Slashdot Mirror

Attention world: the moron who posted the parent is not your typical American nerd. Even your typical non-nerd American isn't so ignorant of his own language.

"Crackpot" means exactly the same thing in American as in English; to wit:

crackpot
n.
An eccentric person, especially one with bizarre ideas.

adj.
Foolish; harebrained: a crackpot notion.


The parent poster has obviously been in too many crack houses... or even lives in one.

When individuals say they believe in God, they generally have a good idea of what they mean by that. But people tend to differ wildly in what their God actually is and what he does, so saying "there is no God" without qualification can be a very bold statement.

For example, I believe in an all-present, all-knowing and all-powerful entity. This entity works in mysterious ways but reveals itself to certain individuals who document their discovery for the benefit of others. There is only one true entity, but can be viewed from many different angles, each one revealing some aspect of the whole. It is more beautiful than anything mankind has ever created.

So, does this entity fit the definition of being a God? Would only a fanatic claim the existence of such a thing?

You self-describe as a "fundamentalist", but you speak quite differently from other "fundamentalists".

This is an increasingly annoying problem of terminology. When a Christian describes themselves as a fundamentalist - as jdavidb has, and as I would describe myself - they typically have something in mind that is entirely different from what a non-Christian thinks of when they use the term "fundamentalist".

If you want an analogy, consider the term "hacker". Folks here on /. have complained about the misuse of this term by the popular media. A term that was once used as jargon by a select group has been appropriated by the common culture. In doing that, the term has been given a popular meaning that is not only different, but in some ways even opposed to the original jargon meaning of the word.

"Fundamentalist" and "fundamentalism" were adopted as identifying terms for a particular Christian theological movement. So in Christian circles, the term is essentially theological jargon. However, the popular meaning of the term has diverged so much that there are actually fundamental, evengelical Christians who refuse to use the term "fundamentalist" to identify themselves because of the negative connotations now attached to the term.

Why? For someone unfamiliar with the theological jargon, a Christian using the term "fundamentalist" can be as confusing as a computer programmer using the term "hacker". Or, even worse, it should be confusing, but it isn't... because the Christian/programmer assigns one meaning to the term, while the non-Christian/non-programmer assigns a different meaning.

Heh. I should start referring to myself as a "fundamentalist hacker" and really make some heads spin.

In your rush to score points, did it even fleetingly occur to you that his grasp of the English language just might be superior to yours and that of the knee-jerks who modded you up?

However, you probably spell colour without the "u" so I'll forgive you since the "English for Dummies" rule would come into effect.

Lordy.

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

Definition 4. Damned grammar nazis!

White House Effect: The phenomenon whereby government agencies trap climate control funding, caused by the presence in the atmosphere of Republican FUD that allows donator-friendly information to pass through but absorbs evidence radiated back from concerned scientists. (original definition)

Don't you silly Spectrum-using twits know shit about anything?

That's all fine--if you stick to that definition.

According to dictionary.com, however, that isn't quite right--it is actually being easily decieved or convinced.

More likely the very gullible will take the one position when given seeming evidence and then be easily convinced to abandon that position.

A person who takes a holds a position regardless of evidence is likely foolish, but not particularly gullible. There is a big difference, and that is what I am taking issue with--construct definitions must be exact and precise.

What you are referring to is not a measure of gullibility but of something else (I'm not really sure what) equally deleterious.

As far as the merits of taking and holding a particular religious belief, I am not certain that /. is the best place to discuss such things--although I have in the past, perhaps foolishly. I will say this, not all who believe in God are such simpletons as you paint in that post. Many of us are more than willing to accept scientific evidence and theory as perfectly valid. I may not always agree with common interpretations, but I understand science and research. I have to. I also understand that there are frequently multiple ways to interpret a single data set or observation and statistics don't always tell us everything we would like to know. Science, at the end of the day, is a big problem and it is impossible for any one person to stay abreast on all the latest information. Thus one must select a set of experts to whom one goes for information and periodically check to make sure that those experts aren't trying to publish a particular set of beliefs disguised as science (it happens--read The Bell Curve by Hernstein & Murray).

At the same time I have a religious friend who annoys me to no end--he openly distrusts science, doctors and similar things. I strongly disagree with him on that point, but agree that God is real. You may disagree, but that doesn't make you smarter or even less gullible.

And capitalism is by definition not a system, it is liberty.
Wikipedia, Thesaurus.com , Merriam-webster and Encarta all disagree.

what does the author mean using this word in this context? yes I looked it up

We needses our moneyses. We Looooovees our moneys. Yesssss...*GOLEM* Nasty little citizenses. Nasty little businesses.. Give us our precioussss... *GOLEM*

I _can_ kill a person.

I think you are confusing Freedom with impunity.

They are neither contingent nor corollary. Many very smart people would argue that they are often mutually exclusive...not least in so far as your freedom ends at my fist.

I _can_ kill a person.

I think you are confusing Freedom with impunity.

They are neither contingent nor corollary. Many very smart people would argue that they are often mutually exclusive...not least in so far as your freedom ends at my fist.

"Freenet seeks to implement a level of anonymity that resolves people of responsibility."

I think the word you are looking for is absolve.

Twice in this thread, including the OP, posters have written "it's" when they meant to write "its". "It's" is a contraction for "it is". "Its" is a possessive.

Here's the dictionary article that outlines how to use the two.

Does it give your life meaning to constantly attempt to be an asshole about things that don't matter and of which your knowledge is limited?

The study, valid as it was, entirely FAILS to support the conclusion that PRAYER does not help heart patients. According to the study, people "were given written prayers and the first name and initial of the last name of the prayer subjects." I'm sorry, but reciting written words does in no way constitute as PRAYER. According to dictionary.com (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=prayer), the closest definitions to prayer (as concerning this study) are: 1) A reverent petition made to God, a god, or another object of worship. 2) The act of making a reverent petition to God, a god, or another object of worship. 3) A fervent request. The written prayers may have been elaborate, highly-poetic requests, but that does NOT make them reverent petitions. Even if the written prayers were reverent, they were NOT necessarily prayed reverently or fervently. By definition, the study fails to support the conclusion. This is by far the most pitiful attempt I've ever heard of to try to negate the power of prayer. It's a total mockery.

As for proving 2 + 2 = 4. Hold up 2 finger on one hand, now do the same on the other, count the total number of fingers being held up.

As for proving 2 + 2 = 4. Hold up 2 finger on one hand, now do the same on the other, count the total number of fingers being held up.

Who needs to license MPEG-4 AAC patents?
An MPEG-4 AAC patent license is required for manufacturers or developers of complete (or substantially complete) end-user encoder and/or decoder products, or for manufacturers/developers of component encoder and/or decoder products that are

First of all you have no idea what the term flamebait means. Secondly of all, you can't even spell flamebait. Third, go read the article instead of posting your assinine opinion.

Ahem.

I'm sorry that I seem to have misunderstood you, but I don't see how else anyone reading your (GGP) post could have taken it.
You (perhaps mistakenly) only talked about missing out on sex, and didn't mention companionship at all. (e.g. "If you are 30 and did not have sex in your 20's, then being single is miserable." instead of "If you are 30 and don't have good friends, then being single is miserable.")
Had you even mentioned friendship and companionship, I would have agreed with you. Had you not further confused sex with companionship (e.g. "to those that go decades without it, 'sex' means more than just the act") in your response, I would be more likely to think that I had misunderstood you the first time.

Then, this comment in your (parent) post, "Even if you don't have sex with them, you get girl friends that you could have sex with..." which suggests that you might be one of these people that I pity (see definition of pity below). You see, first, I never had a "girlfriend" until 4-5 months before I got married. Second, I fully believe that if I had ever said or done anything to suggest an invitation to any of my female friends to have sex outside of marriage, they would have been offended, and felt hurt and betrayed. I hope that you can see how this mutual standard and trust allowed (and allows) close friendships.

I know that there exist shallow women and men, but you seemed to have implied in your (GGP) post that non-shallow women and men are few and far between. I disagree with that implication. From your statements in your (parent) post you may also disagree, but it wasn't clear.

One more thing. In my (GP) post, I ended with, "If you think that happiness/misery depends on whether you get sex I pity you." Upon re-reading this statement, and the rest of that post, you may realize that I never once suggested that I pity people who don't fit conventional images of attractiveness, but rather pitied people looking for happiness where I don't believe they'll find it. You responded with, "So have a little compassion instead of disgust..." Here is a link to the definition of pity.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=pity
Please especially note the first listed synonym, "compassion."

It seems that the concurrence Microsoft Corp. is facing is getting tighter and tighter. The Penguin gets more and more support from the two biggest rivals that Microsoft have ever had."

concurrence Pronunciation Key (kn-kûrns, -kr-)
n.
Agreement in opinion.
Cooperation, as of agents, circumstances, or events.
Simultaneous occurrence; coincidence.

The OP shows signs of having never been in an altercation of substantial seroiusness as anybody (including so-called "trained" martial artists) facing a knife should get the hell out of Dodge if possible. Couple that with the most popular martial art in the US (and maybe the world?) being Tae Kwon Do and you have a recipe for disaster. Even Brazillian jiu-jitsu folks have trouble when facing somebody with a knife. I think everybody gets this picture of somebody pulling it and executing an orderly thrust or some erratic pansy-assed slashes. We had a kid in high school (back in the 80's.. oh my) who pulled a Buck knife and when completely apeshit.. totally erratic. He was fast and not over-committing. There was no defense against that and they hauled the other kid out on a stretcher.

How does this "hurt" normal consumers - realizing that 'normal' consumers are not producers of music and don't hold distribution rights to most of the music they carry on their iPods?

We have different definitions of 'normal' here. *shrug* whatever.

Also, you bolded "artificial limits". iPods don't grow on trees. Anything they do is artificial. Maybe you meant something else there?

Errr yes - everything they do is artificial. Good point.

However - I hope you're not majoring in english over at BU - artifical has meanings beyond your simplistic 'something not found in nature' definition.

Namely: Brought about or caused by sociopolitical or other human-generated forces or influences

So - the artificial limit being referred to in this case is Apple designing the iPod to impede an action that should be easy.

In Apple's case - to appease its corporate partners.

  Janet Jackson's 'wardrobe malfunction' would be the starting point.

Perhaps that's because 'sheek' is the preferred pronounciation? http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=sheik
Not that 'shake' is wrong either.

You also need to consider local custom. For example, here route is pronounced differently based upon its contextual use: Route 66 (root) and IP Route (rowt) are pronounced differently.

OpenBSD was the result of a squabble between Theo and the NetBSD team. This was a felicitous squabble for the rest of us, because OpenBSD is a great operating system.

Come again? Definition for felicitous.

Perhaps you meant fallacious? or perhaps flagitious?

OpenBSD was the result of a squabble between Theo and the NetBSD team. This was a felicitous squabble for the rest of us, because OpenBSD is a great operating system.

Come again? Definition for felicitous.

Perhaps you meant fallacious? or perhaps flagitious?

OpenBSD was the result of a squabble between Theo and the NetBSD team. This was a felicitous squabble for the rest of us, because OpenBSD is a great operating system.

Come again? Definition for felicitous.

Perhaps you meant fallacious? or perhaps flagitious?

Both terms exist, and are correct in the context that they are being used in.

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

from dictionary.com: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=flaw

tr. & intr.v. flawed, flawing, flaws:
To make or become defective.

To all the carnivores out there:

I'm an Omnivore, bitch.

etc. etc. for all the animals murdered in the name of cuisine.

It's not possible to murder food.

LK

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=abecedari an

"One who is just learning; a beginner."

I don't think you mean "disparage", meaning "To speak of in a slighting or disrespectful way; belittle", because disparaging a theory is not part of doing science. You probably mean "disconfirm" or "disprove". The reason scientists don't try to disprove evolution - by which I mean the common descent of all life on earth from a small set of ancestral organisms over about three billion years - is that there is an immense quantitiy of interconnected evidence that supports it. DNA, fossil evidence, biogeography, etcetera. Trying to claim that life isn't the product of evolution is like claiming that ordinary matter isn't made of atoms. Scientists do attempt to explain particular facets and processes within evolutionary history, and in doing so they necessarily argue over particular theories. This leads to...

There is no way to definitively prove one that either evolution has occured or that God created everything. Both sides rest on circumstantial evidence

Not at all. Evolution rests on evidence, yes. The evidence is widely available, can be examined by many, many people, and is agreed on by people with widely varying religious, philosophical, and cultural beliefs. As a theory, it makes predictions about things we haven't seen yet (such as the fossil skull in the article) and more importantly, predicts things we will not see, such as Precambrian reptile fossils, or mammals with feathers.

By contrast, the idea that "God created everything" rests on no evidence at all. It makes no predictions about things that we will see or not see in the world. There is no conceivable evidence that would weigh against it. In short, it's not science.

As far as I know, it should be Crucifixion. And it's in the title even! We really need a -1 Spelling/Grammar mod.

Free fall? Really? What did you mean to say?

For those of you curious.....A wife is commonly refered to as: A woman joined to a man in marriage; a female spouse........or so dictionary.com tells me.

You may remember several famous wife's.....like Princese Leia and Marge Simpson.


I'm thinking this post will hurt my karma.....

....and I'll proablly give up at life if this gets modded + anything, Insightful

The Nazis proposed their own "German Science" in reaction to what they called the "Jewish Science" of, among others, Albert Einstein and (the ironically non-Jewish) Werner Heisenberg. The "Jewish Science" was nothing other than modern physics, of course.

And when the Jewish scientists fled Nazi Germany, many came to America to work on the atomic bomb -- a bomb originally intended for use against Germany.

So as the Bush Administration and the Kansas school board repress honest science in America in favor of ideology and religion, ask yourself where we'll be in five or ten or fifty years.

Will any great biologists come out of Kansas if they need, at best, several semesters of remedial training to disabuse them of the lies of "Intelligent Design"? Will the breakthroughs in stem-cell research -- breakthroughs that could cure numerous diseases and extend human life for decades -- happen here, under the Christian eyes of Dr. Frist, or in freer and more open lands like India and Korea?

Or will that not matter at all, as global warming and environmental collapse literally drown America for the profit of the oil companies?

For a hundred years or more, America has been at the forefront of scientific research and development. Scientific leadership has been a pillar supporting our country's wealth and power. Will you let that pillar be chopped down so a few plutocrats can profit while science-hating fundamentalists cheer?

In the next several elections, you'll be voting not just for Representatives or a President -- you'll be voting on the future, or the future decline, of your country. Will you emulate the courage of Dr. Hansen, or will you surrender to an American Lysenkoism of ignorance, ideologically-fettered science, and superstition?

You couldn't be more wrong.

LCD
LCD
LCD
LCD
LCD

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

cow (kou)
n.

1. The mature female of cattle of the genus Bos.
2. The mature female of other large animals, such as whales, elephants, or moose.
3. A domesticated bovine of either sex or any age.

Its also worth noting that http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=jello and http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=kleenex both mention the word trademark, but superhero does not.

Its also worth noting that http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=jello and http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=kleenex both mention the word trademark, but superhero does not.

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

So they went after a bar, but not the dictionaries that list the incredibly commonly used word. Why? Because the bar makes money off the word? So do dictionary companies.

The dictionary is where we go for Scrabble help. It's the definitive answer to the question, "Is that a word?" Not a group of words or made-up words -- singular items of the language. They should not be subject to trademark, especially not in a completely unrelated business sector.

Also, trademarks must be enforced if they are to be kept. Marvel and DC didn't enforce it when it showed up in the dictionary. Unless they really want to remove it from the general lexicon, they should lose this trademark. Hell, they should lose this trademark period!

cor-ral
n.
      1. An enclosure for confining livestock.

Interesting how this wording shows government views on the people.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=asinine&r =66

anarchy Pronunciation Key (nr-k) n. pl. anarchies

1. Absence of any form of political authority.
2. Political disorder and confusion.
3. Absence of any cohesive principle, such as a common standard or purpose.

To support or establish the certainty or validity of; verify.

Synonyms: confirm, corroborate, substantiate, authenticate, validate, verify
These verbs mean to affirm the truth, accuracy, or genuineness of something. Confirm implies removal of all doubt.

You won't read the wikipedia article, so I shall provide you with something shorter:
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=free%20ma rket
http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/freemarket?vi ew=uk
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/free+market
http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_/free%2520market .html

"trading without government control: an economic system in which businesses operate without government control in matters such as pricing and wage levels"

Any questions?

So you're saying that charging $3500 for something that has been proven to be worth $1600 is not overpriced? That is the very definition of overpriced. http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=overprice d

And the "crap" is not just my opinion, it is supported by scores of comments on this story, hundreds of comments and posts on other websites, and hundreds and hundreds of Better Business complaints within the past couple years. If thousands of people can attest to their products and service being crap, that's not opinion, that's a fact.