Slashdot Mirror
Domain: reference.com
Stories and comments across the archive that link to reference.com.
Comments · 9,372
-
Oh, the irony
Real Men code html by hand, in a text editor.
This gets modded Informative? What crack are the mods on and please cant I not have any of it?This gets modded Informative? Oh, the irony... it hurts.
Mods, just bogart that joint! My post (above) wasn't Informative . At best it was (dubiously) Funny . Arguably it was either Flamebait or Troll ; and it is now certainly Overrated
See, these funny little words in the moderation menu, they all have semantic content, you know? Like, they actually mean something... Oh, never mind. As you were.
-
Oh, the irony
Real Men code html by hand, in a text editor.
This gets modded Informative? What crack are the mods on and please cant I not have any of it?This gets modded Informative? Oh, the irony... it hurts.
Mods, just bogart that joint! My post (above) wasn't Informative . At best it was (dubiously) Funny . Arguably it was either Flamebait or Troll ; and it is now certainly Overrated
See, these funny little words in the moderation menu, they all have semantic content, you know? Like, they actually mean something... Oh, never mind. As you were.
-
Oh, the irony
Real Men code html by hand, in a text editor.
This gets modded Informative? What crack are the mods on and please cant I not have any of it?This gets modded Informative? Oh, the irony... it hurts.
Mods, just bogart that joint! My post (above) wasn't Informative . At best it was (dubiously) Funny . Arguably it was either Flamebait or Troll ; and it is now certainly Overrated
See, these funny little words in the moderation menu, they all have semantic content, you know? Like, they actually mean something... Oh, never mind. As you were.
-
Re:More DevWorks
-
Re:More DevWorks
-
Re:More DevWorks
-
Re:More DevWorks
-
Re:More DevWorks
-
Re:More DevWorks
-
Re:More DevWorks
-
Re:More DevWorks
-
Re:More DevWorks
-
Re:More DevWorks
-
Re:More DevWorks
-
Re:More DevWorks
-
Re:More DevWorks
-
Re:More DevWorks
-
Re:More DevWorks
-
Re:More DevWorks
-
Hey braniac, time to see the wizard
the formulaic, child-minded writing-for-the-lowest-common-marketing-denominat
Encapsulates? That word does not mean what you think it means.o r style that encapsulates 99% of the mainstream videogame press2. To express in a brief summary; epitomize: headlines that encapsulate the news. Fits just fine!
Starting in the most critical area of the videogame press's remit and where I have the most self-doubt about my own writings in the past
Is this English?If you read beyond a 3rd-grade level, yes it is. Start by looking up the noun form of "remit". The "and" conjuction does not join an independent clause ("where I have the most self-doubt
Maybe if everyone was sufficiently literate, there'd be less of the craptastic journalism that the article decries.
McKenna, I'm sure that you had point in there somewhere. From what I was able to decipher from your article, I'm pretty sure I agree with you, more or less. But I guarantee that you'd benefit from a couple of years of formal education in composition, and your work would certainly benefit from a couple of studious edits, preferably from someone else.
I think you've got that reversed. And maybe that's the reason he's writing the article and you're writing incorrect comments on slashdot.
I'd sooner read well-written marketing copy than poorly-written criticism.
As your comment shows, the mainstream press panders to idiots for a reason: they've got a wide audience.
-
Re:Odd how the accounting worksOuch... that is really going to hurt Sony.
Sony BMG agreed to waive its unconscionable New York forum selection clause and $5 limit on damages
For the people who don't know what that means... Sony is not going to be able to enforce those two portions of their EULA.
I'd like to know if "unconscionable" was the EFF's wording, or... because Unconscionable (with regards to a contract) is like asking for someone's first born child.
There is zero (0) chance that they're going to be able to send out lawyers to deal with every single small claims suit filed across the country. The net result is going to be a shit-load of default judgements against Sony (assuming people know to sue). -
Re:Japanese Pallet
Are you referring to "a board, typically with a hole for the thumb, which an artist can hold while painting and on which colors are mixed" or "the range of qualities inherent in nongraphic art forms such as music and literature"? Oh, you mean palate!
-
Re:How is it Censorship?
You might want to check a dictionary the next time you don't know the meaning of a word. Or even look a little more closely at Wikipedia.
-
Re:Of course the school wins...
I don't think you know what libel is. Calling someone names isn't libel. http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=libel If I say that you kill babies in your spare time then that would be libel (assuming you don't kill babies). If I say you're a fucking asshole then that's not libel. There's nothing illegal about stating your opinion of someone.
-
Re:Dealing with rule breakers is a choreBut we don't whine like a baby when held responsible for our transgressions. Your problem is that you don't want to punish anyone.
No, that is not my problem. I did not say that, and I do not believe that. I said that prejudice is wrong. To me, prejudice is the same, no matter what context. What is prejudice? It is forming an opinion before you know the facts about something. So saying that someone is a bad person because they broke a law is not being fair to them. If you know the person personally, then you might be able to make that judgement. But if you don't, you're, ahem, projecting that onto them.
Makes me suspect you are quite the rule breaker yourself. Otherwise why would you defend the indefensible? It's called projection.
Makes me suspect you have no real argument yourself. Otherwise why wouldn't you quote exactly where I said this? It's called projection.
-
Re:you're a human being
you eat, you sleep
you can no more overcome feeling envious than you can overcome the need to eat and sleep
when you rewire the mammalian brain to the point where envy is not something you feel, get back to me
until then, try a little pragmatism
Are you equating a feeling with a physiological need? Feelings like envy are the equivalent of laying around and oversleeping all the time, or eating all the time and becoming overweight. These are not needs, they are overindulgence and they are harmful to your health.
you would only succeed in fooling yourself. you envy. everyone does. everyone always has. everyone always will. if you think you've overcome this basic facet of essential human nature, you've only fooled yourself into thinking you have. you haven't at all, and you never will
How is envy "essential"? The dictionary says "a feeling of discontent and resentment aroused by and in conjunction with desire for the possessions or qualities of another". How is "discontent and resentment" essential?
Are you saying that people cannot change? Do you believe in evolution? If so, that is directly contradictory. Most religions also promote self-change. Unless you're a complete nihilist, fatalist, or hedonist---and possibly even if you are---believing in the absolute inability to change is directly contradictory to everyday life.
you don't understand what it means to be human. you don't recognize your own flaws. which makes you more dangerous than someone who recognizes their flaws and deals with it
it's like saying "i will never get in a car accident." as soon as you say that, you probably will, because you'll drive less carefully, believing yourself to be immune to something you're not. but if i say "i could very easily die in a car accident," my chances of actually doing so just wne todwn a lot. because i recognize the possibility, and driv emore carefully
Again, you misinterpret. I am not saying "I never feel envy". I am saying that when I do feel envy, I will strive to refuse to act on it. If my neighbors get a new car, and I feel envious, I can quash the envy, and be content. Eventually, whether the feeling itself exists or not, I will have control over myself, and it will not matter. If I do give into it, I will try to change myself, to see what happened, and to strive to do what it takes to not let it happen the next time.
The same can be said for your car accident. Car accidents happen, but they can also be avoided with some discipline. You do not (or should not!) simply drive wrecklessly with the attitude that "oh, car accidents are essential an unavoidable, therefore I will do what I want and attempt nothing to avoid one". Instead you practice self-control, follow the rules of the road, and---though you may not drive exactly at the speed limit every day---you avoid accidents. If an accident happens (and it's your fault), you analyze what went wrong, and strive to avoid the same situation next time.
you can pretty mcuh say the same thing about your feelings of envy
you suffer from arrogance and hubris about human nature, including your own
by saying you've overcome envy, your more dangerous to this world than someone who evnies
at least they are honest about themselves
If I said that I do not envy, or even that I do not give into envy, or any other human failing, then I apologize; it was indeed arrogance and certainly incorrect. What I consider ultimate success is for envy, greed, and the like to become irrelevant. Whether they are felt or not, they do not dictate my actions.
This itself is a higher freedom: freedom from our own nature. If you dislike having someone else dictate what to do, how much less you should li
-
"staple" not "stable"
a "staple" in this sense: "A basic or principal element or feature."
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=staple -
Re:i h8 teh txt
d prob i c w dis sys: d msgs typd n2 yahoo msngr rnt typd n englihs, nyway. dey usu lok mch mre lk dis, an evn ppl av a hrd tym readn em.
You misspellt "neway"
You misspelt misspelt. -
Like spearing eels in a bucket!
Never used a dictionary, eh?
-
Re:Guess they learnt their lesson!
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=learntTr
y this link. -
Re:Guess they learnt their lesson!
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=learnt
you might also check out the definition for "comeuppance" while you're there -
Re:Here is one they won't ever implement
A member of the genus Homo and especially of the species H. sapiens.
I haven't been using any extrodinary definition of the word human, and it should have been fairly obvious from the context. -
Agnosticism vs Atheism
Actually, as this article describes it nicely, there are two different kinds of atheism: the "weak atheism" (which is, as I stated above, a lack of belief), and the "strong atheism", which can be equaled to what you think atheism is. [...] I somehow have a feeling, though, as if you'll still stick to whichever definition fits best what you heared last sunday in the church. Say, isn't it a SIN to argue with a godless immoral (according to dictionary.com) being like me in public?
Several things:- That page was written by someone that I don't know, and he states in his opening paragraph that it represents "only one viewpoint" -- his own.
I prefer more authoritative sources, such as the ones at dictionary.com - The last time that I was in a church was sometime in the 1990s, and that was only to attend a wedding.
In the 1980s, I went maybe 3 or 4 times, to weddings and funeral services.
I've never been to a "Sunday service" in my entire life, that I can recall. - I'm agnostic (definition 1b) (or a "weak" atheist, to use your definition of atheist).
Actually, to be more accurate, I'm an "agnostic apatheist", which is a term that I made up.
An agnostic apatheist is a person who is skeptical (UK: sceptical) about the existence of a god or gods, and furthermore doesn't care whether or not a god or gods exist. - It's spelled "heard", not "heared", and "Sunday" should be capitalized.
Nowhere in my post did I indicate that I was religious, nor did my post advocate any religious viewpoint.
The fact that I didn't capitalize the word "god" (except when quoting dictionary.com) should have clued you in that I'm not a religious person.
Considering the current state of our universe, if a god or creator does exist, then I don't really have a very high opinion of him/her/it. - That page was written by someone that I don't know, and he states in his opening paragraph that it represents "only one viewpoint" -- his own.
-
"Complementary"?
Which is so much tastier than the not free complementary food and drinks.
So true, but I think you (and moto, the submitter) mean complimentary.
-
Re:Incorrect again
sure, let me quote you quoting wikipedia (which for some reason is the end all of most of my office debates lately)
generally speaking, atheism refers to a lack of belief in all deities for any reason(s).
also, dictionary.com:
1.
1. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
2. The doctrine that there is no God or gods.
2. Godlessness; immorality. -
Re:Clunkers?
-
Re:I love the questions they ask.
Why the time machine?
Implement it now, with an API facade so that the b0rkenness of legacy code holds constant.
As for on what MS should focus, my recommendation is seppuku. -
Sigh.
Atheism is NOT a belief there is/are no god(s). Atheism is a LACK of belief in any gods. A lack of belief is not a belief.
From dictionary.com:2 entries found for Atheism.
Note that only def 2 of the Wordnet definition states that atheism is a lack of belief.
atheism (P) Pronunciation Key (th-zm)
n.-
- Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
- The doctrine that there is no God or gods.
- Godlessness; immorality.
[French athéisme, from athée, atheist, from Greek atheos, godless
[http://www.houghtonmifflinbooks.com/eref/buy_HM AFF00004.jsp">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.Atheism
n 1: the doctrine or belief that there is no God [syn: godlessness] [ant: theism] 2: a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods
Source: WordNet ® 2.0, © 2003 Princeton University
Other definitions clearly state that atheism is a doctrine or belief that there is no god.
So you can take your pick which definition to use.
The ones that I and others choose to use is that atheism is the belief that god does not exist (i.e., that there is no god). -
-
Re:Incorrect again
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=atheist
Sorry, fella. I think you lose this one. Better look for the real word that describes your position... ah, there it is.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=agnosti c, definition 1.b.
Man, language references sure are handy. -
Just a theory?
-
Re:Is that a word?
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=architec
t s suggests not, at least not when used as a verb as in this case. -
Re:"Water Tap"
If "water" was an adjective, you'd be able to use it with other objects to describe the same property. You can say that "the chair is green", or even that "the chair is drunk" (it's only non-sensical in a non-grammatical sense), but if you say "the chair is water", it takes on a different kind of meaning.
So if I sit on a throne made of blocks of ice, can I say "the chair is water" then?
Water is a noun but can be used as an adjective.
water slide
water bottle
water moccasin
Maybe the real problem is taking commonly paired words and trying to say they are actually one word.
For example, read the definition of water bottle
How is this any differnt than the common bottle being altered by the adjective water?
Water's also a transitive verb (water the lawn), but anyway...
"Water" is not a property. It's only "water tap" instead of "foobar tap" because "water" is a nicer mnemonic than "foobar" for what kind of tap it is.
But since the word "tap" by itself is more widespread (at least on this on this side of the Atlantic) it suggests to me the word water is being used as an adjective in this case.
But then we can have the same discussion about a nice glass of tap water -
Re:"Water Tap"
If "water" was an adjective, you'd be able to use it with other objects to describe the same property. You can say that "the chair is green", or even that "the chair is drunk" (it's only non-sensical in a non-grammatical sense), but if you say "the chair is water", it takes on a different kind of meaning.
So if I sit on a throne made of blocks of ice, can I say "the chair is water" then?
Water is a noun but can be used as an adjective.
water slide
water bottle
water moccasin
Maybe the real problem is taking commonly paired words and trying to say they are actually one word.
For example, read the definition of water bottle
How is this any differnt than the common bottle being altered by the adjective water?
Water's also a transitive verb (water the lawn), but anyway...
"Water" is not a property. It's only "water tap" instead of "foobar tap" because "water" is a nicer mnemonic than "foobar" for what kind of tap it is.
But since the word "tap" by itself is more widespread (at least on this on this side of the Atlantic) it suggests to me the word water is being used as an adjective in this case.
But then we can have the same discussion about a nice glass of tap water -
Re:"Water Tap"
If "water" was an adjective, you'd be able to use it with other objects to describe the same property. You can say that "the chair is green", or even that "the chair is drunk" (it's only non-sensical in a non-grammatical sense), but if you say "the chair is water", it takes on a different kind of meaning.
So if I sit on a throne made of blocks of ice, can I say "the chair is water" then?
Water is a noun but can be used as an adjective.
water slide
water bottle
water moccasin
Maybe the real problem is taking commonly paired words and trying to say they are actually one word.
For example, read the definition of water bottle
How is this any differnt than the common bottle being altered by the adjective water?
Water's also a transitive verb (water the lawn), but anyway...
"Water" is not a property. It's only "water tap" instead of "foobar tap" because "water" is a nicer mnemonic than "foobar" for what kind of tap it is.
But since the word "tap" by itself is more widespread (at least on this on this side of the Atlantic) it suggests to me the word water is being used as an adjective in this case.
But then we can have the same discussion about a nice glass of tap water -
"Water Tap"
While dictionary.com agrees that "water tap" is in fact a single word noun, I don't think that makes any sense. The fact "tap" can be used by itself as a synonym for "water tap" only shows the "water" is not really part of the word and is in fact altering the word "tap", like an adjective does.
"Water tap" appears to be a adjective and a noun to me. Why isn't "oil tap" and "chocolate tap" treated as a single noun? Many people have "gas taps" in their home but it isn't given any special single word designation. -
Re:What's interesting about this...
I was going to Mod this interesting but decided, after reading the responses, to comment instead>
I can agree with all the commentators that the parent post is not informative. I'm not a scientist or phycisist (thought I play one on slashdot and other blogs), so I 'll accept that the parent may be incorect in his, theoretical, use of microwaves to write to magnetic media based on the other commentary. But even if the parent is incorrect it does not make the post any less interesting or any more of a troll. Interst has nothing to do with accuracy, and Troll, according to everyones favorite reference is some one "who post inflammatory messages". I see nothing particualarly inflammatory about the parent post. Just because you disagree does not make it inflammatory. -
Re:[OT] 'constness'
-
Re:Please, no
-
Re:Please, no
-
Re:"Technologys?"
"Technologys?"... This is atrocious. GeneOff gets sent back to the fourth grade, and Zonk is fired for not seeing this.
I'm surprised that you didn't catch the use of the fictional word "whimp", as in, Here is a hackable real robot that won't whimp out on you. I do believe that Zonk meant wimp.
Come on, people. Both of these could have been caught by running the text through a spell check. I'm sure your favorite open-source Office program or the text editor that comes with OSX has a decent one built in. As a last resort, MS Word has a decent spell check too.