Slashdot Mirror

When you're ESL, don't try to correct English unless you're 100% sure you're right. Otherwise, you might get shown to be a dumbass like this.

That and stuck != suck. [Insert SMB 'You Lose' sfx here]

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

I'm not picking on you, I've just seen this same error (confusion of "moot" with "mute") several times in the past week or so. The error seems to be reproducing. It's time for a brief vocabulary lesson.

A point of argument may be moot if it's debatable or of academic interest only.

People may be mute if they cannot speak.

I'm not picking on you, I've just seen this same error (confusion of "moot" with "mute") several times in the past week or so. The error seems to be reproducing. It's time for a brief vocabulary lesson.

A point of argument may be moot if it's debatable or of academic interest only.

People may be mute if they cannot speak.

The recent blunder made by AOL in which the internet company erroneously published 20 million search requests....

Erroneously? AOL deliberately published the search requests.

I do not think that word means what you think it means.

Containing or derived from error; mistaken: erroneous conclusions.

Releasing the records was an error. A mistake. It was erroneous.

If you don't know what a word means, look it up before you rail against a particular use.

I think that using MS Word is a pretty good way to check vocabulary that may be in the zeitgeist.

Even still, there are some words that do exist that probably shouldn't be in a spelling checker's dictionary as they aren't likely to be the word the user intended, such as wether, a castrated sheep. (And to all the castrated sheep out there reading slashdot, yes, I am being an insensitive clod.)

Even abridged dictionaries are full of words that are virtually unused in our society...

And some of them aren't even real words, inserted into the dictionary to catch people who try to copy it and sell it as their own.

2 entries found for pluton.
pluton ( P ) Pronunciation Key (pltn)
n.
A body of igneous rock formed beneath the surface of the earth by consolidation of magma.

[German, back-formation from plutonisch, plutonic, from Latin Plt, Pltn-, Pluto. See Pluto.]

[Download Now or Buy the Book]
Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

pluton

n : large mass of intrusive igneous rock believed to have solidified deep within the earth [syn: batholith, batholite, plutonic rock]

Source: WordNet ® 2.0, © 2003 Princeton University

No, it doesn't. It raises other questions, though.

No, it doesn't. It invites those questions. The slashdot poster raised the questions.

raise versus invite

No, it doesn't. It raises other questions, though.

No, it doesn't. It invites those questions. The slashdot poster raised the questions.

raise versus invite

sun
n.
1. often Sun A star that is the basis of the solar system and that sustains life on Earth, being the source of heat and light. It has a mean distance from Earth of about 150 million kilometers (93 million miles) a diameter of approximately 1,390,000 kilometers (864,000 miles) and a mass about 330,000 times that of Earth.

2. A star that is the center of a planetary system.

3. The radiant energy, especially heat and visible light, emitted by the sun; sunshine.

4. A sunlike object, representation, or design.



From Dictionary.com.

I've found it's usually good to do at least a casual check of your facts before being pedantic. You know, to make sure you're not setting yourself up to look dumb.

The Sun, proper noun, is indeed our star. Of course, if we lived in a different solar system The Sun would be some star other than old Sol. A sun, those suns, the other suns, all regular nouns, may refer to our star or other stars.

Why yes, I did preview to make sure all that HTML is correct.

I think either word works http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/adverse

n.

      1.
                  1. Compulsive physiological and psychological need for a habit-forming substance: a drug used in the treatment of heroin addiction.
                  2. An instance of this: a person with multiple chemical addictions.
      2.
                  1. The condition of being habitually or compulsively occupied with or or involved in something.
                  2. An instance of this: had an addiction for fast cars.

1 : the quality or state of being addicted <addiction to reading>
2 : compulsive need for and use of a habit-forming substance (as heroin, nicotine, or alcohol) characterized by tolerance and by well-defined physiological symptoms upon withdrawal; broadly : persistent compulsive use of a substance known by the user to be harmful

Anything that provides strong central pain relief (as opposed to peripheral analgesia as in NSAIDs) has at least some risk of causing psychological or physical dependence.

NSAID also Nsaid
n. A nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug, such as aspirin or ibuprofen.

Quite possibly.

But apparently he is a tongue.

I'd never heard of an initialism until earlier this year when someone attacked me the same way.

initialism.

Once initialisms have been commonly taught in high schools for more then 40 years, then you can start picking at people about not knowing the difference.

That sounds like an excuse. "I'm sorry officer, i didn't know speeding was illegal". Not a good excuse...

I suspect both you and your bookworm wife are fucking idiots.

Actually, it looked a lot like a parody to me.

parody, n. A literary or artistic work that imitates the characteristic style of an author or a work for comic effect or ridicule.

Twitch, twitch... it's basically

I know, I know, spelling police and all that. Can I help it that I'm obsessive compulsive?

If they're going after the use of a word or use of pod, what are they going to do about podcast?

Nothing. Podcast is just a word in the common language.

They're either going to have to remove that word from everyone's vocabulary (that genie has already left the bottle), or everyone will say they are using the fragment pod from podcast, not iPod.

That actually wouldn't be a defense. If they were to sue, what they have to show is that the use of the word "pod" is likely to cause confusion in the eyes of consumers about who makes the product. Now, I think they'd have a hell of a time convincing a jury that the name of the vending machine-related Profit Pod has any chance of confusing consumers, but that doesn't necessarily mean they can't try to scare them out of using it anyway.
_________________________________

Actually, it is a defense. As I said, someone can claim their product containing the word pod is based named upon podcast, and as you've said, it's in the public domain. So if I create new piece of hardware called the podPlayer and they pursue me, my defense will be "it's a player which plays files which have a podCast format. The name podPlayer even indicates it's podPlayer -- a player of pod formats.

Unless & until you can show me how using the word pod in a name will stand up because Apple can claim it came from iPod and not from the pod in podCast, you won't have a case.[1] If you believe otherwise, I'd like to see logic beyond ukase or fiat.

Were Apple to set things up such that podcast is a proprietary & protected format (e.g.,GIF) and it can be created by any number of means but played only upon an Apple iPod, that might hold water. But I'm willing to bet that won't hold water, would it?
____________________________

From a message three or four down:

And isn't Podcast an Apple invention? Could have sworn they were the ones that created the name anyway.

If this is true, I'd expect to see podCast (or pod) with a TM, C, SM, R everywhere it's used (except Slashdot for reasons I shouldn't have to explain -- aside from it invokes Godwin's Law in no more than three messages). I'd also expect to see Apple protecting the pod in podCast as adamantly as they are the pod in iPod. If they don't, they don't have a leg to stand on for the reasons I've stated here and a previous message.

iPod and podCast treated separately will require Apple to show intent on the part of alleged infringers as to which source of pod they were using. There's no way a company is going to put its head in the noose and state the wrong one. (landshark preparation: "Whatever you do, don't say we're using pod from iPod. It is soley and wholly from podCast.
_______________________________
[1] This leads into one area where patent law could be good, including submarines: stating via some document it will not be enforced and derivatives cannot be made private, preventing someone else from making it proprietary to themselves, thus letting everyone enjoy it. Prior art should prevent the patent to begin with, but because two or three companies seem to have convinced the USPTO prior art means nothing, one cannot count on prior art working correctly. It's like plastic additive patent ten or twelve years ago. Someone figured out how to add something to virtually all plastics without altering its desired properties. This made plastic show up on x-rays which wouldn't have done so before. This made it possible for plastic objects ingested (or entered their body through any number of means) to show up in the ER when they get an x-ray.

If they're going after the use of a word or use of pod, what are they going to do about podcast?

Nothing. Podcast is just a word in the common language.

They're either going to have to remove that word from everyone's vocabulary (that genie has already left the bottle), or everyone will say they are using the fragment pod from podcast, not iPod.

That actually wouldn't be a defense. If they were to sue, what they have to show is that the use of the word "pod" is likely to cause confusion in the eyes of consumers about who makes the product. Now, I think they'd have a hell of a time convincing a jury that the name of the vending machine-related Profit Pod has any chance of confusing consumers, but that doesn't necessarily mean they can't try to scare them out of using it anyway.
_________________________________

Actually, it is a defense. As I said, someone can claim their product containing the word pod is based named upon podcast, and as you've said, it's in the public domain. So if I create new piece of hardware called the podPlayer and they pursue me, my defense will be "it's a player which plays files which have a podCast format. The name podPlayer even indicates it's podPlayer -- a player of pod formats.

Unless & until you can show me how using the word pod in a name will stand up because Apple can claim it came from iPod and not from the pod in podCast, you won't have a case.[1] If you believe otherwise, I'd like to see logic beyond ukase or fiat.

Were Apple to set things up such that podcast is a proprietary & protected format (e.g.,GIF) and it can be created by any number of means but played only upon an Apple iPod, that might hold water. But I'm willing to bet that won't hold water, would it?
____________________________

From a message three or four down:

And isn't Podcast an Apple invention? Could have sworn they were the ones that created the name anyway.

If this is true, I'd expect to see podCast (or pod) with a TM, C, SM, R everywhere it's used (except Slashdot for reasons I shouldn't have to explain -- aside from it invokes Godwin's Law in no more than three messages). I'd also expect to see Apple protecting the pod in podCast as adamantly as they are the pod in iPod. If they don't, they don't have a leg to stand on for the reasons I've stated here and a previous message.

iPod and podCast treated separately will require Apple to show intent on the part of alleged infringers as to which source of pod they were using. There's no way a company is going to put its head in the noose and state the wrong one. (landshark preparation: "Whatever you do, don't say we're using pod from iPod. It is soley and wholly from podCast.
_______________________________
[1] This leads into one area where patent law could be good, including submarines: stating via some document it will not be enforced and derivatives cannot be made private, preventing someone else from making it proprietary to themselves, thus letting everyone enjoy it. Prior art should prevent the patent to begin with, but because two or three companies seem to have convinced the USPTO prior art means nothing, one cannot count on prior art working correctly. It's like plastic additive patent ten or twelve years ago. Someone figured out how to add something to virtually all plastics without altering its desired properties. This made plastic show up on x-rays which wouldn't have done so before. This made it possible for plastic objects ingested (or entered their body through any number of means) to show up in the ER when they get an x-ray.

This story reminds me of the recent "predictions" of a potentially devastating hurricane season with greater than average frequency hurricanes and more of these hurricanes being Category 5 (the strongest hurricane defined). On what basis?

On the buzz around global warming and its effect on hurricanes among other things, and the recent "example" season of a record-breaking number of hurricanes. So, naturally the prediction for this season was "lots of big hurricanes". I'm not sure, but so far I don't recall any hurricanes well into the season

We know more than ever about the sun, but the more we know the less we know how to predict what it's going to do... "Satellite operators and NASA mission planners are bracing for this next solar cycle because it is expected to be exceptionally stormy, perhaps the stormiest in decades".... That is purely conjecture -- no more likely to be correct than not.

When I hear the word pod, I think of PODS, Portable On-Demand Storage. iPod is a blatant ripoff of PODS, since the iPOD just "stores" your electronic crap, just like a POD stores your physical crap.

I think they should be able to trademark iPod, but not the word pod. Besides the pod has been in the dictionary for quite a long time.

the more you use it, the more intuitive it starts to seem to be

intuitive

adj 1: spontaneously derived from or prompted by a natural tendency; "an intuitive revulsion" 2: obtained through intuition rather than from reasoning or observation

Hack-O-Matic seems more 133t. Instead of Silica...

:-)

See joke.

What do you think the "Scripting" in "Cross Site Scripting" refers to? It refers to client-side javascript.

No, it refers to the name being a MISNOMER. Please read dictionary.com.

Please read some Bugtraq, or at least this FAQ or the Wikipedia article. (The Wikipedia article is the easiest read. In particular, the section on types of XSS problems is edifying.) Your example is a straightforward input validation bug in the browser, and it doesn't involve any scripting at all, cross-site or not, and therefore is not an XSS anything. It's just a malicious input that exploits a browser bug.

I've been reading (and contributing) to Bugtraq since 1999 (including the use of many XSS vulnerabilities).

No, it doesn't require any scripting at all, but I consider it an XSS bug, because it's cross-origin. I'm sorry that XSS originated as something as simple as unsanitized output which could be exploited by inserting arbitrary HTML entities, but that doesn't mean that it can't evolve to include other things. And if Wikipedia disagrees with me, then Wikipedia is wrong. You don't know who I am, so you don't have to take my opinion with anything more than a grain of salt, but I definitely know what I'm talking about. It'd be like one of those things where top scientists disagreed about the definition of string theories, or something (except you probably aren't a top anything. well, see, I can make assumptions too).

In stark contrast with an XSS flaw, your example is not the site's fault, and there's very little that realsite.com can do about it.

Yes, exactly. Because XSS does not necessarily have anything to do with the web application. Okay, maybe it would be more appropriate to refer to it as XS? to appease the interests of stupid internet zealots. But the idea originated under the nomenclature that is XSS, and I happen to group cross-origin bugs in the category. I mean .. maybe you've never heard of Cross Site Tracing?

A smart site that uses a whitelist approach to user-posted URLs might refuse to let a user post such a link, but it's squarely the browser's fault for mishandling a faulty input, not the site's fault for having the link. The smart site refusing to post funky links is merely doing a service to all the stupid programmers out there. Faulty inputs happen all the time in the real world -- typos, human errors, the occasional corrupt file -- and any browser that doesn't say "Whoa! What the heck am I supposed to do with that?" is a buggy browser. (Sadly, when it comes to malformed HTML, the "buggy" adjective applies to AFAIK all browsers today, including the lowly Lynx. Google for "HTML fuzz" if you're curious. Some hold up better than others, though, and IE is by far the worst of the lot. What's worse, when it comes to malformed URLs, IE itself has historically been a disaster, with about 2-3 times the URL bugs as the Mozilla codebase, and scarily almost all non-browser software that registers third-party URL handlers either (a) can be exploited today, or else (b) has been exploited in the past and survived a brutal trial by fire. I'm thinking of AIM in particular for the latter.)

there comes a time in a debate when you realize that no matter how well you prove your point you have no hope of reaching your target.
when you have hit this point you may as well stop arguing.
one method of stopping the argument is to dismiss the target.
A class of people not worth arguing with are fundamentalists, (any kind) they have little of worth to add to the debate and you have no hope of winning their hearts or mind. they are commonly called fundies.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=dipshit
I have foud a reference for dipshit
dipshit Audio pronunciation of "dipshit" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (dpsht) Vulgar Slang
n.

        A foolish or contemptible person.

adj.

        Foolish or contemptible.

failing to acknowlege the advances of science and a blind faith in an old book dispite mountains of evidence to is both foolish and contempible. thus the fundies are as a group also dipshits.
it is correct to dismiss them as Dipshit Fundies.

Although calling them fundies should be enough.

Here's an essay you should take a look at: http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/Relativityo fWrong.htm

This whole bit about theory and fact always comes up. I suspect that it has alot to do with the diversity of definitions for the word in english: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/theory

theory
n. pl. theories

      1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
      2. The branch of a science or art consisting of its explanatory statements, accepted principles, and methods of analysis, as opposed to practice: a fine musician who had never studied theory.
      3. A set of theorems that constitute a systematic view of a branch of mathematics.
      4. Abstract reasoning; speculation: a decision based on experience rather than theory.
      5. A belief or principle that guides action or assists comprehension or judgment: staked out the house on the theory that criminals usually return to the scene of the crime.
      6. An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.

Number one is what we're dealing with here. But of course in popular culture theory is a much more dubious and uncertain thing along the lines of 5 & 6.

Do other languages/cultures suffer from the same difficulty? That alone might explain some of the discrepancy.

You fail! Violence is a NOUN, not a verb!
  Gah!

ronic Audio pronunciation of "ironic" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (-rnk) also ironical (-rn-kl)
adj.

      1. Characterized by or constituting irony.
      2. Given to the use of irony. See Synonyms at sarcastic.
      3. Poignantly contrary to what was expected or intended: madness, an ironic fate for such a clear thinker.

ironically adv.
ironicalness n.

        Usage Note: The words ironic, irony, and ironically are sometimes used of events and circumstances that might better be described as simply "coincidental" or "improbable," in that they suggest no particular lessons about human vanity or folly. Thus 78 percent of the Usage Panel rejects the use of ironically in the sentence In 1969 Susie moved from Ithaca to California where she met her husband-to-be, who, ironically, also came from upstate New York. Some Panelists noted that this particular usage might be acceptable if Susie had in fact moved to California in order to find a husband, in which case the story could be taken as exemplifying the folly of supposing that we can know what fate has in store for us. By contrast, 73 percent accepted the sentence Ironically, even as the government was fulminating against American policy, American jeans and videocassettes were the hottest items in the stalls of the market, where the incongruity can be seen as an example of human inconsistency.

There's nothing "ironic" about a dictator censoring media while putting out their own. It isn't even contradictory. "Dictator" means "commander", as in "speaking a command", as in "word is law". What they say is the official truth, they define reality by speaking it. Other people saying different "versions" of reality gets in the way, so they stop it.

The popular sense of the word "irony" has been ruined. People don't even blink while Alanis Morissette's "Ironic" asks "isn't it ironic?" about a list of situations that aren't ironic. It's not ironic if its words don't contradict the reality. Just because two events are inconsistent or surprising doesn't make irony.

I think irony has just been overloaded in our modern age, where lies outnumber truth, but reality stubbornly persists. When people's reality is defined by faith in lies rather than their own personal experience, there is no irony, because there is only irony.

Look here: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=ironical& db=*

ironical, a.
1. Of the nature of irony or covert sarcasm; meaning the opposite of what is expressed.
2. That uses or is addicted to irony.

also see: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=ironical& db=*

It's very easy with Debian's stable distribution:

1. Go to Start->All Programs->Microsoft Update.
2. Click the button labelled Express (if you're not the Joe Average sort and you want more options, you can click Custom).
3. If there are new updates, I think you click Install Now, but thanks to Automatic Update I haven't had to go past Step 2 in a long time.

all done and it never breaks anything

If it were that easy to upgrade commercial software, users would do it but it's not

Commercial software lacks both the resources to fix things

the ability to co operate so that everything is in one place

Worse, some nameless companies in Redmond use their "patch" system to change EULAs and sabotage other people's software

It's unlikely the average user will ever bother to wade through the cesspool of monthly critical patches from every vendor to brave the very real risk is breakage of their holy, one and only PC.

They are going to sit back and laugh at those who do when they too, just like M$ themselves, get broken

And in fact the meteor is the light trail itself, not the lump of matter that creates the light trail by burning (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/meteor). The lump is called a meteoroid and any part of it that hits the Earth as anything more than vapour is a meteorite.

Yay for dumbing down science for the masses.

Now here back on planet Earth, I would like to have a rational discussion

Bush has done nothing to make us safer, and has actually made us LESS safe. The Brits and Pakistan foiled this plot, not Bush. So his record on terror remains deplorable. Sure, you can say nothing has happened since 9-11. But that could have been said the day before 9-11. It's a meaningless claim. The proof is in the glaring failure to prevent or respond to 9-11, in the Dubai Ports deal, and in the poor emergency response after Katrina--we ain't ready for a terrorist attack. Whose fault is that?

I also think it's cute how you are so thoroughly brainwashed that you use the vocabulary of the right wing. It's like you're a pet parrot or something, capable of spewing certain terms, but incabable of reasoning. You use terms like "Islamo-fascist." Clearly a person who is easily programmed.

You act like Pakistan is just great, but their government is run by a despot who took over in a military coup, and there are plenty of radicals throughout the country. Another shift in the balance of power could turn that ally into a nuclear radical Islamist power.

Wikipedia is NOT an authoritative source. The etymology of Hindu Kush is actually a mystery. It's not even known from which language the term is derived. There's quite a bit of evidence that Kush meant something like "peak" long ago (the definition to which you refer is modern Persian). There are several similar geological structures in the area having Kush in their names. It probably just means "Mountains of India."

However, all of this is a digression. What's your point? Your post is a complete nonsequitur. I was pointing out that it's stupid to celebrate the fact that we are at risk. It's stupid to accept that this threat should involve handing over freedoms to the government without question and debate. And you respond talking about Pakistan. Let me tell you this--If our safety hinges upon Pakistan providing us intelligence, we are in a dire state. We simply cannot count on such intelligence being provided all the time and forever.

Then you start addressing conspiracy theorists. This is what forensicists call a "Straw Man."

But hey, since you mentioned it, maybe I should point something out about India and terrorism. Remember that mass murder terrorist attack that just happened in India? What did India do differently in response to that devastating attack than we did in response to 9-11? They are investigating the crime and attempting to bring the perpetrators to justice. WE, OTOH, went after a country which supplied NONE of the conspirators or financing for 9-11, in Iraq.

"it's more information than news"

One man's information is another man's news. It is news in the sense that they have released additional new information about the game. For WoW players or those interested in WoW, this is news.

See the definition:

2. New information of any kind

(in my best Gilbert Gottfried voice): Drinkypoo, YER an idiot!

The fact that you would invite comparison to Gottfried indicates that you revel in being annoying.

Youth diabetes was basically unheard of in this country before the advent of the food pyramid

That is categorically bullshit. Diabetes is caused in two ways. One of which is overindulgence combined with underexercise. The other is damage to the pancreas.

Yes. And research has indicated that damage to the pancreas very likely can be caused by overtaxing it, such as by regularly consuming large quantities of "ready" carbohydrates, those which are most easily broken down. Sucrose is at the top of the list, and somewhere near the bottom is stuff like white bread (or most wheat bread, which is only brown because they color it, not because it's substantially different.) This is why, for example, brown rice is better for you than white rice.

Diabetes has been known of for over 2,000 years, and it is not caused by some sinister fucking food pyramid conspiracy.

Not all of it, just some of it, and in particular youth diabetes, which has been nearly nonexistent in every country in which the primary foodstuff is not comprised of carbohydrates.

More importantly, SUGAR IS NOT A FUCKING DRUG! You are intentionally misunderstanding the definition of a "drug." "Drugs" are substances not necessary for nutrition which cause chemical changes in the way the human body works. Sugar is a natural nutrient and has been part of the human diet in one form or another since we were human.

That's funny, because only one definition of "drug" agrees with you. Most of them make no restriction on whether the substance is a nutrient or no, and in fact the one that does takes that description directly from the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act:

SEC. 201. [21 U.S.C. 321](g)(1) The term "drug" means (A) articles recognized in the official United States Pharmacopeia, official Homeopathic Pharmacopeia of the United States, or official National Formulary, or any supplement to any of them; and (B) articles intended for use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease in man or other animals; and (C) articles (other than food) intended to affect the structure or any function of the body of man or other animals; and (D) articles intended for use as a component of any articles specified in clause (A), (B), or (C). A food or dietary supplement for which a claim, subject to sections 403(r)(1)(B) and 403(r)(3) or sections 403(r)(1)(B) and 403(r)(5)(D), is made in accordance with the requirements of section 403(r) is not a drug solely because the label or the labeling contains such a claim. A food, dietary ingredient, or dietary supplement for which a truthful and not misleading statement is made in accordance with section 403(r)(6) is not a drug under clause (C) solely because the label or the labeling contains such a statement.

What you are arguing is that a legal definition provided solely for the purpose of clarifying a legal act is to be considered the definitive word on the subject. I personally do not enshrine the law above knowledge.

A more reasonable description of the word "drug", and the one that has persisted since time immemorial, is A chemical substance, such as a narcotic or hallucinogen, that affects the central nervous system, causing changes in behavior and often addiction. (The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition, drug, noun, sense 2.) By this measure, sugar more than qualifies; it is definitely a chemical (A substance with a distinct molecular composition that is produced by or used in a ch

You're just the kind of fool who loves a "wildcard" in an obscenity so that others will take it seriously. The kind of fool who will stalk another poster just because you've been shown to be a chump in some other thread. Any other major malfunctions you labor under that you need to project on someone else who threatens you?

whoosh
Audio pronunciation of "whoosh" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (hwsh, wsh, hwsh, wsh) also woosh (wsh, wsh)
n.

1. A sibilant sound: the whoosh of the high-speed elevator.
2. A swift movement or flow; a rush or spurt.
3. The sound of a joke going right over your head

whoosh
Audio pronunciation of "whoosh" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (hwsh, wsh, hwsh, wsh) also woosh (wsh, wsh)
n.

1. A sibilant sound: the whoosh of the high-speed elevator.
2. A swift movement or flow; a rush or spurt.
3. The sound of a joke going right over your head

moron
Audio pronunciation of "Moron" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (môrn, mr-)
n.
1. A stupid person; a dolt.
2. Psychology. A person of mild mental retardation having a mental age of from 7 to 12 years and generally having communication and social skills enabling some degree of academic or vocational education. The term belongs to a classification system no longer in use and is now considered offensive.

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

I do not know what to make of this. I just thought it needed to be shared. 16872638 incest father encourage touch penis 2006-03-26 20:04:02 http://muse.jhu.edu/ 16872638 incest father encourage touch penis 2006-03-26 20:04:02 http://nasw.org/ 16872638 incest father encourage touch penis 2006-03-26 20:04:02 http://www.fhi.org/ 16872638 list drugs interact with each other 2006-03-29 01:02:06 http://www.centerfordrugsafety.org/ 16872638 list drugs interact with each other 2006-03-29 01:02:06 http://www.fda.gov/ 16872638 list drugs interact with each other 2006-03-29 01:41:37 http://www.personalmd.com/ 16872638 ohio senate bill 17 2006-03-29 01:45:09 http://www.hslda.org/ 16872638 ohio senate bill 17 2006-03-29 01:45:09 http://www.ohiosenatebill17.org/ 16872638 ohio victim counseling service prosecute 2006-03-29 01:46:34 http://www.usdoj.gov/ 16872638 victim witness coordinator in columbus ohio 2006-03-29 01:50:26 http://www.sexualassaultresources.org/ 16872638 victim witness coordinator in columbus ohio 2006-03-29 01:50:26 http://odmrdd.state.oh.us/ 16872638 victim witness coordinator in columbus ohio 2006-03-29 01:50:26 http://www.drc.state.oh.us/ 16872638 victim witness coordinator in columbus ohio 2006-03-29 01:50:26 http://www.odvn.org/ 16872638 victim witness coordinator in columbus ohio 2006-03-29 01:50:26 http://www.ag.state.oh.us/ 16872638 victim witness coordinator in columbus ohio 2006-03-29 01:50:26 http://www.drc.state.oh.us/ 16872638 victim witness coordinator in columbus ohio 2006-03-29 01:50:26 http://www.drc.state.oh.us/ 16872638 victim witness coordinator in columbus ohio 2006-03-29 01:50:26 http://www.drc.state.oh.us/ 16872638 victim witness coordinator in columbus ohio 2006-03-29 01:50:26 http://www.usdoj.gov/ 16872638 victim witness coordinator in columbus ohio 2006-03-29 01:50:26 http://www.usdoj.gov/ 16872638 multiple drug interactions paroxetine 2006-03-30 12:57:21 16872638 multiple drug interactions safety 2006-03-30 12:57:56 16872638 drug interaction checker safety 2006-03-30 12:58:47 16872638 dictionary words that start with 2006-03-30 14:05:03 http://dictionary.reference.com/ 16872638 dictionary words that start chu 2006-03-30 14:06:58 http://www.hyperdic.net/ 16872638 case history woman abuse childhood rape 2006-03-30 17:58:32 http://www.womanabuseprevention.com/ 16872638 case history woman abuse childhood rape 2006-03-30 17:58:32 http://www.survivorinfo.org/ 16872638 case history woman abuse childhood rape 2006-03-30 17:58:32 http://www.musc.edu/ 16872638 case history woman abuse childhood rape 2006-03-30 17:58:32 http://www.thedoctorwillseeyounow.com/ 16872638 case history woman abuse childhood rape 2006-03-30 17:58:32 http://escapinghades.pandys.org/

Please stop using "it's/it is" for "it has".

'Almost every other entertainment medium has an elite form... We produce light popular entertainment, and light popular entertainment is trivial, disposable, and therefore culturally insignificant, at least so far as podunk city councilors and ill-advised state legislators are concerned.'

1- Congradulations: Way to focus on the syntax and ignore the semantics, boss. Surprised you didn't also harp on my use of words like "yer" and "yall." What up with dat? Did you miss those? Are your kung-fu/Jedi/Grammar Nazi skills slipping? And since when is "dumbfuck" oneword? (See how I am totally missing the point of what you said by going on about how you said it? That's you.)

2- This not being funded by taxes: Sh'yeah right. If you believe that I've got some great Manhattan Bridge real estate you might be interested in. Last time I checked, goods and services like internet cost money. This is going to cost someone something, and if you have studied ANY economics you'll see folks who didn't ask for it and don't want it will end up footing the bill from costs rising to keep this ill conceived project afloat. In fact it's a safe bet at some point additional funding will be "required" (requested, nay, demanded by the residents of the county) and in will step Mr I've-got-deep-pockets-because-it's-actually-your-m oney to take care of everything. It ain't free no matter how you spin it, you arrogant assmuncher.

I realise that your complaint is mostly about the lying aspect and that you probably weren't meaning to imply that propaganda is illegal. Assuming there are lies intended to demean someone without justification then by all means let it go through the courts, but I think it's worth making it clear that propaganda doesn't imply lying or illegality, paid or not. In fact, the word itself means little more than the spreading of views and interests that promote a particular cause, influence people's opinions, and whatever else.

This is NOT democracy. Anyone who tells that this is democracy, are probably other paid propagandists.

I haven't made up my mind on this issue. Part of me wants to agree that democracy should include (by definition) free access to reliable and objective information about important issues that isn't influenced by propaganda, but realistically that information still is available to anyone who chooses to look for it. On the other hand, people pushing their ideas and trying to influence opinion is a side effect of free speech -- democracy invites it as much as something like communism probably invites government official corruption. I'm not sure how it can really be changed without some dramatic changes to the way government works. Personally I'm fortunate to live in a relatively small country, and I get the impression that the result is a national government which is much more open and less like a dinosaur than the US Federal Government. Maybe it's just that democracy doesn't scale well, or that the US form of democracy hasn't scaled well.

apocrpyhal: Of questionable authorship or authenticity.
(from apo/far + crypt/hidden)

Hasn't anyone ever heard of a bb gun? If this thing is as much a nuisance as the poster suggests it is this should be a walk in the park. Don't do it yourself, but if all of the kids in your neighborhood are too lazy to figure it out themselves 'gently' point one of them in the right direction.

I'm not *that* old and I remember the bb gun being as much a destructive tool as a toy.

Its just a matter of finding the right too for the task. He's a pensioner, how many of those damn things do you think he's going to buy?

He's hitting you with kid-gloves and you need to 'ask slashdot'? :) What, you want like an invisibility cloak or someone to send you the schematics for a high powered noise canceling device?

I have been accused of being an anti-semite. Oddly enough, I've never been accused by a Jewish person though.

That is not odd. When you made your anti-semitic comment, you may not have done it in front of a Jew. People don't insult the group they are prejudice against in front of them, generally. Jews, in your case.

The Black Panther Party got its start BECAUSE of racist police

No, the Black Panther Party got it's start because they didn't like peaceful protests. They liked the violence. They ignored the fact that peaceful protests brought around the Civil Rights Act of 1964. They said peaceful protests didn't work... and yet, there was the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Made up your mind already huh? That, sir is the clearest example of prejudice.

Actually, if you had read that, you would know that the definition of prejudice is not making up your mind, but it is having unreasonable preconceived judgements. Maybe he conceived his judgement after reading your posts... And I would say, from that, that it was a fairly reasonable judgement. You seem rather racist to me. You seem like you have an axe to grind with "whitey". You seem like the type of person who would say that.

Do you know what it's like to bump into a person and then be called racist? To be fairly certain they had done it for a little fun, because you see it a lot? And then maybe them and a few of their friends start pushing you around, threatening you, insulting you... telling others your racist? Maybe then you have the disgust and hatred of others? All for a little fun... I do. And until you do, too, don't go around making racist comments like your earlier one about how only white officials can be racist since the majority of elected officials are white.

People like you are the type of person I loathe with a deep-seated passion. You manage to convince yourself that the world hates your particular type of minority, that you can't get a break, that it's all unfair... All because of some incidents that may or may not have actually happened, and probably did not happen the way you described. So you pick on The Man. The majority. Never realizing that in doing so, you're just showing yourself to be prejudice. Unreasonable preconceived notions. "Well, people tell me that they're all racist and that we can't get a break... so it must be true." From everything I have seen, that is the predominant attitude among minorities. The majority is racist. Whether it is true or not is of no matter... How does it feel to be a racist, sir?

You would have found it if you'd dropped the plural: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=affecter. Better luck next time.