Slashdot Mirror

Or just maybe, we could take the wiser road and listen to all opinions and pick and choose the best from everyone. Say, instead of drawing a line in the sand and stereotyping/demonizing the people on the other side. When people stupendously say "I'm right and they're wrong" they're usually wrong themselves on multiple counts. A majority of the time, each side of the argument will have at least some valid points. I think you also misunderstand the idiom of hindsight is 20/20 not even mentioning it's usually used in the context of sarcasm. Of course decisions are easier if you already know the outcome.

Agile development is a method that has its respective strengths and weaknesses, it's not the method. There is no "one way" to do everything. Especially with something as ridiculously broad as software development. We're not arguing religion here, c'mon folks, use some sense.

Those Japanese-American citizens interred during WWII are not in a position to tell you anything about the Constitution. Those who were interned and survived the experience may have something to say./P.

Those Japanese-American citizens interred during WWII are not in a position to tell you anything about the Constitution. Those who were interned and survived the experience may have something to say./P.

Perhaps because shuttered is the correct word

How can two guys murdering someone in the street be a war (to the extent that the word still works in the 21st century)? These guys weren't part of some greater force, weren't on instructions from some nation, these were a couple of religious nutters who thought it was a good idea to kill someone.

Calling it war (or even terrorism) is to over-state it and glorify. It was (probably - we won't know until there's a conviction) murder. If guilty, they were just criminals. Politically-motivated criminals, perhaps, but still just criminals.

Let me guess, you're too lazy to look it up or you have a dull axe to grind?

There are two accepted spellings, one favoured in the USA, the other by those who got and retain their English spellings from the Brits. Are you gonna carp on "favoured" too?

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/civilization
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/civilization
http://www.studyenglishtoday.net/british-american-spelling.html
http://www.lukemastin.com/testing/spelling/cgi-bin/database.cgi?action=view_category&database=spelling&category=C
http://www.grammarphobia.com/blog/2011/09/civilise-civilize.html
http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/civilization
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/civilised

The above ought to be sufficient to get you started, if you have any interest in improving your understanding. You could have done this on your own hook if you really had an interest or gave a shit. Or perhaps you derive pleasure from pressing keys in pursuit of fucking with people, or some such? Any case, I'm sooo oughta here.

One Problem is teaching.

One problem is "compatibility" or "easy to learn". E.G. regarding keywords.

C has a keyword: static.
C++ has the same keyword: static.
As Java aimed to be similar to C++ and "easy to learn" it also has a keyword static.

While the meaning of the "keyword" in Java and C++ is the same, it differs from C. (Oh! and this already is not true as you can use 'static' in C++ similar to C if you just use it for free functions and data).

So what does 'static' mean?

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/static
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/static
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/static
http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/static

Unfortunately 'static' in a programming language has no meaning at all. Why is the "starting method" in Java called "static void main(String[] args) {}"? Yeah, because in C and C++ it is called main(). Pascal has not that problem.

What do you think a non native english (oh, well what about the english?) considers if he hears the word 'static'?

Good, now lets bash Python and Groovy. What is a "def"? Oh? A definition? Are you certain you can distinguish what the difference between a definition and a declaration is?

So "methods" are now "declared" (or is it defined?) by the introducing keyword "def"? Oh, for fuck sake, I got it wrong again.

Oki, in Python you declare, oh no!!!! you define methods with the keyword "def". In Groovy you define variables (oh! no!!!!! you declare!!!) with the keyword "def".

Yeah, I could rant forever ...

All new languages we see here and there are only languages for programmers that already can program.

But, what is about expressing your mind?

What about teaching programming? Imho Java is one of the most difficult languages to teach. Why? Because you need to know already so much about programming to grasp it!!!!! (Same for C# ofc).

However: modern times show: you don't need to understand Java/C# (just a replacement for most modern languages) because the programing tasks a modern developer has (especially compared to the tools he has at hand) is so mondane. C++ on the other hand only shows how super smart and knowing you need to be to use the language, or not to shoot into your foot.

So where are we?

New languages should use new keywords, that describe precisely what they mean. No void, no static, no final or for that matter finally, no fucking def, var or func. Did I forget one? I certainly did. And they should have reasonable defaults. I hate Java meanwhile, "public void doit() {}", "private boolean done = false". Then we get to "static final String DID_WE_DO_IT = "yes we did";" What is so hard in having methods be PUBLIC by DEFAULT and attributes PRIVATE by DEFAULT?
Writing code is still possible, even if it hurts my hands and my eyes. But reading? I simply don't want to read code anymore ... neither C++ nor Java nor C#. The redundancy hurts me literally.
In a typical Eclipse window I would estimate 30% of all characters/words are simply superfluous. And the fact that they all have a different colour emphasizes this.

How would a real world language look to you if it was written like this: "I want (that is me the guy writing) that we (that is us, you who are listening, and me who is talking) that we (well, dont be mistaken, I only want it, it is not an order) that we (yes, I invite you to participate) go to the beach (and want does not mean it is super important ... it is kinda void)? (And all words in () above in a different colour? Like pink (ARRRRGGG!!!!) light green ( /*facepalm*/), dark and light blue, emphazised(bold) full

Actually, according to dictionary.com, the definition of fascism is: "a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism."

According to http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/smitten?s=t, you're ok with smitten. However you should probably be a bit more specific about which definition you mean. One would be rather amusing to see, the other sort of disgusting in a beastial sort of way

And, I'm not sure the llamas would appreciate either

If I make a medical device that has a serious software bug and goes awall

You can pick awol or awry, but "awall" isn't a word.

atheist [reference.com]: [ey-thee-ist] noun - a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.
Origin: 1565–75;
Related forms
antiatheist, noun, adjective
proatheist, noun, adjective

Can be confused: 1. agnostic, atheist (see synonym study at the current entry) ; 2. atheist, theist, deist.

Synonyms
Atheist, agnostic, infidel, skeptic refer to persons not inclined toward religious belief or a particular form of religious belief. An atheist is one who denies the existence of a deity or of divine beings. An agnostic is one who believes it impossible to know anything about God or about the creation of the universe and refrains from commitment to any religious doctrine. Infidel means an unbeliever, especially a nonbeliever in Islam or Christianity. A skeptic doubts and is critical of all accepted doctrines and creeds.
Dictionary.com Unabridged
Based on the Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2013.

Just as believers are making a decision based on a belief (there is a God), atheists are also making a decision based on a belief of their own: that there is not a God. If believers decision one direction is considered a religion based on the criteria of making a decision based on faith, or lack of provable, testable, scientific evidence, then the same can be said of atheists.

It is the agnostics who are ambivalent towards the existence of any higher power/creator and don't bother themselves which such philosophies. This is what I believe you may have been referring to in your message above, and indeed is often confused with atheism, as mentioned in the dictionary.com article above.

Get your terminology right before you start rejecting conclusions and labeling premises as wrong.
__
ipsa scientia potestas est
"knowledge itself is power" - Francis Bacon

atheist: [ey-thee-ist] noun - a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.
Origin: 1565–75;
Related forms
antiatheist, noun, adjective
proatheist, noun, adjective

Can be confused: 1. agnostic, atheist (see synonym study at the current entry) ; 2. atheist, theist, deist.

Synonyms
Atheist, agnostic, infidel, skeptic refer to persons not inclined toward religious belief or a particular form of religious belief. An atheist is one who denies the existence of a deity or of divine beings. An agnostic is one who believes it impossible to know anything about God or about the creation of the universe and refrains from commitment to any religious doctrine. Infidel means an unbeliever, especially a nonbeliever in Islam or Christianity. A skeptic doubts and is critical of all accepted doctrines and creeds.
Dictionary.com Unabridged
Based on the Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2013.

Just as believers are making a decision based on a belief (there is a God), atheists are also making a decision based on a belief of their own: that there is not a God. If believers decision one direction is considered a religion based on the criteria of making a decision based on faith, or lack of provable, testable, scientific evidence, then the same can be said of atheists.

It is the agnostics who are ambivalent towards the existence of any higher power/creator and don't bother themselves which such philosophies. This is what I believe you may have been referring to in your message above, and indeed is often confused with atheism, as mentioned in the dictionary.com article above.

All good. Everyone is on this rock to find their own way in life, or to help their fellow man find theirs... help, not force, or coerce mind you.
__
ipsa scientia potestas est
"knowledge itself is power" - Francis Bacon

You might think that. But that doesn't mean you are right in thinking that. Perhaps you should consult a dictionary or two.

"The Right to Bear Technology" has that patriotic ring to it, but it doesn't encompass the root of the issue. Nor is it even correctly using the words.

"The Right to Produce, Possess and Wield both Technology and Science, with the Full Knowledge of Operation and Methodology, Construction and Maintenance, Development Sources and Intention of Use, and known Hazards, Wastes, and Interferences."

Technology as a right is too dangerous without full knowledge, and full knowledge requires the practice science of various degrees, from the very obvious to the opaque.
All of this stuff is made by humans, so it would be logical that all of the information should be made available in full by mandatory action.

I chose Produce, Possess, and Wield over Bear as this is a legitimate use of words' definitions unlike the use in the Constitution, which uses an idiom.

Eh, "The Right to Bear Technology" has that patriotic ring to it, but doesn't encompass the root of the issue. Nor is it even correctly using the words.
"The Right to Produce, Possess and Wield both Technology and Science, with the full Knowledge of Operation, Construction, Source, and Hazard."

There that should just about cover it as much as a mini skirt.
Technology and/or Science without full knowledge can be quite unnecessarily dangerous.

I chose Produce, Possess, and Wield over Bear as it's a legitimate use of words' definitions, unlike the use in the Constitution, which uses an idiom.

Compel is ambiguous, it can mean urge or force.

No, in English "compel" is force, not urge: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/compel

Nothing has killed more than religion, Nazis had the backing of the church, and nothing about communism is inherently evil.

Communism is simply government ownership with the implication being that the government is us and "we the people" collectively are the owners instead of just any one individual.

Your local municipal water treatment plant is communism.
All parks, be they city, county, state, or national parks, are communism.

"I note that you have constructed a definition which excludes the USA from being defined as a terrorist, which it is not if you eliminate the word civilian (since the average dude in the US isn't the one terrorizing whole nations.)"

I looked it up on dictionary.com:

TERRORISM noun 1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.

The point is: terrorism is an attempt to intimidate or coerce, for a particular purpose, usually political. But the key concept there is violence in order to "intimidate" or "coerce". In other words: to try to get people to do something by threatening ("terrorizing") them. Simply killing people, even a lot of people, is not terrorism. It has to be intended to intimidate or coerce, for a particular purpose, before it becomes terrorism.

I realize I'm probably preaching to the choir here.

But there is something the dictionary left out, as you implied. Terrorism is usually defined as relatively small or radical groups engaging in that activity. Not whole or especially large governments.

And I don't think it's valid to make that distinction.

Truth is not always a defence against libel in the UK. Publishing the truth with intent to damage or for malicious purpose can also be libel.

Which actually makes some sense because defamation (via libel or slander) it the act of damaging someones reputation not necessarily by lying. For example if I ran around and told everyone that the someone was having an affair, it still damages their reputation whether it's true or not.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/libel
libel - defamation by written or printed words, pictures, or in any form other than by spoken words or gestures.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/defamation
defamation - the act of defaming; false or unjustified injury of the good reputation of another, as by slander or libel; calumny:

Truth is not always a defence against libel in the UK. Publishing the truth with intent to damage or for malicious purpose can also be libel.

Which actually makes some sense because defamation (via libel or slander) it the act of damaging someones reputation not necessarily by lying. For example if I ran around and told everyone that the someone was having an affair, it still damages their reputation whether it's true or not.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/libel
libel - defamation by written or printed words, pictures, or in any form other than by spoken words or gestures.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/defamation
defamation - the act of defaming; false or unjustified injury of the good reputation of another, as by slander or libel; calumny:

Spy/Spying: 2. a person who keeps close and secret watch on the actions and words of another or others.

Look, i'm as concerned with privacy as the next person, but saying that people in public wearing Google Glasses are spying on you is about the same as saying that pirating software is the same as stealing. It's kind of in the same ballpark, and you could argue that both are bad, but they're not exactly the same thing. (Note that if the person is in fact secretly keeping a close watch on you when you're not in public then they are spying, but at that point it doesn't make a practical difference whether they're doing it with Google Glasses or not.)

Before Google Glass if someone saw you do something in public that you didn't want spread around there was nothing stopping them from telling other people about it. The only difference is that now they can show a video or picture instead of writing an article or blog post or making a verbal report.

If it comes up in a legal case it's now gone from "i said/they said" to "i said/they have a video tape", but why were you doing something illegal in public anyways?

If it's just something embarrassing, well, yes it's a lot more likely to go viral if it's on video rather than a written account, and you'll be a lot more identifiable, so that _does_ suck. But it's still not spying.

The one case where it _would_ be spying is if the government hacked (or was given backdoor access to) the system so that they could secretly make copies of all recordings made for future reference. That would be bad, and we should do our best to make sure that the government doesn't do that and gets punished when it gets caught breaking the rules. But that's not the intended use case for Google Glass.

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

"to struggle with stumbling or plunging movements"

I used flounder as a verb, not a noun. Maybe one day you'll learn to identify parts of speech. It helps with definitions.

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

???

Really? Are you serious?

Are you?!

The subscription is payable in BitCoins - OK, not so bad.

Ah, I see you're that type! ... let me explain this really slowly for you then: The post you are responding to ... is using ... irony.

You seem to have missed the difference between Anonymous and anonymous, the post you replied to was obviously referring to the proper noun.

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

This is Shirley.
This is shorely. (Not a real word)
You were after surely.

Define "best"

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

C'mon you could have looked that up yourself.

I just did, and I don't understand what point you are trying to make.

Or perhaps you were confused about what it means. or what he said.

Well, I don't much of substance to add to this conversation, so I'll be pedantic instead. The possessive "dropout's" is actually correct in this case, since he's talking about comments belonging to a hypothetical dropout. And the subject "you" is correct because he's requesting others take a specified action, the reason for which is to improve his own experience while reading the comments.

Personally, I think Slashdot's mod system is about as good as you're going to get on an anonymous internet forum. Good posts tend to get modded up, bad posts tend to get modded down. We need the -1 for posts that are actually worse than simply mediocre (or just haven't attracted interest). I browse at -1 to see everything, and can filter out the stupidity myself when I feel like it.

I like that Slashdot's readership has a much higher-than-average technical knowledge (expected due to the nature of the site), but I don't find the civility to be better than the rest of the internet when corrected for what I assume is a higher age and hopefully maturity.

Regarding the meaning of "nanoscale", I'm not aware of an accepted IEEE defition, or anything similar. Various opinions of its definition range from:
Google: "Of a size measurable in nanometers or microns."
American Heritage Science Dictionary: "Relating to or occurring on a scale of nanometers."
PC Magazine: "At nanometer size. Any device only a few nanometers in size is nanoscale. Nanotechnology is said to comprise elements less than 100 nanometers in size (100 nm)."
Wikipedia gets a little more specific, but claims 1-100 nanometers as one criterion.

The resolution of this printer, at 30nm, seems to satisfy the letter of these definitions, so I'd say it's correct enough to say it's a "nanoscale printer." It's technically correct, which is the best kind of correct.

English constructs like "I couldn't care less" (which means exactly the opposite of its literal meaning)

No, it doesn't. See explanation here. The common mangling "I could care less" *does* mean the opposite of its literal meaning, but that's because it's a stupid corruption made by people too lazy to think about what they're actually saying.

An American English lesson for you; "X could care less" is a sarcastic euphemism for "X couldn't care less".

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/i+could+care+less

I'm from Sweden. I could had written också =P

Only time I use too is for excessive. I don't know how it should be used beyond that :)

Saw this http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/too but I can't say I really get the fourth one and I won't remember it all anyway.

It's worse when it happen in my native language but it likely do there to. Especially since I just write how I speak so to say. Like this.

If I had spell- and grammatics checker maybe I would do better =P

Tatas fix a lot of things, but security isn't one of them.

Please find me an authoritative definition of "sport" which supports your assertion, or kindly just shut the fuck up. Sports do not require a "competitive" element - many sports have them, but since when is skiing only a sport if you're competing with someone? And holy fuck, if you want to say that there must be a competitive element, please explain to me how that would eliminate NASCAR, where time and beating the rest of the field is the only thing that matters?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sport
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sport

Under any of the numerous definitions provided on either page above, "skydiving," "mountain climbing," and "NASCAR" would all be considered sports.

Nobody really cares that YOU like to think that a sport like NASCAR is only engaged in by people you think are dumb, so it can't be a sport - if you want to redefine terms for your own personal use, that's fine. But by any generally-accepted definition of the word "sport," all of the activities I listed are sports, and you remain retarded.

Go to an SCCA Autocross and see how your skills stack up. And note how the participants talk about Nascar. It's almost always as the punchline of a joke.

Oh wow, people who engage in one type of sport disparage people who engage in another, and think their chosen sport is the best and most fun version? I'm shocked. SHOCKED! None of what you've said suggests that NASCAR is not a sport. In fact, you're just underscoring the many elements it has in common with plenty of other competitive sports.

You guys and you're "freedom". It does not mean what you think it does. More freedom pretty much explicitly requires LESS license, not more.

licence, n - 1. a certificate, tag, document, etc, giving official permission to do something
Less licence = less permission given = less freedom

Software licenses are the opposite of freedom. They define a list of restrictions.

Copyright law defines restrictions, licences relax those restrictions to a greater or lesser extent.

You might want to look up the term assumption. It may be much more complex than you think.

Let me help:

libertarian
noun
1. a person who advocates liberty, especially with regard to thought or conduct.
2. a person who maintains the doctrine of free will ( distinguished from necessitarian ).

Nothing about levels of government there. You sound more like an Anti-Federalist.

I was trying to be polite and discreet. How about if I say "Do you have a reference for your definition of marketing and why should I accept it as better authority than the dictionary?"
From http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/marketing
1. the act of buying or selling in a market.
2. the total of activities involved in the transfer of goods from the producer or seller to the consumer or buyer, including advertising, shipping, storing, and selling.

ONLY your product itself can convince people they need it. No amount of marketing can make people use your product repeatedly if they do not find it useful in some way.

I think you're trying to split hairs. You're basically claiming that if you advertise a product and someone tries it that marketing stops before the demo. From http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/marketing
1. the act of buying or selling in a market.
2. the total of activities involved in the transfer of goods from the producer or seller to the consumer or buyer, including advertising, shipping, storing, and selling.

Do you have a better reference? Both of you who replied seem to be just making shit up. In my previous post I was trying to be polite. If you have a reputable reference that supports your definition I'm prepared to be corrected.

So all this time you thought it was just excrement, and it turns out to be a rather clever double entendre.

And now we all know what bullshit means.

Nice one, genius, but the following is pretty much the definition of bullshit that I use:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/bullshit?s=t

Such things as "nonsense, lies, or exaggeration"... not fecal matter from a bull's rectum. In fact, assuming I were to actually ever talk about the animal excrement, I would probably type it as two words with a space.

Nice way to take what I said and turn it way the fuck around to make it seem as if I was actually talking about something else entirely--you win the Unofficial Slashdot Trolling Asshole award. Anyone want to guess what an asshole is? Hint: It's not the part an animal's ass (a bull, donkey, human or whatever) that shit comes out of. Have fun.

Can't take it...

<grammarnazi>'affects' is a verb (not in this sentence, but in normal use). 'effects' is a noun.</grammarnazi>

affect:

noun

4. Psychology . feeling or emotion.

5. Psychiatry. an expressed or observed emotional response: Restricted, flat, or blunted affect may be a symptom of mental illness, especially schizophrenia.

6. Obsolete , affection; passion; sensation; inclination; inward disposition or feeling.

You replied to:

Yes, hate and anger are affects. Most people are just faking it. And market position is all about faking.

Anonymous Coward you were trying to chool is both correct and correct.

Idiots have gotten "Alcoholism" classified as a disease, so technically a treatment that immunizes you against alcoholism would be a vaccine in the "one time immunization to a disease" sense.

At least in the common vernacular. In medical terminology vaccines likely do refer strictly to immunization against virii.

Virii is not a word.
Viri is a word, but is the plural of Vir.

I disagree. If I wear a plumber's overalls and someone challenges me as to why I'm there, then if I lie to them, that's actively deceiving them. If I tell the truth and say that I'm checking to see who bothers to challenge unknown visitors, then I'm not actively deceiving them. If I don't get challenged, then it's arguably a grey area, but I'd consider it a passive deception if anything.

. If you just generally wear plumbers' overalls as you go about your daily business, sure. But if you deliberately put on plumbers' overalls in the knowledge that it would cause people to assume that you were a plumber, then it's a deliberate act of deception. Your intent is the key.

Hell, it's in the dictionary:

to mislead by a false appearance or statement; delude: They deceived the enemy by disguising the destroyer as a freighter.

I really do pity you people with an American education. Really. Who is "noone", by the way?

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/noone since

Origin:
1595–1605

And, taught in Ontario, Canada schools in the '60s an '70s.

All though I personally prefer the disambiguated "no one", "noone" is not incorrect.

How long did you search to find one that had exactly what you wanted? The first hit searching on the word gave me http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/irony, which the first definition meets the definition used here.

Irony includes when the actual is the opposite of the intended. But then these discussions always come down to word nazis like yourself being believers in proscriptive language, not descriptive, and English is officially proscriptive (even if that is an oxymoron).

Regular

I hardly think it's controversial to assert that English grammar is less predictable and orderly than French. I'm certainly glad I didn't have to learn English as a second language.

French probably does have more rules, though, so you're right about that.

An ellipse is "a plane curve such that the sums of the distances of each point in its periphery from two fixed points, the foci, are equal." Quite how that is useful in this discourse escapes me. Perhaps you meant ellipsis. Anonymous Cowards in glass houses...

An ellipse is "a plane curve such that the sums of the distances of each point in its periphery from two fixed points, the foci, are equal." Quite how that is useful in this discourse escapes me. Perhaps you meant ellipsis. Anonymous Cowards in glass houses...

The dictionary disagrees with you:

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

spelt1 [spelt] verb
a simple past tense and past participle of spell1 .

spelt2 [spelt] noun
a wheat, Triticum aestivum spelta, native to southern Europe and western Asia, used chiefly for livestock feed.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/spelt

1. chiefly British past and past participle of spell

2. Subspecies (Triticum aestivum spelta) of wheat that has lax spikes and spikelets containing two light red kernels. A related species, Triticum dicoccon, commonly known as emmer wheat or farro, was cultivated by the ancient Babylonians and the ancient Swiss lake dwellers; it is now grown for livestock forage and used in baked goods and cereals.