Slashdot Mirror

Come on - I know I'm not the only one who had to look it up!

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

Two of the definitions on dictionary dot com mention not just the bureaus, but the excessiveness of them that is the common use of the term. If you've ever played this game, I think you would agree.

.....form an explanation for something. ....

If you look up the meaning of the word explanation here:

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

you will see that this term includes to provide an interpretation for a mystery.

(.....that fossils were made rapidly.....)

There is no way anyone knows of, whereby a fossil can be made slowly. Today, when a living organism dies, it DECAYS. It never makes a fossil. To prevent decay, all agents that cause such decay must be eliminated. That means decay causing organisms must be killed or inactivated very quickly after death and oxygen must be excluded almost immediately. Slow burial in sediments doesn't work. Nobody has EVER made a fossil, using any conceivable slow evolutionary mechanism. Maybe you have some information on how it is possible to make a fossil today by a slow extended process over time.

Fossilization always involves water in that fossils are found in sedimentary formations only. A sudden destructive burial of the large variety of living things, while yet alive, under miles of mud and silt, in a cataclysmic flood of rushing water fits the evidence of fossils. The immense pressure and resultant heat killed micro-organisms that cause decay and exclude oxygen. A slow burial over a long time doesn't.

(.....these assumptions are no different than the ones you make when you assume that your bed is made of matresses ....)

However, I can test such assumptions EXPERIMENTALLY by lying down on one to see if they are valid. There is NO way to test some of the assumptions of evolutionists. It is science to make assumptions that can be tested by observation. Religious assumptions (beliefs) and evolutionary beliefs cannot be tested. That's why they are both only beliefs. The assumption that nothing ever changes (such as some natural "constants") cannot be tested experimentally. We do have evidence that most of nature is dynamic, not an unchanging static. Assuming that fossils were made "somehow", but not being able to make one by any theorized process is not science but faith.

(..... If the rate of nuclear decay were once much higher, ......)

You are forgetting that energy conservation laws would prevent this. For example, a larger Planck's constant h in the past would reduce atomic cross sections. You can think of h being a sort of damping factor for the vibrations of atoms. This means the likelihood of an emitted particle from dissipating its energy within a given amount of matter would decrease. Even today, an atom is mostly empty space. With a larger h it would in effect be even emptier. Also, the now rather big, slow moving, destructive flying fragments of radioactive decay would instead be smaller, moving much faster. Thus energy conservation laws would not be violated and atomic binding forces would not change. In combination with the smaller cross section of atoms, radioactivity fragments, such as gamma rays are effectively smaller, moving faster and therefore would have very little interaction with matter on that account as well. There are particles called neutrinos still today, which go through the whole earth and never interact with a single atom. With a much larger h, other particles, such as gamma rays from radioactivity and radiation from space would behave in a similar fashion as neutrinos still do.

A two dimensional analogy would be a chain link fence and some chicken wire fencing. If you would shoot marble sized steel balls at the chicken wire you would have a certain chance of each ball breaking a wire, ultimately destroying the whole fence. Now if shot BB's at a larger chain link fence sized wire mesh, each of them moving correspondingly faster in order to carry the same energy as each ball did, the probability of damaging the fence would be comparatively small.

On the atomic level, this means for example, that genetic DNA damage by a

Well; deal is the word "God" to most means some thingy that engages us in our affairs in one way or another, a concept he specifically denied. Meanwhile, he's off in Spinoza's cosmos somewhere, which is deeply into vaguely noncommittal spiritual universe stuff... i.e., less religious than Buddhists, or so it would seem. A vague faith indeed.

Anyway, check out this http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/religion to see where I'm coming from, when I object to calling Einstein "religious".

C//

The guy who founded Apple and started the wave of personal copmuters is not a nobody.

Irony

Do you always swear and name call at someone when you lose an argument?

You're looking more and more foolish by the second.

You were the one trying to correct my usage of the word, so why should I give a shit where you live?

Do you even know the meaning of the word apprehend?
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/apprehend%2 0
3. to expect with anxiety, suspicion, or fear; anticipate: apprehending violence.

Note the words "anticipate", and "expect". You don't have to cause harm.

You can't simply admit you were wrong, you just have to keep digging your hole. Do you have any fucking idea how stupid and childish you just made yourself look?

Definition of deprive.

In another light, if you deprive (see above) me of food, I will starve. I don't care whether you eat the food (your definition of seize), or simply lock it up in a fridge (your definition of freeze).

Either way, I starve.

So who's mangling the English language?

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/wight ...
so we're talkin' radioactive mutant ..."little people" here...

makes sense! smaller body mass, smaller integrated metabolic load requires less of everything

Hey! How about GREEN radioactive mutant little people (this IS Mars, after all!); they could photosynthesize!, In fact, if they could use their radioactivity as an energy source http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/05/2 3/2354213 they might need very limited biosupport if water is available locally to supply some volitiles...

I apologise if this sounds overly harsh ( I , of coarse haf neffer maid a tai-poe...), but I didn't try to resist...

I would like to recommend a review of Clarke's Laws to anyone who takes "impossible" too seriously too soon http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarke's_three_laws

73

verb (used with object)
20. to let loose; free from bonds or restraint.
21. to release, as from constraint, obligation, or penalty.

Reasoning doesn't add knowledge, but only manipulates your existing knowledge into other conclusions and results.

"Other conclusions and results" is new knowledge. When Pythagoras discovered irrational numbers, when Godel created his incompleteness proof, they discovered new knowledge.

Mutations also do not generate any new information, but result in a loss of data.

That's simply incorrect. It's not just wrong in biology, it's wrong in information theory; adding a random signal to existing data increases entropy (try compressing the output of /dev/random).

There are some amazing predictions in the Bible that have come true and some of them are coming true in our time, before our eyes.

Let me write a book where I get to describe predictions I made twenty years ago, and I can make some good predictions myself. After I die give me followers to pick and choose and selectively translate my predictions, and I could get quite a reputation.

Of course the most important Biblical prediction was the one attributed to Jesus that the "Second Coming" would occur within a generation. It didn't.

The record on Biblical "predictions" is no better than that of Tibetan Buddhist or American Indian or Nostradamus's "predictions"; occasionally, in the vague, translated, and selected language, one can find what appear to be hits - but only after the fact and never about specifics, and often in a way that simply resulted from someone deciding to make their favorite prophecy come true. (For example, there's far-right wackjobs who believe that the Second Coming will occur after the Temple in Jerusalem is rebuilt and are therefore actively trying to make this happen.)

The only one who can KNOW what is rational or irrational is someone who knows EVERYTHING, ie. is omniscient.

Not correct. Rational thinking is a well-defined process. I don't need to know everything to determine if a given argument is rational or not any more than I need to know all integers to determine if given integer is prime. (I may not be able to tell if the argument's axioms and data are valid, but I can still analyze the form of the argument.)

Belief in resurrection, for example seems irrational only because we don't have even the slightest knowledge of the technology and mechanisms behind it.

No, belief in resurrection (in the sense under discussion) is irrational because there's no evidence to suggest it has ever occurred.

What exactly do you mean by "extraordinary"?

beyond what is usual, ordinary, regular, or established. (You keep asking what words mean...may I suggest dictionary.reference.com?)

Wireless communication or other modern technology would be considered extraordinary by a first century person, but we who understand somewhat at least, the principles behind these, consider them ordinary every day things.

Um, yes. They are ordinary every day things in the 21st century. If you suggest that they were ordinary every day things in the 1st century, that the Roman legions used wifi to co-ordinate their logistics, that would indeed be an extraordinary claim, and you'd better have some damn good evidence to back it up.

Likewise, the claim that some dead people (long and truly dead, not merely mistaken for dead, or short-term dead but revived with medical technology) got up and walked around is an extraordinary claim - it is not usual, ordinary or regular - and so you'd better have some damn good evidence to back it up. Likewise, the claim that people somehow survive their bodily death is an extraordinary one - it is not usual, ordinary or regular to "see dead people".

You mean like Slashdot is to people who can't spell? ;-)

your assumption certainly begs the question: Are you sure about that?

Begging the question does not mean raising the question.

Excellent link. I'm just wondering about a point of clarification. If you were to say "I can't tell you because it's secret", would I be right to respond "That begs the question, why can't you tell me?"

...Or from your link, take the example:

What is it Not?
To beg the question does not mean "to raise the question." (e.g. "It begs the question, why is he so dumb?")

Wouldn't that example statement be an appropriate response to me saying "He's dumb because he has a low IQ."?

That would mean that many people are often begging the question by answering questions in a tautologous manner. News reporters are often correct when they use the phrase, and we're not all abusing the English language as badly as it first appears. We use the phrase correctly much of the time, even if by accident.

PS. I'm posting as AC due to off-topic pedantry.

Your an idiot.

If you can't tell the difference between "your" and "you're" (and, no doubt, "yore"), you have no business calling anybody else an idiot...

Your an idiot.

If you can't tell the difference between "your" and "you're" (and, no doubt, "yore"), you have no business calling anybody else an idiot...

Your an idiot.

If you can't tell the difference between "your" and "you're" (and, no doubt, "yore"), you have no business calling anybody else an idiot...

No, I don't.

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

What do you call "supernatural"? Something you don't understand?

"of, pertaining to, or being above or beyond what is natural; unexplainable by natural law or phenomena".

The idea that personality or "mind" being in and of itself not physical is not that far fetched. We do this "resurrection" thing all the time with computers.

Are you suggesting that computers are not physical?

Nothing material, that is anything having mass, is transferred from a backup into the new computer.

Energy has mass. The transfer of information involves the moment of some form of mass or energy - tapes, disks, punch-cards, electrical signals, radio waves, whatever - and then physical changes at the destination.

Can your "soul" be backed up somewhere

It might be possible to capture enough information about the brain to create a device or simulation capable of functioning in the same way. It's an SF classic. So what? We're still not dealing with anything supernatural.

There is evidence from the article and others about near death experiences, that the physical dimensions we normally experience is not all there is.

NDEs are evidence of nothing except that the chemistry of a brain near death can sometimes generate similar experiences to the chemistry of a brain on ketamine. Interesting, but hardly evidence for metaphysical propositions.

How is it possible to walk on water? I BELIEVE that Jesus did. Did He arise from death, after three days, without refrigeration or other modern medical technology? I believe He did and many have died for that belief.

Well, I hate to tell you, but these things that you BELIEVE are irrational conclusions with no worthwhile evidence to support them. You didn't see Jesus walk on water or come up out of the grave; you're selecting ancient unreliable reports, at odds with our best knowledge about the objective universe, that tell you what you want to hear - while rejecting other ancient reports, no less (or more) reliable, about other gods and heroes. Indeed, if you saw someone walk on water today you'd assume it was a magic trick. (Actually, walking on water is easy. Just wait for it to freeze.)

The fact that people have died for a belief says jack shit about whether it's true. People have died believing that their Ghost Shirts would protect them from bullets, that U.S. troops wouldn't shoot peaceful American citizens, that they will go to heaven for suicide bombing, or that they should participate in the Iraq invasion because Iraq was involved in the 9/11 attacks.

Indeed, all this senseless killing and dying is real good evidence against the existance of some sort of omnipotent and omniscient superbeing who's emotionally attached to Homo sapiens.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/wont
Had to say it, wasn't sure if you were just being a troll or legitimately didn't hear the whoosh

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=five
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syllable

One Laptop Per Child and Intel Join Forces : An ambiguous if not misleading headline. Read the comments for more, but one thing that's not in question is that he used a pseudonym.

"The word has no meaning outside internal retail outlets and distributors."

Really? Do you have to have a license to use that word or something?

By definition? Sir, Please see several definitions of "viral" and point out why using the word 'viral' is appropriate in this situation.

As a biochemist and a molecular biologist who works with *real* viruses, I find the use of the word viral to describe anything in the world of Free Software unoriginal, uninformative and propagandist. It was chosen by those with the very motive of associating Free Software with a word that contains negative connotations for the average person (feeling sick, disease etc.) Very similar to using the word "piracy" to describe copyright violation. (with the exception that pirates are cool

Please don't let the corporate pundits dictate the language you use because you taint any chance of having an informative discussion before it is even begun.

I'm sure you can find a simple way to say

1. "The GPL software license protects the rights of users" or
2. "If you want to use GPL-covered work, you must abide by the developer's wishes just like any other license" or
3. "GPL3 closes the unintended loopholes in GPL2"

GNU is run by the FSF... One of these organizations is a non-profit dedicated to freedom ...

The FSF is not about freedom, it is about ideology.

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

freedom

2. exemption from external control, interference, regulation, etc.

3. the power to determine action without restraint.

7. the absence of or release from ties, obligations, etc.

17. Philosophy. the power to exercise choice and make decisions without constraint from within or without; autonomy; self-determination.

The GPL exercises control, restrains some actions, creates some obligations, limits some choices, ... The FSF is benevolent and kind to those who accept its obligations and limitations, but they are not about freedom except in a self serving redefinition of the word. I'm not saying that the FSF of GPL are bad, just that "freedom" is an inappropriate word to use. They are engaging in redefinition and doublespeak on par with politicians and advertising agencies in order to sell their ideology.

Dispassionate does not mean non-biased.

dispassionate /dspænt/
-adjective
free from or unaffected by passion; devoid of personal feeling or bias; impartial; calm: a dispassionate critic.

There has to be certain assumptions made behind various calculations, and the author is likely biased in a particular way.

This is not to say he is wrong, but "dispassionate" doesn't mean he is right. He is like an expert witness at a trial, he is trying to be technically correct as possible but he is still siding with a particular viewpoint.

Never fails... Try and correct someone and come out looking the fool instead- especially on Slashdot.

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

No, you're wrong.

'Surface' can certainly be used with an object, to mean 'bring to the surface'. Look here.

Indeed, you are a double pleonasm, and should take pride in your superfluous redundancy.

Funny(?) to see this article appear in my RSS reader, as I started reading 'His Dark Materials' ( http://www.bridgetothestars.net/index.php?p=parall el ) yesterday, which had many parallels with Stephen King's 'Dark Tower' series. I'm on the second book today and spent a couple of hours searching on the topic a few hours ago ( http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Parallel_univ erse_(fiction) ). Spooky.

At least it seems I'm not alone in my ignorance. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/%20proteand ictionary.com

That definition is invalid for non-physical objects. the data in question is not a *thing* but the state of magnetization of a thing.

I like this definition of steal better

2. to appropriate (ideas, credit, words, etc.) without right or acknowledgment.

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

But in return, labels would have to agree to bear more 'social responsibility', which appears to translate into avoiding lyrics that glorify 'an anti-learning culture, truancy, knifes, violence, guns, misogyny'

What ever happened to equality between the sexes? Misandry would be ok then?

I was going to point out that this wouldn't fly in the US because of its 1st amendment to the Constitution, but then I realized that if the Supreme Court can say "limited times" (article 2 section 8) means "whatever Congress says it means", then the first amendment also says whatever it says it means.

I envy you Europeans. We Americans seem to be no longer a nation of laws. Despite the 4rth amendment, The local Springfield police opened my unlocked garage and had a look around on, ironically, Memorial Day; the day we celebrate those who died defending the Constitution. Despite the fact that there was nothing illegal in there, ever since then I've felt as if I lived in a lawless police state.

-mcgrew

Mesh isn't always a networking term.
12. to cause to match, coordinate, or interlock: They tried to mesh their vacation plans. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/mesh/

"Well, to be plain, what I actually said was that he shouldn't be claiming these things without evidence."

So you expect him to provide evidence of his skill in a /. post? I think you are taking this forum a bit too seriously. He isn't applying for a job, he is voicing his opinion on a controversial issue. In reality, whether or not his claims apply to him himself are really quite irrelevant, as its a critique of the idea that Indian programmers will replace all American programmers simply because they can work for less.

"You may choose to argue that if you wish, and unfortunately I expect you probably will, but this was an opinion, and your opinion of my opinion isn't actually interesting."

Seems you think it is, since you are responding to it. Although I'm not stating an opinion, I'm stating a fact. You do not have the information needed to make the claims you are making.

"You need to go down to Sylvan and enroll in a workshop to improve your reading comprehension skills. "Read into what was said" doesn't mean the same thing as "read what was said.""

Actually it does. "Reading into" someone's post and interpreting more than just what they literally are saying is an important part of reading comprehension. Although you do take it a step too far when you try to gauge the original poster's programming skills based on his comments, and when you claim he is just making up the number of programmers he is better than based on how much more his salary. That does make the fact that you are complaining about people "reading into" a post a bit ironic.

"On the side, you should probably look up the word 'audacious.' You either accused me of being brave, recklessly brave, contemptuous of law, or original and unique. No, none of those apply to the thing you misread, whether or not considering the correct interpretation of what was actually said."

audacious
-adjective
1. extremely bold or daring; recklessly brave; fearless: an audacious explorer.
2. extremely original; without restriction to prior ideas; highly inventive: an audacious vision of the city's bright future.
3. recklessly bold in defiance of convention, propriety, law, or the like; insolent; brazen.
4. lively; unrestrained; uninhibited: an audacious interpretation of her role.

As a rule, complaining about the use of words you don't actually know is also a great way to make yourself look stupid.

I think the word you're looking for is foist.

Theft is defined in terms of Steal, which has at least 16 completely different precise definitions.

If only there existed a word for "Obtain Illegally".

If you want to argue legal definitions, that's fine - but I suspect you'll find that Oracle are not suing SAP for "Theft", which would make doing so rather pointless.

Theft is defined in terms of Steal, which has at least 16 completely different precise definitions.

If only there existed a word for "Obtain Illegally".

If you want to argue legal definitions, that's fine - but I suspect you'll find that Oracle are not suing SAP for "Theft", which would make doing so rather pointless.

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

For fuck's sake

If you think prison has anything to do with "rehabilitation," That was the original idea, anyway. The Quakers of a few hundred years ago thought the proper way to deal with crimes was to put people in a cell to think about what they did for a few months. Pennitentiaries (sp?) were named after William Penn, a prominant Quaker who also founded Pennsylvania. I like and respect the Quakers, and if I were still a Christian, I'd probably be a Quaker, but they're not always the most realistic people around.

I call bullshit.

The base word for Penitentiary is "penitent"... meaning repentant, or feeling sorrow for one's sins.

The word penitentiary's origin is traced back to the early 15th century (around 1421) and meant ""place of punishment for offenses against the church".

Its origin has absolutely nothing to do with the quakers or William Penn.

Seriously... do you people make up this bullshit as you go? You know... a lot of us still have dictionaries on our desks, and even if we didn't, we could get the definition and origin of "penitentiary" from dictionary.com, moron.

What can I say about this post? First of all you failed to spell refridgerator correctly.

Pot calling the kettle black!

From the dictionary:

    No results found for refridgerator.
    Did you mean refrigerator

What can I say about this post? First of all you failed to spell refridgerator correctly.

Pot calling the kettle black!

From the dictionary:

    No results found for refridgerator.
    Did you mean refrigerator

Anything without government involvement is not censorship.

If everything in the chip is lining up so nicely, how about calling it

THE SYZYGY

no, I'm not making up the word. If you don't believe me, http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/syzygy