliches weaken an argument or that cliches don't contain a nugget of truth.

He was implying cliches shouldn't be used because they are stupid. I responded pointing out that though overused cliches can convey a truth, refuting the notion that cliches are inherently stupid.

No, I expect that it would be more accurate to say that cliches lose their impact from overuse.

Re-wording a definition to better fit your position doesn't really convince me of anything. But hey, I've obviously been mistaken about a lot of things, so maybe I'm wrong about this as well.

From http://dictionary.reference.co....
"1. a trite, stereotyped expression; a sentence or phrase, usually expressing a popular or common thought or idea, that has lost originality, ingenuity, and impact by long overuse"

Are you trying to be funny? Or are you just dumb?

"Bear with me" is a very common English phrase, and it has nothing to do with the animal:

32. bear with, to be patient or forbearing with:
Please bear with me until I finish the story.

Pokeymen is a media and merchandising phenomenon that includes card games, video games, cartoons, and many other marketables.

According to wikipedia, "A prime number is a natural number greater than 1 that has no positive divisors other than 1 and itself." 1 is not greater than 1 and is therefore not a prime number.

Since anyone can edit Wikipedia, I'm not sure I'd appeal to them for such an exact definition. It seems that dictionaries don't always agree whether to include 1.

The word is converse, not conversate

The word is converse, not conversate

Holy crap the video is impressive. It clearly parses phrased and dependent logical statements like " what is the population of the capitol of the country in which the space needle is located. "

It can also tell the difference between Capitol and capital, which is something many Slashdotters can't do.

Holy crap the video is impressive. It clearly parses phrased and dependent logical statements like " what is the population of the capitol of the country in which the space needle is located. "

It can also tell the difference between Capitol and capital, which is something many Slashdotters can't do.

None of the rifles you linked to are assault rifles

I guess it's a good thing I didn't claim they were (I was joking in my OP)

and the definition of what an assault rifle is is most definitely settled.

Among the military and gun enthusiasts, perhaps. Perhaps even by legal standards. Settled among the general population? Not so much. If you care to look at how some online dictionaries define "assault rifle", take a look hereand here and here.

The reality is this: if I were to walk down the street with my AR-15 slung over my shoulder, a good chunk of onlookers will think "that's an assault rifle" (even here in Texas!).

This vendor has absolutely no idea of what an assault rifle is

I seriously doubt that. BTW, it's not just Grab a Gun calling these weapons assault rifles. There are many vendors doing so.

or is attempting to capitalize on idiots who think they're buying a rifle capable of select fire.

No, they're capitalizing on people who think that a *semi auto* rifle IS an assault rifle if it looks scary enough - and look...even the dictionary says so!

If another language has something useful, English lures it into a back alley and takes it. The idea that English doesn't have a word for something only ever lasts until enough people notice. Then english "suddenly" does have a word for it -- . It might look a little roughed up, and have a foreign sounding spelling but it gets the job done.

I personally always admired German words like "Schadenfreude". English should be so elegant and just isn't.

What's wrong with the english word "shadenfreude"? ;)

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

"Suicide" is not a verb.

Yes it is.

Belligerent? Are you sure you know what that word means?

http://dictionary.reference.co... "given to waging war." Synonyms: combative, quarrelsome (others trimmed)

UDP and TCP are completely different protocols,

Good so far

and the only thing they really have in common is that they are (usually) built on IP (the "IP" in TCP/IP and UDP/IP).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_protocol_suite The Internet Protocol Suite is called TCP/IP. UDP is a subset of The Internet Protocol Suite. Thus, UDP is a subset of TCP/IP. There is no UDP/IP. That's a typo of TCP/IP or UDP.

You are just making it clear you don't know what TCP/IP means, or belligerent, for that matter. You are being deliberately contentious. You are ignoring cites that support my position, and can present none that support yours.

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

Clearly the way I interpreted the articles usage is valid. You refer to a composers work as the concrete result, not the effort. I guess maybe I have an inflated idea of what I do.

adjective: 1.not lawful; contrary to law; illegal.

http://www.merriam-webster.com...
http://dictionary.reference.co...

That's better. But still wrong, and let me step you through it.

Theology dictionary definition:

1. the field of study and analysis that treats of God and of God's attributes and relations to the universe; study of divine things or religious truth; divinity.

2. a particular form, system, branch, or course of this study.

When used generally, "theology" refers to the entire field of study of god, which is the first definition. Having an issue with it is like having an issue with math, or science, or biology. That's just ridiculous.

In the field of theology, there are many sets of beliefs about who/what god is, and that is what the second definition is used to describe.

Christians have a Christian theology - there is one god who is a trinity, Jesus is god incarnate, Bible is god's communication to mankind, etc.

Muslims have a Muslim theology - there is one god and Mohammed is his prophet, Quran is god's communication to mankind, etc.

Atheists have an atheist theology - there is no god.

Each of those theologies are part of Theology, the study of god.

So when you say you have an issue with theology ... that's nonsensical. You could have an issue with various theologies and find them wrong, but that's not having an issue with theology itself. When you talk about how no one should believe in religion or believe that god exists, you are pushing an atheist theology.

So to reiterate, you can have religious views without holding theological views. If you hold a religious view with no theological context then you're a deist, the second you add a "holy" book in to the mix you add a label, such as Muslim or Christian, which means that Theology is really worse then just having a religious view point.

No, you can't. A religious view is founded on a theology, a view of who god is and what man's relation to god is. A deist has a deist theology - that there is a god, who set things in motion but is hands off with respect to mankind. There is no such thing as a religion with no theology.

Religion: the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.

As someone who practices a religion and thus has an idea of what religious practice looks like, I personally find that this definition is incomplete.

Religion is really adopting a system of beliefs and applying those beliefs to one's life. When atheists adopt a creed of "there is no god", and attempt to evangelize that belief to everyone else as the Truth (Science!) ... I find calling that a not-religion to be incredible in the literal sense.

I was assuming it was a nuclear(5) as in http://dictionary.reference.co... with "nuke" being nuclear(1).

Maybe I'm giving credit too freely, but I thought it was a mildly clever word play that was also awkward and unfunny.

Generally when talking about water, the definition of a wave specifies it is on the surface:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/wave"a disturbance on the surface of a liquid body, as the sea or a lake, in the form of a moving ridge or swell."

If you are using another definition of the word wave (such as that used by physics to refer to light, sound, etc.) when talking about water, you really should specify what you mean.

It's clear from the article they're using the latter meaning of "wave". The definition above is a visual description of what are generally caused by wind. You want definition 11 in your link.

One unexpected finding ... was the degree of turbulence produced as the waves originate, as tides and currents pass over ridges on the seafloor.

Watch the animation.

Generally when talking about water, the definition of a wave specifies it is on the surface:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/wave"a disturbance on the surface of a liquid body, as the sea or a lake, in the form of a moving ridge or swell."

If you are using another definition of the word wave (such as that used by physics to refer to light, sound, etc.) when talking about water, you really should specify what you mean.

Given that their paper was published in Nature, they used the correct term for the phenomena.

Internal gravity waves, the subsurface analogue of the familiar surface gravity waves that break on beaches, are ubiquitous in the ocean. Because of their strong vertical and horizontal currents, and the turbulent mixing caused by their breaking....

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/wave"a disturbance on the surface of a liquid body, as the sea or a lake, in the form of a moving ridge or swell."

If you are using another definition of the word wave (such as that used by physics to refer to light, sound, etc.) when talking about water, you really should specify what you mean.

According to Dictionary.com, it can be a verb.
also
here

I believe you want definition number 32:
http://dictionary.reference.co...

By the way, "propaganda and murder" IS a trait of a people - not biological, but cultural.

Uhh.. I think you better look up those words in a dictionary. No matter Greek or no all rulers tend to resort to them, some more, some less. Mapping it to some nationality traits is nonsense. The very notion of nationality is nonsense. All this is sophistry and waste of time.

I am a Greek (my nationality/ethnicity) - other Greeks are biologicaly and culturaly like me (to a great degree); and different from others, e.g., Chinese, both biologicaly and culturaly.

If nationalities don't make sense to you, it does not mean they are nonsense, because they make sense to others - sophistry (a Greek word by the way!): " 1. a subtle, tricky, superficially plausible, but generally fallacious method of reasoning. 2. a false argument; sophism.".

• "trait" - a distinguishing characteristic or quality, especially of one's personal nature: bad traits of character
• "propaganda" - information, ideas, or rumors deliberately spread widely to help or harm a person, group, movement, institution, nation, etc.
• "murder" - the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law

source

genocide: the deliberate killing of a large group of people, especially those of a particular ethnic group or nation.

The force re-population of Eastern tribes of people that resulted in horrendous losses. It is commonly called the Trail of Tears.

As to the "Christian justifications for the genocide against American Indians" I have to ask, what genocide are you referring to? There wasn't one.

Never was there a good Christian justification for the genocide of the Americas. The "Indian" Genocide was all about money, particularly real estate.

For the White Folk it was called 'Solving the Indian Problem.' The problem being that certain brown-skinned people had all the good farmland because they practiced effective land management. Mostly pale skinned Europeans settlers had continued poor farming practices that are in-effective in a non-European environment. These same pale skinned people found it cheaper to steal land from these other brown skinned people than fix their bad practices.

Reject the Lie of White "Genocide" Against Native Americans [townhall.com]
Were American Indians the Victims of Genocide? [historynewsnetwork.org]

Your first reference is mostly based on the premise that we don't know well how many people lived in the Americas before colonization by White Europeans. Both that and the second focus on the disease angle, the second being just a fluff apologist opinion piece. Only in the South Americas is the effect of disease clearly documented. That is the complete and rapid destruction of the cities along the Amazon in a pattern consistent with sudden plague.

Both references gloss over the reparation events of the 1800s. On the Trail of Tears, a winter forced march, the 5,000 deaths from the Cherokee Nation alone would have put the Andrew Jackson uncomfortably close to Adolf Hitler in proportional killings of a people within his own borders.

If you killed one in twenty of the all people in a State's county today you would be hailed as evil incarnate. Unless if you did that while showing a profit for the investors, of course. But by forcing a group to move on foot from their homes during the hardest time of the year to a distant trash quality land the US military saved a fortune on bullets. The developers and farmers that took over the land certainly make a "killing" with new and less distressed property to work on. Regardless of the victors trying to rewrite history to wipe out White Guilt, the killing was both systematic and targeted at a particular race.

The intent to genocide was also well documented by Andrew Jaskon's own proclamations. The Oklahoma Territory was considered "trash" land unfit for human use. These people were to be sent there to die. Except that once the tribes that moved there they improved the quality enough to make it good farmland. So again there was another grab made a few generations later.

The scales of older genocides do pale compared to modern industrialized killing machines. We don't have a good census of who lived in the North Americas before European colonization. The United States had just got a good theory of gas laws which is quite far from the skills to build large gas chambers. Muskets and pistols are slow and awkward compared with a repeat-action rifled gun or well-crafted handguns on today's market. Plus the USA let the environment kill most the relocated people instead of something as direct as shooting them all in the head.

But when it comes to bashing in one's neighbors' heads, it is not the human that has changed, just the hammer.

Genuine question: What definition do you use?

Your word of the day is CO Conspirator

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

noun
1. a fellow conspirator; associate or collaborator in a conspiracy.

Now I have no idea what your definition of crime is, but planning, orchestrating and aiding and abetting the death of 3% of the population of the earth at the time (WWII deaths 60 million) should measure up.

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

I would consider taking money from someone who earned it through work, and giving that money to another (socialism) to be tyranny as per the #4 definition on the top section and all three under "British Dictionary definitions for tyranny"

So any taxation is tyranny? I suppose you think you live in a repressive police state because rape and murder are illegal?

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

I would consider taking money from someone who earned it through work, and giving that money to another (socialism) to be tyranny as per the #4 definition on the top section and all three under "British Dictionary definitions for tyranny"

He didn't, SJWs like you just try to redefine it to only mean forced sex.

rape [reyp]

noun

1. unlawful sexual intercourse or any other sexual penetration of the vagina, anus, or mouth of another person, with or without force, by a sex organ, other body part, or foreign object, without the consent of the victim.

2. statutory rape.

3. an act of plunder, violent seizure, or abuse; despoliation; violation:
the rape of the countryside.

Source

You're only using the FIRST definition of 'break'. There are many more.

"To break something is to" also covers:
  to overcome or wear down the spirit, strength, or resistance of; to cause to yield, especially under pressure, torture, or the like:
  to disable or destroy by or as if by shattering or crushing:
to ruin financially; make bankrupt
  to impair or weaken the power, effect, or intensity of
to train to obedience; tame
  to become inoperative or to malfunction, as through wear or damage

I think my use of the word is particularly appropriate.

Good old dictionary.com says paranoia is baseless or excessive suspicion of the motives of others. There are a few examples where I think Stallman is excessively paranoid. I personally like using the web only over e-mail to avoid "survellance". Wander that deep down the rabbit hole, and the all powerful three letter agencies out to get you will also have secret exploits for Lynx. Seriously, it's all in the Snowden documents! And I totally did remember to take my medication!

However, there are way less examples that seem extreme like that today then there used to be. Re-writing your hard drive firmware with secret monitoring tools? In 2015 evidence that might be happening is reasonable news, not paranoia.

I've seen plenty of examples of companies who do not want to share code unless compelled to. There are software compliance tools for lawyers whose main purpose is checking corporate source code repos to make sure there's no GPL code. But the number of corporate contributors to all the BSD distributions says the GPL is not mandatory to develop open code. Did it help? Sure. I think open source software as a way to share overhead on boring infrastructure code was inevitable though, even if there was no "free software" (tm).

CA has experienced droughts worse than this in the past.

News for ya, CA is mostly a desert.

the Tor Project is now aiming to ween itself off dependence of U.S. government funds

I think you mean wean.

The ending '-eous' or '-ious' is added to a noun to produce an adjective that means producing whatever that noun is. Something that is 'advantageous' produces advantage for example.

Except it doesn't mean that at all. It means possessing a particular property. This, of course, was my point with "sanctimonious". It's a very broad suffix and is sometimes used for a thing that causes something, but not only.

The antonym of "nauseated" is "nauseating" -- compare with "tired" and "tiring".

The word the headline writer should have used is 'nauseated', although making users nauseous in the pedantic sense would certainly be a concern for the developers of any product.

The problem with pedantry is that it's almost always wrong.

Usage note The two literal senses of nauseous, “causing nausea” ( a nauseous smell) and “affected with nausea” ( to feel nauseous), appear in English at almost the same time in the early 17th century, and both senses are in standard use at the present time. Nauseous is more common than nauseated in the sense “affected with nausea,” despite recent objections by those who imagine the sense to be new. In the sense “causing nausea,” either literally or figuratively, nauseating has become more common than nauseous : a nauseating smell."

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

Dictionary definition of Yahoo: A person who is very rude, loud, or stupid.

It amazes me that technically knowledgeable people choose names that limit their success.

TeX is 3 letters from another alphabet!

Gimp means: Usually Disparaging and Offensive. A term used to refer to a person who limps or is lame.

Sure, I can't even think about getting off the couch to go to bed when I get stoned

Nobody else can, either; that's the point. If they can think about getting off the couch, they're not stoned. High, maybe. Not stoned.

It's a common enough idiom.

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

verb (used with object), comprised, comprising.
1. to include or contain:
The Soviet Union comprised several socialist republics.

2. to consist of; be composed of:
The advisory board comprises six members.

3. to form or constitute:
Seminars and lectures comprised the day's activities.

Idioms:

4. be comprised of, to consist of; be composed of:
The sales network is comprised of independent outlets and chain stores.

If I had to guess, I would say it was meant as an outcome of events contrary to what was, or might have been, expected. in reference to the "Anousheh Ansari, who was obliged to flee to the United States from Iran to avoid religious oppression, remains the only Iranian-born space traveler" with regard to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's dream of being the first astronaut.

Or other words, the attempts to keep her down caused her to surpass the dreams of the leader who attempted to keep her down.

But then again, maybe I'm trying too hard.

What?

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

This is more like "conflation" rather than "dog-whistle" racism. You get people agreeing with your speech and then throw in something discordant. They want to agree with the majority of your statement, and it order to do so, it seems like they're agreeing with the discordant note as well.

Please learn the definition of the word prophet. It is a person - separate from any deity that they speak for.

No need to look anything up. I happen to know the definition of gerrymandering. You too can if you want.

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

The problem with calling the boundary disputes and prohibition on slavery for new states if that it is not an existing territory and does not favor one party over another. We do not have states that look like pentagrams with Star of David on each point in order to favor a party at one time. What we had was more of a policy push than gerrymandering.

But as I said, even if it somehow can be construed as such, the point is moot due to how the senate was selected at the time.