Slashdot Mirror

There's a verb definion for short. Scroll downa ways. To short-circuit or cheat (shortchange) and one relating to the sale of stocks.

A spelling tool may not, but a grammar tool should know that the second word in "too much", "too far", "too litle", and so on is not a verb.

To some of us it is apparent that there are many uses of the word "to" that do not require it to be followed by a verb.

"Of course some users like to email me to tell me how much Slashdot sucks, how fat and lazy I am, and how the most terrible thing in the history of Slashdot is the fact that the 4th story down contains the word 'to' when it ought to contain the word 'too'."

I know what you mean. Here is a prime example:

"Many submissions are to long or to short. So I get out the scissors and start looking for sentences to cut."

to is a preposition
too is an adverb
two is a noun

"Of course some users like to email me to tell me how much Slashdot sucks, how fat and lazy I am, and how the most terrible thing in the history of Slashdot is the fact that the 4th story down contains the word 'to' when it ought to contain the word 'too'."

I know what you mean. Here is a prime example:

"Many submissions are to long or to short. So I get out the scissors and start looking for sentences to cut."

to is a preposition
too is an adverb
two is a noun

"Of course some users like to email me to tell me how much Slashdot sucks, how fat and lazy I am, and how the most terrible thing in the history of Slashdot is the fact that the 4th story down contains the word 'to' when it ought to contain the word 'too'."

I know what you mean. Here is a prime example:

"Many submissions are to long or to short. So I get out the scissors and start looking for sentences to cut."

to is a preposition
too is an adverb
two is a noun

A marine I once knew introduced me to the term "Kludge" (he pronounced it KLOOJ). It is a hastily-assembled, inelegant fix to an otherwise fragile construct.

I love physics, but beware any time a physicist says "I've found something that changes/that I can change to fit in my otherwise not-completely-working theories."

This isn't to say it's not true. The universe is peculiar. But beware.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=ridiculou s

Maybe you just spell it like you say it. If this is the case, please seek a speech therapy professional.

Strangely enough, a person can be a "wit"... I think it's synonymous with being "witty" in this case.
wit (3.c)

Yes, Intel's compiler is faster on intel hardware than gcc. this is true in every os that runs on intel hardware... but makes almost no difference in the real world, except for processor intensive apps ( mp3 ripping, dvd encoding, etc ). so, for 99 % of the code written for any os, it just makes more sense to use a portable compiler, and a good language.

Your definition of "real world" is a lot different to ours.

Instead of relying on ad-hominem attacks, please try to actually address the question. What real world applications that a typical mac user is going to use ( other than those I've listed above ) are going to benefit from a heavily optimized compiler?

what about the fact that I don't like c++ makes me unqualified to discuss the relative merits of it's design when compared with objective c? In your opinion, what is so bad about objective c ? please site actual projects where you've used the language, and where c++ would have been a superior choice

You do realise that funny has more than one meaning. From dictionary.com:

funny Audio pronunciation of "funny" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (fn)
adj. funnier, funniest

      1.
                  1. Causing laughter or amusement.
                  2. Intended or designed to amuse.
      2. Strangely or suspiciously odd; curious.
      3. Tricky or deceitful.

In this case I would assume the GP was intending the second meaning rather than the first.

The word you were looking for is cite not sight. Damn homophones going round confusing people again.

oligopoly n. pl. oligopolies

A market condition in which sellers are so few that the actions of any one of them will materially affect price and have a measurable impact on competitors.

Iago

Maybe it could be effecting avolution...

Okay, no decent uses of "avolution. How about...

Flying Spaghetting Monster effects avolition ( http://www.answers.com/topic/avolition?method=8 ) -- I'd pray to FSM everyday, but I just don't feel like it.

Flying Spaghetting Monster effects avolation ( http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=Avola tion ) -- hence "Flying".

How do you know when the FSM is done? He sticks to the ceiling! Hah!

Monopoly (n.) Exclusive control by one group of the means of producing or selling a commodity or service http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=monopoly

Apple is NOT a monopoly and neither is Microsoft. A monopoly is when a company has EXCLUSIVE control over a product or service, meaning that there is only ONE company who offers a product or service. Most cable companies and telephone companies ARE examples of monopolies because they are the ONLY ONE who provides cable or telephone service to your house and you DO NOT have a choice to switch to another provider if you still want cable or land-line telephone service. Microsoft is not a monopoly. If Microsoft does something you do not like or you find a better product you have the choice to switch. Microsoft is competing with Apple and Linux and so far they are winning but they are still in a competition. Saying that Microsoft has a monopoly over the OS market is just like saying that Sony has a monopoly over the video game market because most people own a Playstation 2 over any other current gen consoles and as a result Playstation 2 games would out sell games for any other console. Saying that Microsoft has a monopoly over the OS market is also like saying Apple has a monopoly over the MP3 player market. This is also not the case because there are many choices of MP3 players and no single company controls that market.

The reason a company would look like, and not be, a monopoly in the OS market is because the OS market is a strange market. Companies use different code so that programs run differently. If everybody had a different operating system then software companies would have to make different versions of their software to run on all the different OSes. That is why people all chose the same OS so that they all have the largest selection of software to chose from and that their computers would be compatible with their friends and families.

> aspiration is not faith

What defintion of faith are you using??

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=faith
1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.

> and proving it shows it wasn't a matter of faith.

If you never do anything with your beliefs, they are just that beliefs.
If you act on your beliefs, you have faith.

You're right, I should have used ee (I understand you think I was writing in Italian, but I was actually using English). Such a nice thing, the dictionary

Turntable is not an instrument. Look it up.

When a turntable is a musical instrument, I'll redefine musician to incorporate people who use them. As a percussion instrument? I think that would be very much stretching it. I'll go ask some professional percussion/drum players and see what they say....

Elvis played an instrument. And sang. Both of which meet the definition of a musician.

I think it is very likely that Microsoft will continue the abscure polygonal naming system and make the next console the Xbox1260, or, as it will be called by the savvy, the Nonabox. In addition to being 3 dizzying circles, you'll end up pointing in the EXACT OPPOSITE direction from where you started thanks to the extra 180, unlike a 360 where you end up facing the same direction. Also, the console basically constructs itself as it's name is derived from the Nonagon's internal angles.

You read it on Slashdot first! The 3rd gen Xbox will, possibly, maybe, be the Xbox1260 and have the shape of a Nonagon. And it'll have Duke Nukem Forever and A Day as it's launch title, with Master Chief as a playable character, driving the latest Ferrari lifted from the last Project Gotham title on the Xbox360.

-Nis

one day I'll create an account so I don't have to post anonymously.

...Apple would want to segway its iPod market...

"Please show me a normal definition of leader where it includes the right of command."

ok

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

2. One who is in charge or in command of others.

In daylight the researchers say the pigs' eyes, teeth and trotters look green.
FYI, trotters are feet, not what I thought they were at first.

In daylight the researchers say the pigs' eyes, teeth and trotters look green.
FYI, trotters are feet, not what I thought they were at first.

Dollar for dollar, Apple hardware is a bargain. It's not "pricey"...

No. Apples hardware is expensive.

calling something pricey implies it costs more than it's worth.

Incorrect The definition of 'pricey' is 'Expensiv' unless you're talking stocks.

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

Just looked it up and apparently the meaning of troll I used is a slang version that maybe everyone doesn't know. Look here http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=troll for more details.

And, by the way, trawl is a synonym to troll.

The general rule is: if the word is derived from another that has an 's', the derived word will have an 's', otherwise it's spelled with a 'z'.

If there is a rule, it's that British use -ise and Americans (living in areas colonised by them) use -ize. The latter is becoming more accepted right of the pond, though.

The general rule is: if the word is derived from another that has an 's', the derived word will have an 's', otherwise it's spelled with a 'z'.

If there is a rule, it's that British use -ise and Americans (living in areas colonised by them) use -ize. The latter is becoming more accepted right of the pond, though.

The general rule is: if the word is derived from another that has an 's', the derived word will have an 's', otherwise it's spelled with a 'z'.

If there is a rule, it's that British use -ise and Americans (living in areas colonised by them) use -ize. The latter is becoming more accepted right of the pond, though.

The general rule is: if the word is derived from another that has an 's', the derived word will have an 's', otherwise it's spelled with a 'z'.

If there is a rule, it's that British use -ise and Americans (living in areas colonised by them) use -ize. The latter is becoming more accepted right of the pond, though.

If you're going to send me off to dictionary.com with your post. At least get your spelling right please :) http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=stear ine

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

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

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

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

Since you're trying to use semantics. Then I will try to as well. Science is certainly a philosophy.. http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=philosoph y However it is definitely not a theology http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=theology. Atheism, on the other hand is a theology in that it is defined as a philosophy about theology; namely that the sacred is not present in the philosophy (except recursively from the definition).

The definitions I've linked to are very primative (especially about atheism and theology), but I wanted a consistent reference point.

As the philosophy of science is largely technical (the process of deduction, successive validation of ever more accurate mathmatical descriptions of physical phenomena, perfecting the a knowledge of cause and effect, etc.), it is in itself not a theology.

Now there is nothing in the scientific method to preclude dogma. The the laws of Gallelao, the laws of Neuton, the laws of Maxwell, the laws of Einstein, the laws of whatever great thinker in the future that puts these guys in their place. A dogma of a particular period of time is held against heresy, and we label the successful deviants as forward thinking; other's we debase as "cracks". Just as in religion (Saints and heretics)

But this is because the very thing that develops Religion is intrinsic to human nature... The need for "nomos" (defining truth). Once we think we find it, we are internally terrified by anything that threatens it. Even those that presumably welcome if not seek change are at a profound level really just re-seeking the same stable truth that they find present in the merely slight changes of venue.

It is important, therefore, to distinguish Theology from what we normally think of as Religion. Religion is the socialization of theology. There is a likewise socialization of science. The presentation of this article as an answer to ID is a perfect manefestation of this socialization of Science. I'm not sure what the best word to describe this process is; you choose to call it religion, but I and other posters believe this is in error.

I do, however, agree with your underlying principle - that science has a common root with religion; the thing I and some authors call nomos. More importantly it is something which transcends the particulars of the philosophy, and intrinsicly fights for a life of it's own.

As a slight tangent, but to further the parallel. Philosophy involves a logical method. And there are many great thinkers who have applied this logical method to Theology. The allusive ontological proof; the logical deduction of God, is a perfect example. This proof holds that there exists a set of axioms which validate the empiracal aspect of God. In my opinion, they are all crap. But no more can be said about the Big Bang or of evolution as the source of diversity on Earth. (Though I personally don't believe in the evidence of the Big Bang, but I do believe in the evidence of evolution).

Put in another way, those that apply logic to Theology, are taking certain humanly important (sacrad) phenomena and treating them as axioms. It is perfectly permissable to apply the scientific method to this process to discover and eliminate logical strains. I feel that the ontological proof is largely moot, but more interestingly are proofs of morality. But now we're into the social sciences. So again, we're merely trading our starting points; our axioms.

Since you're trying to use semantics. Then I will try to as well. Science is certainly a philosophy.. http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=philosoph y However it is definitely not a theology http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=theology. Atheism, on the other hand is a theology in that it is defined as a philosophy about theology; namely that the sacred is not present in the philosophy (except recursively from the definition).

The definitions I've linked to are very primative (especially about atheism and theology), but I wanted a consistent reference point.

As the philosophy of science is largely technical (the process of deduction, successive validation of ever more accurate mathmatical descriptions of physical phenomena, perfecting the a knowledge of cause and effect, etc.), it is in itself not a theology.

Now there is nothing in the scientific method to preclude dogma. The the laws of Gallelao, the laws of Neuton, the laws of Maxwell, the laws of Einstein, the laws of whatever great thinker in the future that puts these guys in their place. A dogma of a particular period of time is held against heresy, and we label the successful deviants as forward thinking; other's we debase as "cracks". Just as in religion (Saints and heretics)

But this is because the very thing that develops Religion is intrinsic to human nature... The need for "nomos" (defining truth). Once we think we find it, we are internally terrified by anything that threatens it. Even those that presumably welcome if not seek change are at a profound level really just re-seeking the same stable truth that they find present in the merely slight changes of venue.

It is important, therefore, to distinguish Theology from what we normally think of as Religion. Religion is the socialization of theology. There is a likewise socialization of science. The presentation of this article as an answer to ID is a perfect manefestation of this socialization of Science. I'm not sure what the best word to describe this process is; you choose to call it religion, but I and other posters believe this is in error.

I do, however, agree with your underlying principle - that science has a common root with religion; the thing I and some authors call nomos. More importantly it is something which transcends the particulars of the philosophy, and intrinsicly fights for a life of it's own.

As a slight tangent, but to further the parallel. Philosophy involves a logical method. And there are many great thinkers who have applied this logical method to Theology. The allusive ontological proof; the logical deduction of God, is a perfect example. This proof holds that there exists a set of axioms which validate the empiracal aspect of God. In my opinion, they are all crap. But no more can be said about the Big Bang or of evolution as the source of diversity on Earth. (Though I personally don't believe in the evidence of the Big Bang, but I do believe in the evidence of evolution).

Put in another way, those that apply logic to Theology, are taking certain humanly important (sacrad) phenomena and treating them as axioms. It is perfectly permissable to apply the scientific method to this process to discover and eliminate logical strains. I feel that the ontological proof is largely moot, but more interestingly are proofs of morality. But now we're into the social sciences. So again, we're merely trading our starting points; our axioms.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=conspirac y

I'm leaning on (4) here... and:

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

AND!:

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=conspirac y%20theory

Take your pick...

The point: Conspiracy Theory doesn't imply making shit up to explain something (see: roman religions), but more to the effect, a theory of which, based on some sort of evidence or clues, that would implicate a group of people (2 or more) that have plotted to some degree to do something that is generally considered sinister (too strong, but close).

To be a conspiracy theorist, you're stating that from information that you've gathered based on events, haven't taken the common, well driven path, and have tried to find information that may better explain a situation. There are the whack jobs that would give such a title a bad name, and people through it around like they through around "conservative" or "liberal."

It's not a bad name (or title if you prefer). It's merely someone who tries to think beyond the box, and apply a reasoning to something based on a set of evidence where others would only just take the cover story and call it fact.

- Some Conspiracy Theorist Guy -

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=conspirac y

I'm leaning on (4) here... and:

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

AND!:

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=conspirac y%20theory

Take your pick...

The point: Conspiracy Theory doesn't imply making shit up to explain something (see: roman religions), but more to the effect, a theory of which, based on some sort of evidence or clues, that would implicate a group of people (2 or more) that have plotted to some degree to do something that is generally considered sinister (too strong, but close).

To be a conspiracy theorist, you're stating that from information that you've gathered based on events, haven't taken the common, well driven path, and have tried to find information that may better explain a situation. There are the whack jobs that would give such a title a bad name, and people through it around like they through around "conservative" or "liberal."

It's not a bad name (or title if you prefer). It's merely someone who tries to think beyond the box, and apply a reasoning to something based on a set of evidence where others would only just take the cover story and call it fact.

- Some Conspiracy Theorist Guy -

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=conspirac y

I'm leaning on (4) here... and:

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

AND!:

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=conspirac y%20theory

Take your pick...

The point: Conspiracy Theory doesn't imply making shit up to explain something (see: roman religions), but more to the effect, a theory of which, based on some sort of evidence or clues, that would implicate a group of people (2 or more) that have plotted to some degree to do something that is generally considered sinister (too strong, but close).

To be a conspiracy theorist, you're stating that from information that you've gathered based on events, haven't taken the common, well driven path, and have tried to find information that may better explain a situation. There are the whack jobs that would give such a title a bad name, and people through it around like they through around "conservative" or "liberal."

It's not a bad name (or title if you prefer). It's merely someone who tries to think beyond the box, and apply a reasoning to something based on a set of evidence where others would only just take the cover story and call it fact.

- Some Conspiracy Theorist Guy -

"Effect is used as a noun, affect is used as a verb."

It is true, without doubt, but it really isn't the whole story. As it happens, either word can be used as a transitive verb, or a noun.

The differences are in the meaning of the words. Have a look at these definitions: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=effect and http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=affect.

I know it's pedantic, but I just couldn't help myself.

"Effect is used as a noun, affect is used as a verb."

It is true, without doubt, but it really isn't the whole story. As it happens, either word can be used as a transitive verb, or a noun.

The differences are in the meaning of the words. Have a look at these definitions: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=effect and http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=affect.

I know it's pedantic, but I just couldn't help myself.

What do you mean, balkanization?
I think you're misusing the word:
Check Dictionary.com

Or a pleonasm (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=pleonasm ) if you insist on using fancy word ;)

I assume you meant Ophthalmologist.

Loosing a lot of face sounds both painful AND disgusting.

The most ironical part?

That "ironical" isn't a word?

ironical adj 1: characterized by often poignant difference or incongruity between what is expected and what actually is; "madness, an ironic fate for such a clear thinker"; "it was ironical that the well-planned scheme failed so completely" [syn: ironic] 2: humorously sarcastic or mocking; "dry humor"; "an ironic remark often conveys an intended meaning obliquely"; "an ironic novel"; "an ironical smile"; "with a wry Scottish wit" [syn: dry, ironic, wry]

The most ironical part?

That "ironical" isn't a word?

ironical adj 1: characterized by often poignant difference or incongruity between what is expected and what actually is; "madness, an ironic fate for such a clear thinker"; "it was ironical that the well-planned scheme failed so completely" [syn: ironic] 2: humorously sarcastic or mocking; "dry humor"; "an ironic remark often conveys an intended meaning obliquely"; "an ironic novel"; "an ironical smile"; "with a wry Scottish wit" [syn: dry, ironic, wry]

The most ironical part?

That "ironical" isn't a word?

ironical adj 1: characterized by often poignant difference or incongruity between what is expected and what actually is; "madness, an ironic fate for such a clear thinker"; "it was ironical that the well-planned scheme failed so completely" [syn: ironic] 2: humorously sarcastic or mocking; "dry humor"; "an ironic remark often conveys an intended meaning obliquely"; "an ironic novel"; "an ironical smile"; "with a wry Scottish wit" [syn: dry, ironic, wry]

The most ironical part?

That "ironical" isn't a word?

ironical adj 1: characterized by often poignant difference or incongruity between what is expected and what actually is; "madness, an ironic fate for such a clear thinker"; "it was ironical that the well-planned scheme failed so completely" [syn: ironic] 2: humorously sarcastic or mocking; "dry humor"; "an ironic remark often conveys an intended meaning obliquely"; "an ironic novel"; "an ironical smile"; "with a wry Scottish wit" [syn: dry, ironic, wry]

The most ironical part?

That "ironical" isn't a word?

ironical adj 1: characterized by often poignant difference or incongruity between what is expected and what actually is; "madness, an ironic fate for such a clear thinker"; "it was ironical that the well-planned scheme failed so completely" [syn: ironic] 2: humorously sarcastic or mocking; "dry humor"; "an ironic remark often conveys an intended meaning obliquely"; "an ironic novel"; "an ironical smile"; "with a wry Scottish wit" [syn: dry, ironic, wry]

encapsulates: To express in a brief summary; epitomize: headlines that encapsulate the news.
seems ok to me.

And for Pete's sake, lay off the parentheses, ellipses, generalizations, overuse of subordinate clauses, overuse of multiple descriptive adjectives per clause, and the like. Thankfully, you didn't use "quite" or "a tad" as qualifiers. You did, however, use "rather" several times; those three qualifiers are among the strongest indicators of amateur writing.

Please read Bill Stott's classic Write To The Point to help you cope with your obsessive prose/style/grammar insecurities.