Slashdot Mirror

Y'all are both irrational idiots, in my opinion. Least the christian fundies recognize that their beliefs are in fact, religious, something that most atheists will vehemently deny. So far, I've only met one atheist who is intellectually honest enough to state that, yes, her beliefs are religious. You intellectually honest enough to admit the same?

I'm not sure why you would claim that ignoring the definitions of both "religion" and "atheism" is being "intellectually honest". I would describe it more as being a complete moron. Since you seem to be having some problems in that area, let me help you out.

Here's the definition of atheism. Note in particular entry 1a, which is the minimal requirement to be an atheist, the lack of a belief in any god or gods.

Here's the definition of religion. Note that atheism does not fit any of these meanings. There's no belief in a supernatural power (obviously), no belonging to a corresponding organization, no being part of a religious order, no following a spiritual leader and no zeal or conscientious devotion.

Religious people often try to drag atheism down to their level but it just doesn't follow.

You really need to use the definitions everyone else in the world use.

He does. It's just that people like you pay attention to only one part of the definition of atheism and ignore the rest. This view is promoted by certain Christians who don't like the word "atheist" and want to be able to argue erroneously that being an atheist requires as much faith as being a Christian. (Note that I'm not accusing you of doing this, I'm just pointing out where this attitude often comes from.)

Here's a reference for you: atheism.

Note entry 1a.

To tell whether or not you're an atheist, ask yourself the following question: "What god or gods do I believe in?" If the answer is "none", you're an atheist. If you also believe that because of the nature of gods it is impossible to know for certain whether or not a god exists then you are also an agnostic.

Can anyone explain why Yahoo! users are less intelligent than Google users?

Certainly. They are quite clearly a bunch of yahoos.

>"Sony never said"

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=astroturf ing

Intensity of belief. Any belief or cause held zealously can, by definition, be considered religious.

I think you ment fallacies. Otherwise, that's some very interesting logic there!

;)

With that said, aspartame *can* break down into methanol, but usually only does so at extreme pH or temperature. Warm water alone very slowly hydrolyzes aspartame. I'm trying to find some good kinetics studies; this one indicates 90% hydrolysis after 53 days at 25 degrees C which is a good argument for only drinking refrigerated pop.

But the sheer amount you'd have to drink to produce blindness is astounding. I once calculated that with 100% hydrolysis, it would take 20 cans of pop per hour to build up and maintain harmful concentrations of methanol in the blood. EPA studies have indicated that 0.5g/kg/day doesn't result in observable health problems. There are (Google calculator r00lz) 0.014g of methanol per can of 100% hydrolyzed Coke. Hm, so that indicates that you probably don't want to drink more than 35 cans per day or you'll be above the no-observed-adverse effect level.

The official Materials Safety Data Sheet for methanol lists "Carcinogenicity: Methyl Alcohol - Not listed by ACGIH, IARC, NIOSH, NTP, or OSHA." That doesn't mean it's not carcinogenic, but it does mean that none of them has ever found any evidence for it being carcinogenic, as opposed to things like the nitrites in bacon, which have definite carcinogenic activity. The point being: we're eating things that are probably orders of magnitude more carcinogenic than the released methyl alcohol in aspartame; our bodies produce more methyl alcohol and its metabolites naturally than any but the most aggressive pop drinker will ever experience.

I'm not defending aspartame's use, but if you're going to attack what the FDA did when they certified it for use, attack it on other grounds, like your observed reaction to it, rather than because of methanol.

"Coldcocked", on the other hand, means absolutely nothing to me, and (unlike "fortnight") it isn't in any of the dictionaries I have to hand, so I've no idea what it's supposed to mean.

Try Dictionary.com? It's a fairly common term.

Together with or along with; in addition to; as well as. Used to connect words, phrases, or clauses that have the same grammatical function in a construction.

Usage Note: The traditional rule states that the whole comprises the parts and the parts compose the whole. In strict usage: The Union comprises 50 states. Fifty states compose (or constitute or make up) the Union. Even though careful writers often maintain this distinction, comprise is increasingly used in place of compose, especially in the passive: The Union is comprised of 50 states. Our surveys show that opposition to this usage is abating. In the 1960s, 53 percent of the Usage Panel found this usage unacceptable; in 1996, only 35 percent objected. See Usage Note at include.

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

Language changes -- sometimes for the worse. Get over it.

I fully expect "loose" to be an acceptable spelling of "lose" within ten years.

parent is modded funny for a reason...

Well, Kleenex started up in 1924, and you have to admit that the term "Kleenex" as opposed to "facial tissue" is still in use... Band-Aid first came on the market in 1920; these days, it's rare to hear someone ask where they can find the "adhesive bandages".

So yes, anything that was the first of its kind to become popular often will stand the test of time. "Walkman" and "rollerblades" have also become popularly used to replace "portable cassette deck" and "in-line skates," but they haven't been around long enough to pass the 50-year test. Although, from what I have observed, it really depends on the level of technology with regards to how long a name sticks around. With the invention of CD's, and now mp3 players, nobody really uses the traditional Walkman anymore (although Sony has also labelled their mp3 players "Walkmans", the term still seems to apply to portable cassette players in popular jargon). Rollerblades, too, while less techy than a walkman, aren't nearly as popular as at their first inception. However, terms like Kleenex and Band-Aids stick around for a long time because they have evolved very little since the product was first marketed.

As an aside, I would personally hope that the term blogosphere does not stand the test of time. It's possibly one of the silliest terms I have ever heard. But with my luck, it will stick around forever, or perhaps be replaced by something much worse...

Please don't remove the ability to easily explain an idea from the English language by redefining a word to mean something an existing, well-known, word does perfectly well.

It's no different than Google being in the dictionary.

Forcing people to do anything (and that is what compulsory means) is pretty much a bad thing. Oh, you claim that " Nobody's forcing you to do anything. " and then turn around and state that something you create as a private work, if given to you, suddenly becomes publishable and YOU, not the person that created it, has the right to decide how it is to be treated, even though it is supposedly the content creator that gets paid for it. Brilliant. Do you even hear the words that you're saying, or are you just trolling for responses? I'm starting to think the latter, because I have yet to figure out a single shread of logic that follows through your entire proposal.

The whole "microsoft is a monopoly" argument is so absurd because we aren't even talking about a scarcity of resources. If I owned 95% of the world's oil reserves, then I would truly have a monopoly because there is only so much oil to be had. But software has no such resource limitations. Anyone with a computer and a web server CAN produce an unlimited number of competing operating systems and package them with whatever software they like...oh wait, hundreds of company's already do this. Microsoft's Windows does NOT have a monopoly. It is impossible to have a monopoly with software when there are free, viable and unlimited supplies of alternatives available.

monopoly (n.): Exclusive control by one group of the means of producing or selling a commodity or service. Source: Dictionary.com

In addition to these facts, the operating system market is not a zero sum game. Because an OS is simply a piece of software, anyone is free to install multiple OS's on their hardrives to maximize their choices. Indeed, I have 3 Operating systems on the machine I'm typing on right now (Windows XP, Ubuntu Breezy, and FreeBSD). It is litterally impossible at this point in the game to assert that Microsoft eliminates choice when there are hundreds of alternatives available for FREE right now! Even if it had 100% marketshare, their product is certainly not exclusive and they certainly don't have a stranglehold on the means of production.

Rhetoric never wins under scrutiny. You lose.

I have received less comprehendable IMs from people who would consider it a mortal sin to be anything other than professional in person or on paper.

"4. c) ... You must keep intact all copyright notices for the Work ..."

1. ... provided that you conspicuously and appropriately publish on each copy an appropriate copyright notice ...

>> turn the ironytron down a bit
> It's a sarcasm-tron

I think you need to look up the definitions of irony and sarcasm.

Hint: they're synonyms :-)

>> turn the ironytron down a bit
> It's a sarcasm-tron

I think you need to look up the definitions of irony and sarcasm.

Hint: they're synonyms :-)

>> turn the ironytron down a bit
> It's a sarcasm-tron

I think you need to look up the definitions of irony and sarcasm.

Hint: they're synonyms :-)

And of course "Legal and Illegal" map directly to "Right and Wrong"!
-just google "Rosa Parks"

The law -like a viper- must be respected; it can hurt you. Whether the law -or any specific law- is to be esteemed* is completely a matter of individual choice.

* see n1 http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=esteem

"alternative (ôl-tûrn-tv, l-) n. The choice between two mutually exclusive possibilities." http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=alternati vedictionary.com

no, the average is the mean, maybe you're thinking of the mode? I'm just thinking that the 49.9% figure is flawed =P "Mean is one kind of average. It is computed by summing the values and dividing by the number of values. Two other common forms of averages are the mode and the median. The mode is the frequently occurring value in a set. The median is the middle value of the set when they are ordered by rank." http://dictionary.reference.com/help/faq/language/ a/avg-mean.html

Using english would at seem much easier at first, since the English langauge has more words than any other language (I can't find this fact on wikipedia, but I'm sure I remember it from somewhere credible). This is mainly because we steal words from other languages ( Schadenfreude off the top of my head, from German 'to take pleasure from others misfortune') and we meld words to make new ones all the time ( meld itself comes from melt and weld - or possibly another German word, Melden, according to reference.com). Because we have the biggest vocab it's more probable that it's easier to use English instead of any other language, but when you think about it, all that matters is that you have enough 10-letter words with the right letter combinations that you can use them all to make a 10-letter acrostic puzzle. I'm not much of an expert on languages, but there's porbably a language more suited to this than English.

Using english would at seem much easier at first, since the English langauge has more words than any other language (I can't find this fact on wikipedia, but I'm sure I remember it from somewhere credible). This is mainly because we steal words from other languages ( Schadenfreude off the top of my head, from German 'to take pleasure from others misfortune') and we meld words to make new ones all the time ( meld itself comes from melt and weld - or possibly another German word, Melden, according to reference.com). Because we have the biggest vocab it's more probable that it's easier to use English instead of any other language, but when you think about it, all that matters is that you have enough 10-letter words with the right letter combinations that you can use them all to make a 10-letter acrostic puzzle. I'm not much of an expert on languages, but there's porbably a language more suited to this than English.

Open or not, I find it hard to endorse the Wiktionary project. I'm an avid Wikipedian, and I contribute to multiple Wikimedia Foundation projects; nonetheless, I don't think Wiktionary will ever be good.

When I consult an online English dictionary (something I do several times a day), the abridged Merriam-Webster is my first stop (unabridged is for paying subscribers). Only when M-W's free, abridged resource can't deliver do I consult Dictionary.com (which, although a more comprehensive aggregate of several dictionaries, is not as current and refined as M-W).

Lexicography requires a level of expertise, thoroughness, and precision that Wiktionary's entries generally lack; and etymology is not the place for flimsy assumptions.

Open or not, I find it hard to endorse the Wiktionary project. I'm an avid Wikipedian, and I contribute to multiple Wikimedia Foundation projects; nonetheless, I don't think Wiktionary will ever be good.

When I consult an online English dictionary (something I do several times a day), the abridged Merriam-Webster is my first stop (unabridged is for paying subscribers). Only when M-W's free, abridged resource can't deliver do I consult Dictionary.com (which, although a more comprehensive aggregate of several dictionaries, is not as current and refined as M-W).

Lexicography requires a level of expertise, thoroughness, and precision that Wiktionary's entries generally lack; and etymology is not the place for flimsy assumptions.

I'm not saying your assessment of the developers of this so-called AI is wrong, I just think your methodology is wrong.

Determining an individual's intelligence and/or merit based on what OS/server combination is publishing their information is rather like phrenology.

So if you look at who's running what, you get some idea of where they cluster. A bit like looking at someone's zipcode, SAT scores, etc. to figure out how much money they make.

No. You're making a judgement about an individual without knowing them at all.

I don't think it is "prejudiced" to do this -- unless you consider statistical inference prejudiced.

Sure it is. Prejudice is "an adverse judgment or opinion formed beforehand or without knowledge or examination of the facts."

All you have is what you got from Netcraft. That's hardly examining the facts.

trivial (tr?v'?-?l)
adj.
1. Of little significance or value.
2. Ordinary; commonplace.
3. Concerned with or involving trivia.

So... no you don't then. Glad we cleared that up.

(Source: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=trivial )

Is that not a word? Pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis is a word.

Who is greedier? The capitalist who makes money or the socialist who takes it?

Part of the definition of greed is that the money is beyond what the person needs. Socialism's goal is to assist those in need. That wasn't so hard now, was it?

Let me save you the hastle of actually looking it up yourself: "In approximately; about." -http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=circa Commonly used with dates, but doesn't have to be. Move on.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=Hail% 20Mary

art
n.
1. Human effort to imitate, supplement, alter, or counteract the work of nature.
2. a. The conscious production or arrangement of sounds, colors, forms, movements, or other elements in a manner that affects the sense of beauty, specifically the production of the beautiful in a graphic or plastic medium.
      b. The study of these activities.
      c. The product of these activities; human works of beauty considered as a group.
3. High quality of conception or execution, as found in works of beauty; aesthetic value.

Let us review the definition of libel:

A false publication, as in writing, print, signs, or pictures, that damages a person's reputation.

Calling Charles Manson a "mass murderer" is not libel, since he has been convicted of the crime in a court of law. Insinuating that Mr. Siegenthaler is involved in an assassination is most definitely libel.

While persuaded may mean 'to succeed in causing a person to do or consent to something.',dictionary.com
it can also simply mean 'to plead with: urge'.webster.com
So it could be possible he was persuaded to sign a document, but refused.

Semantics aside, yes, it is censorship because someone is determining what's acceptable content, and allowing only product that they deem 'appropriate' to be successful.

While I can see the points your trying to make, I must disagree with their classification. This is NOT censorship, this is an example of special interest groups abusing free market tactics.

Censorship, n : The act, process, or practice of censoring.

Censoring, v : To examine and expurgate.

Nowhere in this idea is any material given the inalienable right to be commercially succesful. The material can still be made. I know it seems like I'm being nit picky here, but that's just because I want people to realize they are fighting on the wrong front.

Legislators have NO intention of creating a policy that could possible be deemed as censorship. Hillary's plan is meant to fail. It's real goal is to garner public and peer support for her presidential run. That's it. Tipper's move was the same thing. Once the religious nuts got a hold of it, they were the driving force, not Tipper. Tipper distanced herself away from that whole process, not wanting her husband to be associated with someone who disrupted free markets.

Look at the history books. In American history there has always been people screaming that the media is ruining the children, usually to gain enough attention and favor to accomplish some alterior goal. Yet, the media has increasingly produced more graphic violence, more frank sexuality, and more complexly disturbing themes. Music, TV, Movies - none of it has been censored, and the more violent and mature stuff has been increasingly more profitable.

The same thing will happen with games. Rock and Roll was once the tool of the devil, so much that churches boycotted radio stations and stores that sold or played it. Well, Rock and Roll has now mutated into so many aggressive offshoots I don't know where to start. I do know that it isn't gone or being censored.

If you really want to nip this in the bud, we need to get a credible lobbyist group together who are willing to force one point home, most video games are NOT for kids. Most movies, TV shows, and Music isn't either. This is a matter of correcting the PR and getting the public perception to align itself more correctly with the truth of the matter.

Even if the end results are essentially the same, you cannot prevent it if you're trying to stop it the wrong way. You don't put out grease fires with water.

Check your facts.

OK.

Anarcho-socialism (which is essentially a mainstream school of anarchism)

Yes, but it's a type of anarchism, not socialism proper, as you point out. That's not to say that the choice of names is bad, it's just that the word "socialism" (like "anarchism") covers a huge variety of viewpoints that you have to be careful. The other day I was talking to a Marx-quoting "libertarian", which was confusing until I realized he meant "libertarian socialist". "Freedom means almost no private property" and "freedom means you can own almost anything" are nearly opposites.

Thing is, as long as you abolish private property ... you effectively get socialism.

That's the theory. On the other hand, every lawless place I know of has the mafia, gangs or warlords. I guss I'd call this anarcho-feudalism (to coin a phrase).

Is that a sentance?????

is sentance a word?????

I expect you won't see the relevance, but the ignor[e]ance you express is completely ingnoring the TOTAL (Fedral & Local) response to Katrina. NB: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=shame&db= *

[1]: they are customers, even if they aren't paying.

Are you sure?

Users, definitely, but a customer is, by most definitions 'One that buys goods or services'.

Toward inferiors. So, there would have to be someone to be toward to, directed to someone. Your "toe to toe" if you will.

Nope, still introverts won't exhibit this type of behaviour by definition. Or at least rarely.

You can call this one a closed minded retort as well. That is, if you consider using dictionary definitions closed minded.

Isn't this really just a standards specification for the office file format in XML and thus has nothing to do with open source since Microsoft is not providing any code ?

And wouldn't open source advocates raise a lot of hell if they didn't release this specification? So pedantic nitpicking over whether this is technically "open source" per se seems kind of irrelevant. They're opening to us the source specification from which they are creating Office documents in XML.

And I'm not trying to be an arse here. It's a step forward at the very least.

And yet you still can't spell populace right. I'd get a refund.

No, he spelled populous correctly; he used it incorrectly. :-)

You might want to read up on this page for some human interaction hints.

Maybe you just haven't been smoking long enough: "[Middle English canevas, from Old French, and from Medieval Latin canavsium both ultimately from Latin cannabis, hemp. See cannabis.]" :). Click the link, or at least use your imagination if you're amotivated ;).

You misspelled pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis.

Socialism requires the government to be involved. This isn't quite the same.

I think you're looking for 'exacerbate'.

Exuberate - To be exuberant (Full of unrestrained enthusiasm or joy).
Exacerbate - To increase the severity, violence, or bitterness of; aggravate.

Also, meddling is spelled with two 'd's.