Slashdot Mirror

Maybe you should look up the meanings of THEN and THAN. I thought the meanings were common knowledge, and there are lots of articles on the subject.

All in jest, but "AV forums buzzing" does not make something "common knowledge". Simple grammar rules such as when to use than or then SHOULD be common knowledge, however that is much too optimistic for slashdot :D.

Maybe you should look up the meanings of THEN and THAN. I thought the meanings were common knowledge, and there are lots of articles on the subject.

All in jest, but "AV forums buzzing" does not make something "common knowledge". Simple grammar rules such as when to use than or then SHOULD be common knowledge, however that is much too optimistic for slashdot :D.

I'm sorry but water is not a beverage.

from Dictionary.com
Beverage
        Any one of various liquids for drinking, usually excluding water.

from the Compact Oxford English Dictionary
Beverage
  noun a drink other than water.

From OED.
Beverage
1. Drink, liquor for drinking; esp. a liquor which constitutes a common article of consumption.
2. A 'draught' which has been brewed, and must be drunk...

Joke.

What the hell is a 'sentance'? Back to school for you!

What's wrong with vandalize with a Z?
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=vandalize
If you're going to nitpick...

Some day, I'll be able to make an entire sentence of a single word:

Heh.

I have to read *3* *books* *a* *week* on average. Not picture
books either I assue you. It is a lot of work, but the upshot is
improved grammer and spelling skills that are lacking in the
technical.

Proletariat (dictionary.com) is just another term for "working class" that Karl Marx happened to use in his writings. Its use is not limited to talking about communism.

No, this is training for gorilla warfare. Maybe you meant guerrilla warfare? [Spanish, raiding party, guerrilla force, diminutive of guerra, war, of Germanic origin. See wers- in Indo-European Roots.]

The bank doesn't own your car. You do. The bank has a lien against it. The bank does't want to own your car ... they just want to take it from you when you fail to pay the loan.

The lien exists such that you can own the car, and such that the county/state/fed government may tax you appropriately (which is actually the reason a lien exists.) The gub'ment wants your money, and they can't take it from *you* by trying to tax a bank located in another state/country. But that a completely different (but related) rant ...

Ultimately, the publishers wish to control distribution. They make a buck if they do, and get squat if you bypass them. They want to make it illegal to transfer ownership of a work (be it a book or a cd or a DVD) without getting a cut. The states will probably support them because financial transactions involve taxation. The problem arises when your audio CD is conveyed to you as "property." You have certain rights regarding property, and those rights include the ability to transfer title to the property to someone else. Publishers would like nothing better than to convince the gub'ment that the audio CD is merely a container, and the copyright on the information within should devalue the owner's property status to that of licensee (because the container and information are inseparable, or some crap like that.) Subsequently, you will become a felon because you sold your non-transferrable audio CD to someone else. Of course, this cuts both ways, and your momma becomes a felon when she buys you a Metalica CD for your birthday (she bought it, but can't legally transfer title to you because she bought it and the license would be non-transferrable. Right?)

The **AA-types want "property" status in order to complete the initial sales transaction, but they want your ownership status to magically change to "licensee" at some point when it's financially convenient. They can't have it both ways ... yet. We had huge "civil rights" issues in the 1960s in the US. I expect that the next big social upheaval will be over "information rights."

Are you really splitting hairs over mean and median?

The word average, btw is a fuzzy term which could stand for any of a number of ways of calculating a representative value for a data set. But I'm sure you learned all about means, medians, and modes, in your elementary statistics course.

http://dictionary.reference.com/help/faq/language/ a/avg-mean.html

Personally, I can't wait for the soap content! It'll be the biggest thing in 2015!

Hey dipshit, risk and chance are synonyms and the same thing in the context I used them. Just as a refresher I used "risk" and "chance" in the same sentence as synonyms (had to repeat that for you since you fail to understand what a synonym is / and/or what the definition of chance and risk are or you wouldn't have made such a stupid comment) "...it's not hard to wonder why someone would rather travel the world and live rather risk travelling to the moon with a much higher chance of not making it back."

From the definition of chance from http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/chance:

"A risk or hazard; a gamble: took a chance that the ice would hold me."

Note that that sentence could also be: "took a risk that the ice would hold me."

As to part of my other sentence: "...not to mention having much less chance of dying."

I was using chance in the same context as the previous sentence.

Don't insult people smarter than you especially when you are wrong, you can put your dunce cap back on now.

they're not your slave, or indentured servant, or chattel, but in effect you've purchased him/her. When people cannot conceive a child through an "act of love" and they feel the need to raise a child, they turn to science. All artificial sperm does, is allow them to use their own genetic material as opposed to a donor.

Me? I feel no such need and think all reproductive science is pretty much a danger to the planet because there's enough damn people here already.

Am I the only person who has never heard of the word "stack" in this context?

Wikipedia: stacks - Nope
Google definition of stack - Nope.
Urban Dictionary: stack - Nope.
Dictionary.com - stack - Nope
Google search "IT stack" - Only hit is the eweek article.

I think they made up this term.

s/stack/platform/g
or
s/stack/framework/g

Strafe does not mean the same thing as sidestep. We at Wikipedia would appreciate any insight you can offer as to the origins of your illiteracy.

Strafe does not mean the same thing as sidestep. We at Wikipedia would appreciate any insight you can offer as to the origins of your illiteracy.

Strafe does not mean the same thing as sidestep. We at Wikipedia would appreciate any insight you can offer as to the origins of your illiteracy.

It's simply that the Directors Guild want more protection than is afforded to them by law.

That might be your learned opinion, but it's not the law. The court ruled that these works were impermissible as derivative works. Derivative works fall under copyright law. So, really, the DGA wanted enforcement of protection that is afforded by the law. Pretty much the opposite of what you're saying.

I should also note that "edits" is too vague of a term. Cleanflicks (and co.) are not adding or replacing content, simply removing it.

Removing content is editing. I refer you to #4 of the first definition.

Strafe is not a synonym for sidestep. Your input as to the origins of your illiteracy would be appreciated on the Wikipedia article.

Mod that up +5 informative. I checked, and you're absolutely right, and now I'm also wondering how the word got twisted 180 degrees.

Now I need to find a new insult. Douchebag just doesn't read well to me, Dumbass is too generic and I can't find a proper spelling for nincompoop, however I think I have it right.

Retard isn't politically correct, whipper snapper is too old fashioned and dolt is too condescending to imply humor.

I think I'll go with bungler from now on.

He may have misspelled it, but the word certainly exists.

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

You just got ownerated.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=own erated

Actually, it is "Bostonian". Every city has one generally accepted name for the people of the city. Despite what you claim, yes, there is a word. These words have in many cases existed and been used regularly for hundreds of years, so I'm wondering, what does a word have to do to actually be valid in your eyes? Evey word had to be made up at some point.

I could understand your complaint if people from Boston were called "Yarkenfargers" or something, but in this case, words like Bostonian, New Yorker, Pennsylvanian, etc. are concise and intuitive to whoever hears it.

Yes, instead of saying "New Yorkers", one could say "people from New York" every time. Likewise, instead of saying "northerner", one could say "people from the north", and instead of saying "orwellian", we could just say "in a manner similar to that portrayed in the works of George Orwell". How are these examples any more valid as words than ones that describe inhabitants of a place?

The only reason everybody doesn't know the name for someone from every city is because they don't have to; it doesn't come up. If you live in San Francisco, you aren't talking about Bostonians very much at all, you are talking about Californians and Oregonians. But for people who live in the New England area, the word "Bostonian" comes up quite often!

Similarly, those who aren't in the medical field might not know all the terminology a doctor uses, but the words are still quite useful to doctors on a daily basis.

In short, get over it. In terms of longevity, these are much more firmly established words than, say, "computer" or "airplane" or "light switch". They are real words. Just deal. At least these words convey something meaningful.

Conflating meaning was a more important idea, I think. Like what the current U.S. administration and corporations do. Just what is an insurgent, anyway?

Regular spelling doesn't necessarily mean creating homographs, but in the case of converting English over it would, barring truly radical change. Start fresh, why don'tcha?

There really is a lot of value to getting out from underneath all the confusion of homophones/homonyms and homographs, ambiguous sentence structures, exceptions and irregularities. We should not kick out the idea of a regular language because we have a knee-jerk sense of superiority afforded by our English skillz.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lojban
http://www.lojban.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=Hom e+Page&bl

        * Has a grammar that is based on predicate logic, and is capable of expressing complex logical constructs precisely.
        * Has no irregularities or ambiguities in spelling or grammar, so it can be easily parsed by computer.
        * Is designed to be as culturally neutral as possible.
        * Is simple to learn and use compared to many natural languages.
        * Possesses an intricate system for effectively communicating contextual emotion.

Actually they're two formal definitions for redneck.

  Used as a disparaging term for a member of the white rural laboring class, especially in the southern United States.In the past couple years it has become synonymous with hick which refers to small towns and rural areas. As I'm from a small town and in the middle of freaking nowhere, people call me a redneck when I visit family on the other side of the state. Do I mind because they're using it to refer to the fact I live in a small rural town. Might I remind you that this is the english language and is full of jargon and slang, much of which isn't documented.

to differentiate among the homonyms.

whey isn't necessarily a homonym of way and weigh (above). I'd use what's in the dictionary as the first [listed] pronounciation (hway). Then again, I don't have an accent which most people can detect.

Koreans had the same problem when they went to a phonetic alphabet.

Japanese has two phonetic alphabets: hiragana and katakana. The former for Japanese words, the latter for non-Japanese.

When I studied & learned Japanese & Chinese (together) many years ago (and subsequently lost virtually both of them via severe concussion in a car accident eleven years ago), I found them easier to learn that I think most foreign people woould find English. People wondered how I could do both (and work full time - I couldn't play club soccer any more, learned to juggle - 7 balls two hands, 5 balls, one hand (nowhere the level of Anthony Gatto (wiki page isn't current, BTW - see his web site for small clips of workouts), and discovered shogi and xiang-qi. At that time, all of the books were in the native languageas and I decided to learn the languages.

English is a million rules with a million exceptions. So many words have come from so many other languages and sources, and that creates the complexity.

The rules & exceptions made sense in those languages and they weren't tough to remember. The dropout rate for either language was 50% at fairly regular intervals for all of the classes and semester after semester they had to keep combining classes because people were frying. People asked how I kept them separate and I pointed out throughout all of the time I took the languages, Japanese was MW, and Chinese was TR. During that day, and until after the class, the only language I thought about was for that day, even if I thought I might not be ready for the following day, particularly a tough test. Kanji. People also would refer to drawing characters, I told them to think of writing. Also, when making flashcards, they'd review all of them, over & over. Go through them, remove the ones you guess right, and review and re-review the ones you can't get right, then go back and rebuild the deck to do a full review.

What killed people in Chinese was the four tones and larning to listen for them. (I believe the other tonal language is Vietnamese).

Also, many of the Kanji and Hanyu characters are used in the other language, because the Japanese Kanji is based upon the Hanyu characters for either pronounciation or meaning. The other thing which killed people was not understanding how to dissect the Kanji & Hanyu characters. e.g. The Kanji character for ocean has mother and water in it: the mother of all water is the ocean. House has roof at the top, pig at the bottom. Pigs were kept beneath the floors where the leftover food could be dropped or swept.

I think one of the problems with English for people is they don't understand the roots for many words and have no interest in doing so. This means a lot of rote memorization. Just like juggling, coding, and everything else, break things into their fundamental pieces, then put them together.

Personally, (see Romaji reference above) I thought it was as stupid thing to do. It was learn Romaji for reading & writing along with the verbal|hearing phrases as well as grammar. After that, it was replace Romaji with hiragana, then add katakana, and along the way somewhere, start seeding the process of learning Kanji. Basically, learning Romaji was a waste because it was a throwaway. People were already dropping,

Actually, it seems that in the context of law, "judgment" is preferred in the UK, and "judgement" is considered incorrect by style guides in America. Only in a non-legal sense has "judgement" become accepted, and then only in the UK.

But you are correct that both are used; it is just that in a legal sense, one is more correct than the other.

So you still don't accept the facts that Ken Lay did not "build Enron from nothing"? Well I guess your ignorance wins. We should inform everyone else how wrong they are.

Oh look, reference.com thinks Northern Natural Gas, one of the two companies that merged to form Enron, was formed in the 1930's... well, maybe Ken Lay had that "time travel" thing down http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Enron_Corpora tion

They think he became CEO the year after Enron was formed http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/infrastructure/powe r/enron_time.html

Man, maybe I would expect it from some "reference.com" place and from the hippie PBS, but not from you USA Today... you've changed http://www.usatoday.com/money/energy/2001-11-28-en ron-chronology.htm

Answers.com has always been b.s. so it's no wonder they're in on the lies too http://www.answers.com/topic/kenneth-lay

While individual Christians, Muslims, etc., frequently work side-by-side with non-religious people, it's less true on an organizational level. A pro-religious organization very rarely works with an anti-religious organization. So if very religious organizations work with Oxfom (for example) you can be pretty sure that Oxfam is not anti-religious. It may be secular but it is not atheist. Which are you?

While individual Christians, Muslims, etc., frequently work side-by-side with non-religious people, it's less true on an organizational level. A pro-religious organization very rarely works with an anti-religious organization. So if very religious organizations work with Oxfom (for example) you can be pretty sure that Oxfam is not anti-religious. It may be secular but it is not atheist. Which are you?

Actually, it shows a command of the English language. Note definition 2.

Is identity theft not theft? Theft of services?

coronary

. . .

n.

        A coronary thrombosis

Do you even know what "allot" means?

krusadr (679804) wrote...

Oh I get it, you can see the guy's point that maybe he, like others, and even you, shouldn't 'care', but, because he said he didn't care, he has some imagined 'Mac' disease?

90% of the computer users of the world don't care about these issues any more than they care to take up automotive mechanics in order to drive back and forth to their fucking jobs, okay?

I don't have a problem with the stated fact that most people care little for stuff like this. It's annoying, however, when those 90% of people, yourself and the parent included, feel that you're above that sort of knowledge. So you don't care (and don't wish to hear) about computer issues? That's awesome; I'm glad you have other interests. Just don't pretend you're a better person because you talk about something you don't fully understand.

And what's more, the 'not caring/not knowing', overwhelming majority of people DO shape the tech world, more than you think. Why? Because they're the buyers, get it, and the companies give them what they want. It's not a pretty thought, sure.

For years PC games have driven the consumer computer market. Sure, people have to buy those games, but gamers hardly make up a majority of computer users; they tend to associate more with the 10% you reference are interested in computer issues.

WTF was that supposed to mean? Heheh, bad for I-VI-II-V jazz progressions, bad for anything anywhere evolving or moving on? If "progress" was the word you were after...

Nothing worse than attempting an ill-attempted jab at someone else's writing and failing. Here's what progression means (the first definition; the one I used):
noun: 1. The process of progressing; progress.
It's a synonym for progress, and is a noun (I can't tell if you're implying it's an adjective or verb; in either case, you're wrong).

http://thesaurus.reference.com/search?q=revolution ary

You must be This__Tall to Golf -- Volkswagen's newest verb, replacing Farfegnugen.

NIH Image has been superseded by ImageJ. And am I really the only one who knows the definitions of discreet and discrete?????

NIH Image has been superseded by ImageJ. And am I really the only one who knows the definitions of discreet and discrete?????

That plus minors do not have the same Constitutional rights as adults

The first amendment doesn't say you have protection unless you're a minor. Either it's a basic human right (hence its position at the top of the bill of rights, which are supposed to apply to all humans equally) or it isn't. Pick one.

and the fact that Public Schools are not the same as a Government Agency enforcing such rules against the general populace.

Uh, yes they are. There is no difference whatsoever. Actually, there is one different; persons under the age of 18 who have not graduated high school are legally compelled to be there. Adults aren't required to be anywhere in particular unless they've done something wrong. By forcing children to be in school, we're treating them like criminals, even down (in some cases) to physically fencing the school so they can't get out. I realize we're trying to ensure our future, but you know the saying - you can lead a whore to Vasser, but you can't make her think.

Not that I think hookers are necessarily stupid, mind you.

Schools do have the authority to enforce whatever standards they decide are appropriate.

That's nice, but this has nothing whatsofuckingever to do with school. FTFA:

What: A student at Weedsport Middle School sues after being suspended for a semester for having an allegedly "threatening" instant-message icon on his home computer.

and

Aaron's home computer sported this icon for about three weeks, until another student tipped off VanderMolen.

This had nothing to do with school. A school has no right to regulate what a student does when they're not at school unless it actually has some kind of impact at school.

The icon didn't say "I will kill mr. cockgobbler", it said "kill mr. cockgobbler". It's an imperative, not a plan. And since it's something stupid, like a forum icon or IM icon or WTFever it was, it's pretty clear that it wasn't even a serious imperative, let alone a threat. Therefore, he didn't break the school's policies - clearly the cops didn't think it was a threat. They're the "experts", if they don't think it's a threat (even a psychologist agreed) then what the hell does the school know? Leave the psychoanalysis to those who know something.

Meanwhile, the judge is clearly an idiot asshole:

"There is no merit to plaintiffs' assertion that questions of fact exist due to the conclusions of the Sheriff's Department and Dr. Lesswing that Aaron did not pose an actual threat and did not intend to carry out the threat. It is well-established that lack of intention or ability to carry out a threat is not relevant.

Uhhh... Whether there is intent or ability to carry out a threat is irrelevant, but whether it was intended as a threat or not is, and the Sherriff's Department (and Dr. Lesswing, ostensibly the head shrinker) said that he did not pose an actual threat. If we look in the dictionary we can easily find this: "To put forward; present: pose a threat." In other words, in the opinions of those who should, in that court, be considered experts, no threat was made - by the judge's own admission! So where does the question of whether he can/intends to carry it out even come into this? He didn't even MAKE a threat!

This case is pure bullshit. This judge should be flayed in the quad.

Look it up idiot.

license.

Oh, but you must be using the British spelling. Bugger...

dike also dyke
n.
      1a. An embankment of earth and rock built to prevent floods.
      1b. Chiefly British. A low wall, often of sod, dividing or enclosing lands.
      2. A barrier blocking a passage, especially for protection.
      3. A raised causeway.
      4. A ditch; a channel.
      5. Geology. A long mass of igneous rock that cuts across the structure of adjacent rock.

Wait... so he's selling money?

Quit picking on men, bub

And if it were so damn valuable, why dispose of it in a cab?

(And do you think she claimed it as an insured loss?)

I pulled this out of my scrabble bag. If those pan-dimensional beings would've had this technology, they wouldn't have wanted to disect Artur's brain.

No entry found for disect.
Did you mean dissect?

Are you really that lame, or did you just spell it that way to save a character because you ran out of space?

I ... will ... try ... to ... remember ... that ... next ... time.

I ... will ... try ... to ... remember ... that ... next ... time.

I ... will ... try ... to ... remember ... that ... next ... time.

I ... will ... try ... to ... remember ... that ... next ... time.