Slashdot Mirror

"independent catelogue lable add in the puncutation : whats its thats will that do ?" Ok, so you are telling me that you spelled those words correctly? The only one you spelled correctly was "independent". "Catelogue" is spelled http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=catalog Catalog or Catalogue. Both meanings are the exact same. "lable" is spelled http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=label Label maybe I am totally missing something here...

Con-spir-a-cy n.
1. An agreement to perform together an illegal, wrongful, or subversive act.
2. A group of conspirators.
3. Law. An agreement between two or more persons to commit a crime or accomplish a legal purpose through illegal action.
4. A joining or acting together, as if by sinister design: a conspiracy of wind and tide that devastated coastal areas.

...at first I thought conspiracy was a bad choice of words, but upon further inspection it seems perfect ;)

I hate to be a grammar nazi, but passtime is not a word. I believe you meant pastime. I can see why you may have thought it was "passtime," but now you know it's not ;)

I hate to be a grammar nazi, but passtime is not a word. I believe you meant pastime. I can see why you may have thought it was "passtime," but now you know it's not ;)

Which bit of "Liquid Crystal Digital Display" is tautologous?

You know, you can't just make shit up and claim that that's what the acronym stands for.
I don't know where you pulled that "Digital" from, but it has nothing to do with LCD's.
LCD is an acronym for Liquid Crystal Display, and therefore LCD Display is like OP says tautological.

Dictionary definitions of LCD
LCD entry in wikipedia

You might wanna have a better grasp on the english language, and basic biology if you're gonna flip out about your moral hangups.

puberty The stage of adolescence in which an individual becomes physiologically capable of sexual reproduction.

The physical changes of puberty occur somewhere between the ages of 9 and 16. The first sign in females is breast development, which usually occurs between ages 8-14, with an average age of 11-12. Pubic hair appears, on average, at age 12-13. Menstruation usually occurs one to two years after pubic hair growth.

So quite possibly, Dakota Fanning's field has grass, so Nature's saying play ball and go pump out babies.

As for the sexual lives of prepubescents, while not capable of actual sex, children have a curiousity about their and others bodies that would be considered foreplay in adults, witness "playing doctor" - regardless of what you want to delude yourself with, humans are sexual creatures, and according to The Onion, the age of consent in South Carolina is 15, so that technially could be prepubescent sex.

wondering at how quickly and why the Chinese are catching up with the US.

China's GDP as of 2004 is $7,262,000,000,000 (7.26 trillion) while the GDP of the USA as of 2004 is $11,750,000,000,000 (11.75 trillion). Growing a nations GDP by 1 trillion is a few years let alone more than 4 trillion is just impossible. China has _at least_ 1 billion people. Divide their GDP by their population and you get about $7,262 per person. The USA has about 300 million people. Divide our GDP per person and you get about $39,166.66 per person. A _huge_ difference, more than five time the amount _per person_! The whole time China is trying to grow to "catch up", the USA will be growing too. In fact, if you look at the CIA World Factbook, there is not one other single nation that even comes close to the GDP of the USA. The #2 rank is the European Union which is like 25 seperate nations. If you take the average GDP of the whole EU it is only like $466,000,000,000 (466 billion) per nation per year. The USA does more than twice that per month!

Maybe it is time to stop all this "China is catching up" paranoia.

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

You fit the bill. (clumsy manners)

In fact, so do I.

He never had sex with her... He got a BJ. Why are BJ's called "Oral Sex". FYI, if you are in a relationship, go get one from someone else then tell your partner it's not sex and see what happens. http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=blow%20jo b "Definition: an act or instance of oral sex; fellatio" Honestly I don't care if Clinton got a BJ, that's between him, Monica and his wife. I do care that he got one from an intern working under him (sexual harrassment anyone), while discussing classified troop movements with other government officials. Last time I checked, Monica doesn't have security clearance for that. He then commits perjury as well as tampering with a witness by trying to get her to lie about it. Now... Lets assume you aren't president for a moment.. You get caught getting a BJ from an intern working for you IN YOUR OFFICE at work. Tell me you still have a job the next day. On the WMD's. You're right.. G.W. Bush made that all up. In fact he used secret government time machines to make the UN say it for years, to make John Kerry say it for years and in fact advocate troops in Iraq back when Clinton was president. He made Clinton say it for years. He made most governments say it for years. And of course he faked the chemical weapons attacks on Iraqi people... All so that he would have a cover story years later when he got elected. Why is it everyone else was correct when they said it, but Bush lied when he said it? Answer this.. We know Saddam had WMD's because he used them. Where did they go? You can hide a lot of stuff during the years that UN inspectors were kicked out of Iraq, in violation of UN resolutions... Now back to the issue at hand. What needs to be factually established for Rove to have broken the law are the following. 1) Was she an undercover agent at the time of his statement. 2) Was he aware she was an undercover agent and did he knowingly divulge this information with the purpose of outing her. If those conditions are not met, he did not break the law. The person who helped write that law doesn't even believe he broke it.

DRM is a negative for those of us who want to download a/v and game content and play it on any hardware medium. The point of DRM is security for both corporations AND the consumers. Look up the word security http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=security.
Before you flame me understand that those of us who have the ability to download a/v and game content and play it on any hardware medium, are neither consumers nor corporations. We are hackers(in the traditional meaning). We are research scientists. We are hardware geeks. We are computer nerds. We are phreakers. We are modern explorers. We are thinking out-of-the-box. We are marching to the beat of our own drummer. We are reality engineers.
So, quite whining about the plight of the flock. They need the shepherd to guide them. Let the shepherd benefit from his work. However, when your expedition finds a new type of greener grass make sure you defend it and then charge the shepherds a premium to graze their flocks on your grass.

Maybe people who have lives, but these are geeks and nerds we are talking about.

Maybe people who have lives, but these are geeks and nerds we are talking about.

Ahem.

Uh huh....

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=aggre ss

At least get it right

1) Not their definition, though it may be right onm. As noted in the post title refers to a quote by Ambrose Bierce (in The Devil's Dictionary)

2) If you are making a direct quote you need to leave it intact though possibly put in a (sic) to note an error in the original quote

3) In law, appeal is a transitive verb

And music files are not cars.

It's what they call an analogy

[...]its worth a perusal to a skim

GAH! Someone needs to look at the definition for "perusal"

Perusal - To read or examine, typically with great care.

And don't get me started on your use of "its" (its=possesive it's=contraction of "it is")

I know, I know... Mod me +5 Pedantic. I've had a long day, and that felt good. :)

Better a "nerd" than a "geek" though, right? I mean, nerd had its origins in a Dr. Suess book and means "A person who is single-minded or accomplished in scientific or technical pursuits but is felt to be socially inept"

A geek, while evidently still meaning "A person who is single-minded or accomplished in scientific or technical pursuits but is felt to be socially inept," also means "A carnival performer whose show consists of bizarre acts, such as biting the head off a live chicken."

I mean, I'm all for the carnival crowd mistaking me for Ozzy Osborne, but...

Better a "nerd" than a "geek" though, right? I mean, nerd had its origins in a Dr. Suess book and means "A person who is single-minded or accomplished in scientific or technical pursuits but is felt to be socially inept"

A geek, while evidently still meaning "A person who is single-minded or accomplished in scientific or technical pursuits but is felt to be socially inept," also means "A carnival performer whose show consists of bizarre acts, such as biting the head off a live chicken."

I mean, I'm all for the carnival crowd mistaking me for Ozzy Osborne, but...

Dictionary.com also categorizes 'One who opposes technical or technological change' under the definition of 'luddite'

... we have a word that describes this type of creation. Dodgy.

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

I find this story deeply ironic. Only two hours until I can leave this place...

In that case, you should spend some of your waste time at work looking up the definition of irony.

It's 'their', not 'they're'. You ignorant bafoon[sic]!

The proper spelling is buffoon.

Have a nice day.

Ah, but does yer paperback have the correct spelling for curmudgeonly?

Sorry, gotta agree with your entire point though. The paperback is a joy to behold, got mah thesaurus, dictionary and "a brief history of time"(unread) in far less space than mah lappy.

Sir, you need a refresher on the definition of "terrorism" and "terrorist". Only once you understand the true meanings (ie. the ones not used by your American media) of those words can you discuss their use.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=terrorist
terrorist
n.
One that engages in acts or an act of terrorism.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=terrorism
terrorism
n.
The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

Indeed, notice that the very definition of "terrorism" applies perfectly well to the Blair government that has spoken out so loudly against the recent incidents in London.

The Blair government participated, along with the American government and those of numerous other nations, in the "unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence" (ie. war, bombardment, killings, torture, etc.) "by a person or an organized group" (ie. the Coalition of the Willing) "against people or property" (ie. Iraq, Afghanistan) "with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons" (ie. regime change, forced "democracy", giving up of natural resources, etc.).

Notice that the actions of such government fits the definition of "terrorism" perfectly. But of course you never see the media make mention of that fact. That is because the media, in cooperation with such governments, have distorted the use of such words. They have become buzzwords that are meant to evoke an intense emotional response, rather than accurately describe a situation. As such, any legitimate news organization whose main focus is to distribute the truth should not resort to the use of such buzzwords.

Sir, you need a refresher on the definition of "terrorism" and "terrorist". Only once you understand the true meanings (ie. the ones not used by your American media) of those words can you discuss their use.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=terrorist
terrorist
n.
One that engages in acts or an act of terrorism.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=terrorism
terrorism
n.
The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

Indeed, notice that the very definition of "terrorism" applies perfectly well to the Blair government that has spoken out so loudly against the recent incidents in London.

The Blair government participated, along with the American government and those of numerous other nations, in the "unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence" (ie. war, bombardment, killings, torture, etc.) "by a person or an organized group" (ie. the Coalition of the Willing) "against people or property" (ie. Iraq, Afghanistan) "with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons" (ie. regime change, forced "democracy", giving up of natural resources, etc.).

Notice that the actions of such government fits the definition of "terrorism" perfectly. But of course you never see the media make mention of that fact. That is because the media, in cooperation with such governments, have distorted the use of such words. They have become buzzwords that are meant to evoke an intense emotional response, rather than accurately describe a situation. As such, any legitimate news organization whose main focus is to distribute the truth should not resort to the use of such buzzwords.

I think it is responsible of them to not refer to the perpetrators as "terrorists". These days "terrorist" is nothing more than a buzzword used by those politicians and businesspeople who participate in deceit and real-world trollery.

So the misuse or misunderstanding of a word should negate its existence or appropriate use? If one did that, he might soon have a niggardly vocabulary full of politically-correct buzzwords, signifying nothing.

So I guess we shouldn't call one who robs at sea or plunders the land from the sea without commission from a sovereign nation a "pirate". After all, some politicians inappropriately apply that label to those who disrespect copyright law.

This line of reasoning is the problem, not the solution.

-Grym

I agree with this point of view. "Bombers" is an accurate way to describe them. They may also be "terrorists", but this does carry an emotional implication as well. It's a little quirky, but I can see the point of simply reporting events rather than making judgements. It's something the media in general seriously lacks.

The problem is that simply using the word "bombers" carries an air of legitimacy about it--as if the attacks were no different from, for instance, allied WWII bombers.

This time is one of the FEW instances, as of late, where the word "terrorist" (and/or "terrorism") is entirely appropriate. Driving an SUV doesn't make you a terrorist. Smoking marijuana doesn't make you a terrorist. Disobeying copyright law doesn't make you a terrorist. But blowing innocent people up in subways and buses to intimidate is the definition of terrorism.

Let's call a spade a spade. If the perpetrators are terrorists, then call them that. And if they're muslim (or Irish), there's nothing wrong in mentioning that too.

-Grym

So lets get this straight: Killing people with a gun often isn't violence because "some killing" would happen anyways, but killing a single fertilized egg cell is? I think I've got it now.

defence is an admissible variation on the more standard 'defense'.

Of course, this happened in Canada, I don't know what the rules are there. But in the US, it is extremely difficult to "gag" someone before they print/say something. The classic example was the alternate take on Gone With the Wind, when the author's estate wanted the book impounded based on trademark or copyright (can't remember which) issues; instead, they were told to sue them after release. Of course, this excepts "gag rules" imposed by judges to prevent lawyers & principles from discussing the case in the media. The judges have no power to gag anyone not involved in the case.

Short version-- I don't think anyone could get this sort of gag order in the US. The 1st Amendment is pretty strong. And, in case the meaning isn't clear, here's the definition for antithetical.

Perhaps your understanding of irony is flawed due to excessive Alanis Morissette listening.

Irony ...

To queue means to place something in line, so requeue means to do it again. The power of prefixes.

Email: 'The word 'email' or its variants such as 'e-mail' properly describes a system of communication electronically. It does not denote a message. So "I sent you an email" should more properly be "I sent you an email message." One sees this misuse very frequently in business correspondence and informal discussions. Its use reveals lazy thinking on the part of its users.

Sounds to me like somebody has a stick up their butt. Let's look at the dictionary definition, shall we? Oh look, it's a noun, and the second definition is a 'message'. Fancy that. Welcome to the 21st century oldtimer.

As others have pointed out, the Europeans got the formal mathematical concept of zero via the Arabs (who got it via the Persians, who in turn got it from the Hindus). Why do you think those numeric symbols are known as "Arabic numerals" in the west? Hence, at some point of time it was the Muslim Arabs who were wondering if the Europeans had understood the concept of zero as yet.

Therefore it's particularly ironic that you chose this subject for your troll, given that the the word "zero" itself derives from the Arabic word sifr (see the etymology).

Of course, there's always the possibility that you were aware of this irony, but that looks somewhat unlikely to me.

That might actually mean something if a) you knew what a tag was

Physician, heal thyself.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=exagg erate

"Hey buddy, I have one and you can buy it before anyone else for only $150" Thats what they're trying to prevent. Gouging. This is perfectly acceptable.

Customers practicing something called self-restraint would also acheive this. But no, it's much better to have customers need publishers to stop themselves from being screwed over.

Adults are able to control their desires to a degree, and not need something as soon as it's available. Creating an artificial release date is just silly, and if it truly is to avoid certain distributors from price-gouging, it says that the publisher doesn't think that it's customers* aren't adult enough to be able to decide how much they want to spend on a product.

* Parents should be buying the books for their children, especially if the books $150. Good parents are able to say no to their kids.

You should always read the whole definition before using it on /.

innovate

v : bring something new to an environment; "A new word processor was introduced" [syn: introduce]
-

At any rate, they've done tons of stuff in my area as well as the guy who mentioned all the stuff they brought to the compiler/IDE arena. I work in graphics.

As an example to my point, find a PC game developer who uses Open/GL. Got one? Good. Now, if that developer is iD, go ahead and drop that and find another. Got another? Good. If that's Blizzard (for WoW), go ahead and drop that and find another. Got one? No?

Direct3D is innovative. It revs regularly, and it keeps up with technology. It provides a unified API to deal directly with multiple types of underlying hardware and architecture. It incorporates new hardware functionality directly into that API. It's not perfect, but it works pretty well.

They also publish a fairly impressive collection of algorithms. For example, Spherical Harmonic Lighting came out of MS. Blinn works there (of the Blinn shading model fame). In fact, odds are pretty good that if your favorite famous 3-D innovator doesn't work at NVIDIA (Molnar, Tarolli, Everitt, Cebenoyan, etc), they probably work at Microsoft (Blinn, Smith, etc).

To discount MS as an innvator because you dislike their business practices is ludicrous.

Or, to quote a semi-famous Spaniard, "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means".

don't like wiki? how about dictionary.com?
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=antihero& db=*

"antihero also anti-hero Audio pronunciation of "antihero" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (nt-hîr, nt-)
n. pl. antiheroes

A main character in a dramatic or narrative work who is characterized by a lack of traditional heroic qualities, such as idealism or courage."

see also: protagonist
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=protagoni st&db=*

"protagonist Audio pronunciation of "protagonist" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (pr-tg-nst)
n.

1. The main character in a drama or other literary work."

don't like wiki? how about dictionary.com?
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=antihero& db=*

"antihero also anti-hero Audio pronunciation of "antihero" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (nt-hîr, nt-)
n. pl. antiheroes

A main character in a dramatic or narrative work who is characterized by a lack of traditional heroic qualities, such as idealism or courage."

see also: protagonist
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=protagoni st&db=*

"protagonist Audio pronunciation of "protagonist" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (pr-tg-nst)
n.

1. The main character in a drama or other literary work."

Also the use of 'impetuously' is completely incongruent

"Impetuously" is not really a supportable adverb, here, regardless of characterization. Would a telephone in this world ring recklessly? Would a siren have a cavalier wail?

Another thing that bugged me was the way the narration insisted on explaining the "pocket assistant" so much -- just refer to "my Phoenix hand-held" as though it's really something the character would be carrying around as a matter of course. Context makes it clear that it's a PDA-style communications device. There are plenty of clues here, and surely the reader deserves some credit in the dot-connecting department. It even flips open like a classic 1990s Palm Pilot!

I've gone a few paragraphs farther in, and this thing reads like notes, not a story. The protagonist's hacker network is being rolled up, he's lost a pile of money, and we're talking about shopping habits and the decline in singles bars?

The first chapter or so of Neuromancer gets a lot of this stuff right, by the way. Snow Crash, I found, suffered more from the didactic tone that we're hearing in Escapist.

Bush gave 5 reasons to attack Iraq, one was WMD

Which of the five was mentioned to the U.N.?

"Iraq was not a sovereign state. Therefore, it is quite legitimate for the US and the Coalition of 88 countries to attack it."

Iraq is not a U.S. state either. The U.S. has no jurisdiction there, and the people of Iraq have no say in the leadership of the U.S.. They should not be subject to terrorism by the U.S..

" The Iraqi people simply had no sovereignty under Saddam"

I think you are confused about what sovereignty means. Iraq was a sovereign nation, but now isn't.

"Now these same people are free to form their own government and have been awarded their human rights for the first time in their history."

No they aren't. They aren't even free to sit in their own homes without the fear of bombs falling on them.

"To say that 26 million Iraqis should remain in bondage because no WMDs were found, is so asinine."

No, to say that 26 million Iraqis should not be able to walk down the street and feel safe today and call it freedom is asinine.

"Only a fascist would even think like this"

I don't even know how you come to this conclusion. Fascist governments just love to impose their rules and beliefs on others. That is exactly what the U.S. is doing now.

It could be either: since grammar means a specific set of rules for a langauge, spelling inherently falls under grammar. If you wanted to be specific, you could say spelling Nazi, but grammar Nazi works equally well, you grammar Nazi. :-)

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

Generally speaking Hussein's was not a terrorist.

He was a dictator. Just about everything he did to his people was done in order to stay in power.

"adj : characteristic of someone who employs terrorism (especially as a political weapon); "terrorist activity"; "terrorist state" n : a radical who employs terror as a political weapon; usually organizes with other terrorists in small cells; often uses religion as a cover for terrorist activities"

A terrorist does not have power in the first place. Big difference.

Real terrorists are the fools who blow up - abortion clinics, Hummer dealerships, and hijack airplanes. All to get people to listen to their radical views in the most violent way they know.

War is not terror either. War involves two ARMIES fighting each other from two established governing bodies. Afganistan wasn't a war it was an invasion. Iraq wasn't a war (this time around), another invasion. Now Iraq is an occupation. Learn english man. You cannot debate without it.

If you say Hussein is a terrorist then it applies to Bush as well. The mark of "evil" is far more broad and is generally an opinion held by 49% of those in the United states. Many who were/would vote for anyone but Bush.

Oh yeah, and BUSH IS EVIL! It isn't an argument it's an asininely simplistic statement, but at least it's a valid use of the word.

Hoarding is defined as "A hidden fund or supply stored for future use; a cache." Which fits the netflix/"timeshifting" model described above.

However, I tend to think of hoarding in terms of scarcity. With Netflix being available to anyone who is willing to pay the monthly fee, these DVDs are not scarce. By me 'hoarding' a personal copy of them, the only one harmed is me in the form of lost data storage and optical media.

Plus, I may be the only one doing this, but often times I'll really use this method for timeshifting and convenience of viewing the movies/shows and delete them after watching for the sake of HD space. I will "hoard" up some movies and TV shows during the week, then watch some over the weekend or when I have time.

Blah blah netcraft confirms it blah blah 10% install base, blah blah blah, blah. I know IE is teh SuXXor and firefox is the greatest thing since sliced bread, but google are doing mozilla a favour by porting their app to a niche browser

Facade is also correct, you fundament!