Slashdot Mirror

I guess they make money on families who can't afford video game systems, or have some sort of moral problem with them (there are a lot of parents who think video games "rot their children's minds," turn them into serial killers, etc.).

Interestingly, more blood-letting occurred in our house over cwms and puls than WWF Wrestlemania or Repton. Perhaps I'm stating the obvious, but Scrabble is dangerous.

I guess they make money on families who can't afford video game systems, or have some sort of moral problem with them (there are a lot of parents who think video games "rot their children's minds," turn them into serial killers, etc.).

Interestingly, more blood-letting occurred in our house over cwms and puls than WWF Wrestlemania or Repton. Perhaps I'm stating the obvious, but Scrabble is dangerous.

No need to argue.

irony
-noun, plural -nies.
1. the use of words to convey a meaning that is the opposite of its literal meaning: the irony of her reply, "How nice!" when I said I had to work all weekend.
2. Literature.
  a. a technique of indicating, as through character or plot development, an intention or attitude opposite to that which is actually or ostensibly stated.
  b. (esp. in contemporary writing) a manner of organizing a work so as to give full expression to contradictory or complementary impulses, attitudes, etc., esp. as a means of indicating detachment from a subject, theme, or emotion.

3. Socratic irony.
4. dramatic irony.
5. an outcome of events contrary to what was, or might have been, expected.
6. the incongruity of this.
7. an objectively sardonic style of speech or writing.
8. an objectively or humorously sardonic utterance, disposition, quality, etc.

hypocrisy
-noun, plural -sies.
1. a pretense of having a virtuous character, moral or religious beliefs or principles, etc., that one does not really possess.
2. a pretense of having some desirable or publicly approved attitude.
3. an act or instance of hypocrisy.

[Origin: 1175-1225; ME ipocrisie OF LL hypocrisis Gk hypókrisis play acting, equiv. to hypokr(nesthai) to play a part, explain (hypo- hypo- + krnein to distinguish, separate) + -sis -sis; h- (reintroduced in 16th century) L and Gk

No need to argue.

irony
-noun, plural -nies.
1. the use of words to convey a meaning that is the opposite of its literal meaning: the irony of her reply, "How nice!" when I said I had to work all weekend.
2. Literature.
  a. a technique of indicating, as through character or plot development, an intention or attitude opposite to that which is actually or ostensibly stated.
  b. (esp. in contemporary writing) a manner of organizing a work so as to give full expression to contradictory or complementary impulses, attitudes, etc., esp. as a means of indicating detachment from a subject, theme, or emotion.

3. Socratic irony.
4. dramatic irony.
5. an outcome of events contrary to what was, or might have been, expected.
6. the incongruity of this.
7. an objectively sardonic style of speech or writing.
8. an objectively or humorously sardonic utterance, disposition, quality, etc.

hypocrisy
-noun, plural -sies.
1. a pretense of having a virtuous character, moral or religious beliefs or principles, etc., that one does not really possess.
2. a pretense of having some desirable or publicly approved attitude.
3. an act or instance of hypocrisy.

[Origin: 1175-1225; ME ipocrisie OF LL hypocrisis Gk hypókrisis play acting, equiv. to hypokr(nesthai) to play a part, explain (hypo- hypo- + krnein to distinguish, separate) + -sis -sis; h- (reintroduced in 16th century) L and Gk

hate to say it but 900Mhz isn't microwaves..

That depends on your definition of microwave. 900 MHz is in the microwave region according to here, here, here, and others. I realize some definitions start at 1 GHz. Regardless, attention in water is still great at 900 MHz (degree of attenuation being dependent on the conductivity of the water). Also, note that the iPhone cellular/wireless, according to Apple, may operate at various frequencies between 850 and 2100 MHz.

I just tried to doublecheck the results for "cuil pronunciation" (sic!) with "cuil pronounciation".

Uh, it IS spelled pronunciation... not pronounciation.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=pronunciation

Gotta love English, eh?

Usage note: Affect and effect, each both noun and verb, share the sense of "influence," and because of their similarity in pronunciation are sometimes confused in writing. As a verb affect(1) means "to act on" or "to move" (His words affected the crowd so deeply that many wept); affect(2) means "to pretend" or "to assume" (new students affecting a nonchalance they didn't feel). The verb effect means "to bring about, accomplish": Her administration effected radical changes. The noun effect means "result, consequence": the serious effects of the oil spill.

(Also, for completeness of Grammar Nazi asshattery, "shake-up" is a noun and "shake up" is a verb phrase.)

Except that the study sadly didn't show that. Oops.

There's more than one study, you know. For instance, there's the October 2003 study from the US General Accounting Office titled "Women's Earnings" that found that when corrected for hours worked and experience, including part time work vs. full time work, women still only earn 80% of what men do. Oops.

Obviously this loses its significance when you correct for experience, time, benefits, etc - oh, and whether the job is full or part time.Because at that point, the study shows that the corrected earnings per hour for women are higher than men.

Ooooh, fail. "When we account for differences between male and female work patterns as well as other key factors, women earned, on average, 80 percent of what men earned in 2000."

If someone is discriminated against on the basis of gender then it is sexism. Shit, check http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sexism if you don't believe me.

Okay, sure. Hey, look at that - it's not just "discrimination based on gender = sexism". It specifies either being based on traditional gender roles, or restricted job opportunities.

Seriously, why would you link to a definition that disproves your claims. Is this your first time on Slashdot?

Even taking your unusually narrow view of what constitutes sexism, "Affirmative action" invariably involves somebody in a position of power discriminating against another person.

Oh, weep for poor Whitey! The Man is keeping him down, by not allowing his historical actions in keeping minorities and women down to continue. If only we could start on, well, not a level playing field, of course, but an unadjusted playing field that directly reflects the status quo as its been for hundreds of years!

Maternity leave itself is sexist. Why should women get so many months off on full pay because of a lifestyle choice? Sweden offer men equal rights in this area, why can't other countries.

And they should. I'm glad we agree on paternity leave.

You may be amazed to discover that it's possible to change your legal gender without taking any medication or receiving any surgical alterations at all. Legal gender does not have to resemble physical characteristics.

It depends on your jurisdiction, and you'd still require evidence from your doctor, therapist, and others strong enough to convince a court that you're transgender. It's not like filling out a form.

She might also be basing it on the study that women earn less than men in the same jobs, even when corrected for experience, time, benefits, etc.

Except that the study sadly didn't show that. Oops.

The study did show that women working part time earn significantly less per hour than men working full time. Which is the statistic she quoted to justify this foolish suggestion.

Obviously this loses its significance when you correct for experience, time, benefits, etc - oh, and whether the job is full or part time. Because at that point, the study shows that the corrected earnings per hour for women are higher than men.

Again, this is because you think discrimination=sexism. It doesn't.

If someone is discriminated against on the basis of gender then it is sexism. Shit, check http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sexism if you don't believe me.

Even taking your unusually narrow view of what constitutes sexism, "Affirmative action" invariably involves somebody in a position of power discriminating against another person.

If the legislation stated that it was fine to pay women 20% less than men because women get maternity leave and men don't, and because women take more sick leave than men, then it would be discriminatory and sexist.

Maternity leave itself is sexist. Why should women get so many months off on full pay because of a lifestyle choice? Sweden offer men equal rights in this area, why can't other countries.

If legislation is brought in that permits favouring women over men when recruiting then it is discriminatory and sexist.

I don't think these are complicated concepts.

Because if your salary is the only possible consideration you could have when deciding whether to have a penis or not, then you probably should base your decisions on that.

You may be amazed to discover that it's possible to change your legal gender without taking any medication or receiving any surgical alterations at all. Legal gender does not have to resemble physical characteristics.

Deprecate: v, play down, belittle, disparage, etc.

Depreciate: v, to lower in estimation or esteem, to lower the price or value of, etc.

As an aside, I don't think Miriam-Webster is ever a good dictionary to cite when the point of contention is American English vs. the Queen's English. Miriam-Webster is a derivative of Noah Webster's works, the American lexicographer who is specifically known for pushing an American way of spelling words.

They are similar words. They both share the "de-" prefix, meaning "away, off, reverse, remove". After that, they have nothing in common, other than a similar spelling.

The etymology of deprecate comes from the latin de- precari, "to pray against", which somehow morphed into the current usage of "to belittle", or "to make obsolete".

The etymology of depreciate comes from the latin de- pretium, "lowered price".

Back on point, you argue that "to pray against" somehow morphed into "to belittle", and so I suppose the claim is that "lowered price" did not.

Another online dictionary which pulls definitions from many sources, lists "to belittle" many times in regards to uses of depreciate. Deprecate itself also shows up.

Furthermore, the definition of deprecate has depreciate as #3: "to depreciate; belittle".

If you're American, it's a bit silly to argue with a Brit or really anyone in the Commonwealth about a specific word's usage, spelling, or pronunciation, since all can differ, but still be correct.

Deprecate: v, play down, belittle, disparage, etc.

Depreciate: v, to lower in estimation or esteem, to lower the price or value of, etc.

As an aside, I don't think Miriam-Webster is ever a good dictionary to cite when the point of contention is American English vs. the Queen's English. Miriam-Webster is a derivative of Noah Webster's works, the American lexicographer who is specifically known for pushing an American way of spelling words.

They are similar words. They both share the "de-" prefix, meaning "away, off, reverse, remove". After that, they have nothing in common, other than a similar spelling.

The etymology of deprecate comes from the latin de- precari, "to pray against", which somehow morphed into the current usage of "to belittle", or "to make obsolete".

The etymology of depreciate comes from the latin de- pretium, "lowered price".

Back on point, you argue that "to pray against" somehow morphed into "to belittle", and so I suppose the claim is that "lowered price" did not.

Another online dictionary which pulls definitions from many sources, lists "to belittle" many times in regards to uses of depreciate. Deprecate itself also shows up.

Furthermore, the definition of deprecate has depreciate as #3: "to depreciate; belittle".

If you're American, it's a bit silly to argue with a Brit or really anyone in the Commonwealth about a specific word's usage, spelling, or pronunciation, since all can differ, but still be correct.

A/C:Bad analogies are a motor in Soviet Russia: it drives you! .
Grammar nazi:That's not an analogy, it's a synecdoche.

LED lighting doesn't exceed the efficiency of fluorescent lighting in terms of lumens per watt yet.

Your description of the problem displays a level of ignorance which could easily be corrected by simply reading wikipedia. The simple truth is that there are numerous LED lights which are more efficient than flourescents, but there is a very good reason why the bulk of them are not.

This reason is that white LEDs are fluorescent lights. Not all of them, but all the cheap ones. That's because the alternative is to use multiple junctions in a package to produce a mixture of light to produce the whitest possible light. There are bicolor and tricolor (and for all I know quadcolor) LEDs, some of which are tuned for the closest thing you can get to white, and some of which are tunable.

The typical white LED is a blue LED (the most expensive single-color visible LED) doped with a material which emits yellow light when the blue light strikes it. This method does not produce the brightest light nor the whitest, but it is by far the cheapest way to produce a "white" LED.

The 3W mag-lite may not be more efficient than an imaginary flourescent that would produce the same amount of light, but they do illustrate a different point; the flourescent has a glass tube filled with toxic shit and a ballast to drive it. You can build the voltage regulation hardware right into an LED and just hook it up to some LVDC. I would be extremely amazed if the total lifetime energy cost of flourescent lighting were not significantly higher than that of LED lighting.

In short, [typical] white LEDs are not more efficient than fluorescent lighting because they are fluorescent lighting. When the cost of blue LEDs come down, and tricolor LEDs become more ubiquitous, then the price of the more-efficient "white" (in this case, tricolor) LED lighting will come down.

Microsoft software is luxurious? Hang on a sec... where'd I put my dictionary?...

Here, I borrowed it. Or actually them.

If you look up dictionary in the dictionary do you get an endless loop? And what's another word for "thesaurus?"

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=justice 5. the administering of deserved punishment or reward.

Assuming the revenge carried out is proportionate, the main difference between the concepts of justice and revenge is that revenge only covers punishment. The reasons for having the state carry out "justice" rather than individuals carry out revenge are:
1 - They have enough resources to do it more effectively than most individuals.
2 - They will hopefully be rational about the level of punishment.
3 - It prevents the revenge from sparking a new round of revenge.

To say that justice does not include the concept of revenge is quite incorrect.

Law "A statement describing a relationship observed to be invariable between or among phenomena for all cases in which the specified conditions are met: the law of gravity"

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=irony

The proper spelling is "Zymurgy'": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zymurgy & http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/zymurgy
I am "Zymergy" on /. and a couple of other places... Unfortunately, that username is not my gmail login either, both were already taken...
It just sounded so much better to me than "teetotaler" or "teetotaller" and it is nearly always on the last page of any good English dictionary... :)

Sheesh. Not off topic. Mod parent up. The first post reflects the disrespect that technically knowledgeable people generally feel.

But, "AOLSoftHooMSN" is not a sufficiently euphonious name for the combined company of Yahoo, AOL, and Microsoft. I suggest Yaolsoft, as in Yaaaoooowwwwlllsoft.

Microsoft is also bidding to take over the Catholic Church, as part of Steve Ballmer's (unlikely) scheme to go to heaven.

In more interesting news, I used "euphonious" in a sentence for the first time.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=analyse&x=0&y=0

For the second time today: alternative is a noun, not an adjective.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=alternate

Whoa, there, cowboy. Before you go completely postal on me, I'd like to point out that I didn't call you "stupid or unintelligent". I did state my opinion that the behavior I was describing was, in my opinion, "foolish, unintelligent, or silly". Reading comprehension is evidently not in your repertoire today. Perhaps you should try looking up more than the word "asinine", this time through the text. Here is the wording you apparently objected to, with new emphasis added:

Oh, and one other thing; I hate to be picky, but it seems to me that it's a bit asinine to point out problems with someone else's writing unless your own is beyond reproach. Spelling/grammar errors happen. This is not meant to be an ad-hominem attack, merely a constructive criticism.

This is not, as you wrote, 'claimimg that something isn't "ad hominem" while in the same sentence calling them "stupid or unintelligent"'.

I've always felt that if someone is to be punished for something, they should have done the thing they were being punished for. I'm also very big on personal accountability. Since you're jumping down my throat over my having the nerve to state my own opinion, I'm going to assume I've been punished. In response, I shall now commence with actually commiting the offense I've been called to the carpet for. Let the (well and truly deserved, in my opinion) ad hominem attacks in this post begin with something you should have no difficulty understanding, and indeed have already (falsely) convicted me of previously stating: You are stupid, unintelligent, or at best uneducated. I had no idea that you fit the bill so well, when I used the word you evidently had to look up to determine the meaning of. Feel free to look up any of the big words I may use in the following diatribe.

Your first sentence contains three spelling errors. I will assume they are intentional, in a poorly-implemented attempt to be funny. Bravo. In order to be truly humorous, though, you should have intentionally misspelled nearly all the words in your post (or at least in the first paragraph), or stopped there.

To remain grammatically correct (or to properly convey a coherent thought), your third sentence (which is apparently the entirety of the second paragraph) should use a semicolon instead of the hyphen you chose, but we'll leave that as a "common usage" error. It would have been better advised to state "internal inconsistencies", instead of the sentence fragment "internally inconsistent" as an item in your list of examples of "bad writing". In addition, the word "and" should be removed and replaced by a comma, as I believe your outright abuse of the abbreviation for "et cetera" would count as the last item(s) in the list, which carries its own implied "and". Let's run with the idea that you were still failing to be funny, though, shall we?

As to your entitlement to having an opinion, yes. You most certainly can have an opinion on practically any subject you would like to. Your ability to express it, though, is severely limited by your lack of communication (in this instance, writing) skills. My opinion of your opinion of any author's work is that you do not know enough about the field to successfully defend any position you might think you have taken with regards to the effective communication of the subject matter.

As for the poorly conceived characters, poor plotlines, lack of subplots, poorly defined concepts, kludgy sentences, or internal inconsistencies that you seem so fond of pointing out in the titles I have listed, do please tell me what wonderful examples of fiction you believe to be exemplary of the opposite. What do you read, oh maestro of the written word? No, really, I want to know. Evidently, I am sorely lacking in some critical literature, and would like to understand your point of view on the subject. As a matter of fact, please don't bother to reply unless

Uh, Imposts = impose. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/imposts Knowledge is power...

What about the other 17 different definitions for "forward"?

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=forward&x=0&y=0

Face it, the English language (as well as most others) is wildly inexact.

Wait what? Are you trying to say that hard drives are your BFF or are you trying to say that they're a commodity? I'm confused.

impugn the dignity of the congress.

Do you know what to impugn means, or why prohibiting it is an infringement on free speech?

It's already in there! http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=cromulent

I think it's too late. Already common use and even listed in some dictionaries.

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

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/google (lists 5 references to google)

It's not "censorship" to actually do what you say you're going to do...

Yes, it is.

No, in the case you mention Tom is an abreviation of Thomas and not a nickname.

Actually, by definition, an abbreviation is a nickname.

nickÂname

2. a familiar form of a proper name, as Jim for James and Peg for Margaret.

I'm sure no one will read this or those who do will mod this down to flamebait.

I don't care.

I must speak.

J'accuse. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J'accuse_(letter)

J'accuse the majority of people posting on this issue of being ethically and morally challenged. J'accuse the majority of people posting on this issue of making jokes about, making light of, making justifications for, or simply failing to appreciate the true gravity of the cold-blooded murder of Nina Reiser.

J'accuse the majority of people in this community of blatant, nihilistic elitism on par with Leopold and Loeb. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leopold_and_loeb

You all will attack me, you will ignore me. I don't care.

I must speak. I must speak for the dead.

Even your beloved repository of information shows your bias: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nina_Reiser.

All she is is a footnote to her killer's article. As far as you all are concerned she has no life except as a part of his life.

She had parents and family and people who loved her: people who will cry every day for her.

And all you collectively care about is your gods damned file system, your clever little jokes and who gets modded up most.

I abjure http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=abjure you. You all are lost. You have no soul. You have no heart.

In your shallow thoughts about ethics and morals, I'm sure you at least know what karma http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karma is: it's been referenced in some posts. So remember: some day, you who treat this so lightly will meet a similar horrible fate and others will ignore who you were; make little seemingly clever jokes; maybe even strive to get modded up in their little jokes made about who they thought you were.

J'accuse the majority of people in this community of inhumanity and being no better (and maybe even worse) than those people you so often claim victimize you and prey on you.

Shame on all of you.

In memory of Nina Reiser. Birthdate unknown because I can't fscking find it on the Internet...how's that, eh?

Fraud = deceit, trickery, sharp practice, or breach of confidence, perpetrated for profit or to gain some unfair or dishonest advantage. See: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=fraud

If you are making up fake members just so that your site might attract real members and make money, then I call it fraud.

You can call it patriotic service to the nation or "sensationalist jargon".

I'll still call it fraud.

fraud Audio Help /frd/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[frawd] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
-noun
1. deceit, trickery, sharp practice, or breach of confidence, perpetrated for profit or to gain some unfair or dishonest advantage.
2. a particular instance of such deceit or trickery: mail fraud; election frauds.
3. any deception, trickery, or humbug: That diet book is a fraud and a waste of time.
4. a person who makes deceitful pretenses; sham; poseur.

If you charge people to join a dating service with FAKE people that YOU put in there with stuff you MADE UP, it
is fraud pure and simple. The fact is that people are paying you to connect with people to date, and there aren't any. You might as well charge them for goods that you don't actually have; that is essentially what you're doing.

Just because what you are doing is less underhanded than your bolded statement doesn't make it any less fraud.

scam Audio Help /skæm/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[skam] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation noun, verb, scammed, scamming.
-noun
1. a confidence game or other fraudulent scheme, esp. for making a quick profit; swindle.
-verb (used with object)
2. to cheat or defraud with a scam.

[Origin: 1960-65; orig. carnival argot; of obscure orig.]

Also, just because other people take money to connect them to nonexistant people doesn't make it any less sleazy for you to do it. Again, please delete any people that you made up to put in your database. If there aren't any real accounts, consider making it a free site for at least long enough to get some real people in there.

fraud Audio Help /frd/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[frawd] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
-noun
1. deceit, trickery, sharp practice, or breach of confidence, perpetrated for profit or to gain some unfair or dishonest advantage.
2. a particular instance of such deceit or trickery: mail fraud; election frauds.
3. any deception, trickery, or humbug: That diet book is a fraud and a waste of time.
4. a person who makes deceitful pretenses; sham; poseur.

If you charge people to join a dating service with FAKE people that YOU put in there with stuff you MADE UP, it
is fraud pure and simple. The fact is that people are paying you to connect with people to date, and there aren't any. You might as well charge them for goods that you don't actually have; that is essentially what you're doing.

Just because what you are doing is less underhanded than your bolded statement doesn't make it any less fraud.

scam Audio Help /skæm/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[skam] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation noun, verb, scammed, scamming.
-noun
1. a confidence game or other fraudulent scheme, esp. for making a quick profit; swindle.
-verb (used with object)
2. to cheat or defraud with a scam.

[Origin: 1960-65; orig. carnival argot; of obscure orig.]

Also, just because other people take money to connect them to nonexistant people doesn't make it any less sleazy for you to do it. Again, please delete any people that you made up to put in your database. If there aren't any real accounts, consider making it a free site for at least long enough to get some real people in there.

No, it's fraud, asshole: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fraud Just because it's not legal fraud doesn't mean it's not fraud. Deceit for profit -- seems pretty cut and dry to me.

Quit trying to defend unethical actions by simply claiming what you do isn't illegal. It can still be disgusting and wrong.

"spelled honor wrong" is perfectly correct, idiomatic American English. I did some quick searches to back this up:

http://www.usingenglish.com/forum/ask-teacher/101-wrong-wrongly-spelled-spelt.html

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=wrong

See the many examples of "wrong" used as an adverb in the dictionary reference. I think it's clear that the original poster is used to British English, and it sounds like you are too.

It is easy to throw up ones hands and declare, "They all suck, the system sucks, we need a revolution..." That rarely works.

It's not so much a revolution as evolution, or even devolution. Just stop participating to the extent that you can, and disempower them.

We have a system that works better than most others.

By what measurement? From where I'm sitting it looks like the quality of life in the USA is on a serious downward spiral. This nation is only a little over 200 years old, the USA is a baby. I think it's too soon to start crowing about how well our system works. It does not appear to be particularly resistant to corruption.

If 'we the people' care, participate and vote, things get better. Otherwise not.

Again, that is only true if you assume your vote is counted faithfully.

One cannot assume that because today a wealthy white male lawyer was elected to Congress that he is exactly like every previous white male lawyer. Analogies like that don't hold up when reduced to the level of individuals, which is what the gov't is composed of.

An individual within the government trying to do "the right thing" will quickly be overwhelmed by the inertia of those around him who are busy stampeding over the interests of the average American.

In addition, it is not clear that it is desirable to do "the right thing". In fact, these people are there to do as we tell them! That's their job. They don't actually do this in many cases, but the facts are obfuscated. In addition, [factions within?] the government itself actively use the apparatus of the state to lie to people and tell them things that aren't true in order to manipulate them. One excellent example there is the food pyramid. Another is the War On Some Drugs.

As to your argument about the Bush presidential legitimacy, we have a court system in place, and they made a decision that legitimized the result. You might not like it - I didn't - but we hardly had anything resembling a coup.

Uh, what we had was a coup. "a sudden and decisive action in politics, esp. one resulting in a change of government illegally or by force." The election was rife with fraud. Voting machines are now conclusively known to have miscounted ballots. The recount was initiated on a completely legal pretext. Therefore the result was perhaps legally justified but there is nothing they could do to make that bullshit legitimate. It is, in fact, as far from legitimacy as can be imagined.

the general impression in this thread is that there's a consideration that electors were stupid or misguided in voting for a certain leader.

What's wrong with that? Don't you think it's possible that (hindsight being 20-20) they made a bad choice - not necessarily in this case, but anywhere, ever? To avoid Godwin's law I won't mention the obvious example.

People are free to criticize governments, but NOT the electors that voted for them.

Well if you say so, it must be true. I could comment on the irony of someone who goes on about the will of the people in one sentence while issuing royal proclamations in the next, but I won't. Did I imagine those people saying the Americans were pretty dumb to elect Dubya not just once but twice?

Before you get all snippy about usage, make sure you know what you're talking about: The first adverb definition of 'like' is "nearly; closely; approximately". It's standard English.

Yeah, but then it wouldn't have had my joke in it, that you obviously missed. You do know what a milquetoast is, right?

... I've always been confused how publicly traded companies can be considered "monopolies" in any situation except where your governments regulate them into becoming monopolies...

IBM was the monopoly, but they were chopped down by Compaq. Compaq was the monopoly, and they were chopped down by Microsoft. Microsoft was the monopoly, and they were chopped down by Google. Google's the monopoly, and they'll be chopped down by the next 18 year old college drop out startup that implants a realtime search engine in your sunglasses.

Compaq never was a monopoly, and Microsoft still is. Look it up in a dictionary sometime:

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=monopoly&x=0&y=0/

The rest of the captives and I are keen on feeling the Rorshachian "Yes We Can" zietgiest so prevalent in modern politics and this Microsoft announcement, as we sit chained to the oar.

You could sit all day making little beaded merkins with fur trim and I won't pay you a damned cent because I don't want your damned merkins.

Not bragging, but I don't think I've looked up the meaning of a non-technical word (as opposed to reading up on, or reminding myself of its etymology) since I was in grade school many years ago, but "merkin" threw me for a loop. Assuming I'm not alone in admitting that I don't know WTF a "merkin" is, allow me to share the following tidbit of information:

A merkin is false hair for the female pudenda

Assuming that's correct (it's on the web, so it must be, right?), I'll leave it as an exercise for my fellow Slashdot readers to look up the meaning of "pudenda", and infer what relevance a pudenda (female or otherwise) has to Apple, Steve Jobs, or the high price of Apple hardware, why the poster used it as an example, and what kind of person would spend their day making beaded versions of such things.

Actually, "literally" can also have the nearly the opposite of its expected meaning: see Definition 2

Isn't that ironic?

literal

in accordance with, involving, or being the primary or strict meaning of the word or words; not figurative or metaphorical

Slang would also typically come under that. If someone said they "literally pissed all over someone" you wouldn't take it to mean they got the better of them would you?

You have been told that your idea of what an assault rifle is was incorrect.

Then I looked it up and found that my definition holds true from most sources. But the issue of how it was classified still has nothing to do with my original statement that Assault rifles are regulated and the Supreme court decision does not change that, and, if you can think of a gun that has been wrongly outlawed simply because it looks cool, then I don't give a fuck. So, you can't feel like a commando when you're holed up in your mom's basement jerking off to a Ron Paul speech. If the gun is no different from perfectly legal guns that are on the market already, then why should I care?

As for those that are designed for military, terrorism, and insane militia guy use, I'm ok with them being regulated. Of course, you have been telling me that those guns don't exist.

However, you don't let facts get in the way of your deluded little world.

The hypocrisy of that statement astounds me. The next time you feel the need to reply to something, do me a couple of favors.

1. Keep me out of it. I don't give a fuck about your paranoid insistence that the world is falling apart because you can't have a cool-looking gun.
2. Try to repeat, in your own words, what you think the other person just said. I'm pretty sure it will be radically different from what was actually said.

You let other people define what is and is not acceptable to you.

That's part of living in a society. People make laws, and you have to follow them, whether you like it or not.

Not once was anybody talking about a "Bullet Spraying Machine" and yet you insist that is the topic of discussion.

Someone mentioned that we need handguns to fight off the government when they get too oppressive, and I may not have been perfectly clear in implying that you would need a hell of a lot more than that. As for my insistence, I insist that I was stating that some weapons, including "bullet spraying machines" are illegal. Then you start on your rant about how the classification system is too subjective for your tastes. That is changing the subject, and putting words in my mouth.

In short, you are a narcissistic moron with whom I do not want to have a discussion.

And you are a paranoid retard with no grip on reality.

You are not going to budge on your assumptions and I will not bend my facts.

Funny how you have not stated one single fact. You stated that assault rifles are defined as scary looking guns, and WERE DEAD WRONG! If i recall, that is the whole gist of the nutty rant you're been trying to drag me into. Then the rest of the conversation has been name-calling and rhetoric.

Because your responce sounds like the normal rederik of tax the rich because that way the government benefits without effecting me,

Partisan rederick from both sides doesn't seem to cover the big picture.

Is the word that you're going for here rhetoric?

Quote: "I live in LA. I was a little surprised when I moved here five years ago to discover that the normals outnumber the weirdos by a dramatic margin."

It's just that the weirdos and shysters get more publicity than normal people.

After about 18 months in L.A., you begin to understand the more serious problems. The L.A. culture is even more disfunctional than the culture where you lived before. It gets seriously lonely, living in Los Angeles, even though there are people all around you.

Fraud Alert! In my opinion, this Slashdot story is about an almost purely fraudulent subject, with insignificant truth. Many people want to believe, and my guess is that the leaders of "anti-aging" efforts want to take the money of the believers. Here's where they ask for money: At present, a $100 donation (enough for a free signed copy of "Ending Aging") is leveraged to $150!.

The real science in this is in the VERY early stages. It's a wild guess, but a somewhat educated wild guess, that perhaps one one-thousandth is known about body chemistry that would need to be known to "cure" aging.

There have been some successes, if you can call them that. This paper talks about extending the life span of fruit flies by 7%: Extension of Drosophila Lifespan by Rhodiola rosea Through an Anti-oxidant Independent Mechanism. This sentence is interesting: "We evaluated a new formulation of R. rosea (SHR-5) which contains elevated levels of the putative active compounds (rosin, rosarin, and rosavin), and found that it could extend mean life span by 43%." The interesting word, in that sentence, in my opinion, is "could". Not "extended the life span by 43%", but "could". And the active compounds are "putative"; that means "commonly regarded as such; reputed; supposed". How "commonly regarded" can it be when it is a "new formulation"?

If you follow experiments like this, you already know that "extending the life span of fruit flies" is rather common. If I were to try to extend the life of fruit flies myself, I would start by taking them out of their tiny cages in the laboratory and letting them fly more freely. Maybe now they just get depressed and commit suicide. (I find it difficult to be serious about that "research" paper.)

Right now, 2008-06-27, 01:13 AM PDT, Slashdot is second on the list of Blog Coverage (bottom of the left-hand column):
* Digg
* Slashdot
* Center for Society and Genetics
* Depressed Metabolism

I wonder if they will eliminate the link to this Slashdot story when they discover that not all Slashdot readers are ignorant about science?

Remember all the publicity about sequencing the human genome? A lot of taxpayers paid a lot of money for that. Then, it was revealed, that, so sorry, the epigenome is a lot more complex, very influential, and almost completely unknown.

I would like Slashdot editors to provide an assurance at the end of every story they run that no one they know got money or any other benefit because of running the story.

Every time you play a video game, you are spending time learning about a fantasy world, when you could be learning about the real world. If you study the real world, you can discover that "anti-aging" is a HUGE business, funded largely by people who have more money than scientific knowledge, and hope not to die.

Yes, I know how to spell disfunctional. I just don't like that spelling, and I made my own.

No results found for hoplophobia.
Did you mean hippophobia (in dictionary) or Hoplophobia (in encyclopedia)?

Hoplophobia, (pronounced [hplfobi]), from the Greek hoplon, or weapon, is defined as the "fear of firearms" or alternatively, a fear of weapons in general, and describes a specific phobia.

Some phobias are healthy.

At least he didn't spell it "wala". :)

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/voila
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/viola