Slashdot Mirror
Domain: webster.com
Stories and comments across the archive that link to webster.com.
Comments · 285
-
Re:Raising a serious issue
Censorship has everything to do with content. From Webster's: "an official (as in time of war) who reads communications (as letters) and deletes material considered sensitive or harmful".
Note to Slashdot readers under the age of 30: words mean things. Most actually have fairly unambiguous meanings. You can't just make it up as you go along, even if Bill Clinton once tried to redefine "is" on TV when you were 10.
-
Re:Unfortunately...
> Hence my asstertion that it was NOT a Civil War, defined by all posters in this subthread as two or more factions seeking to
> control a single nation-state, but was instead a War of Independence. Union apologists generally can't bring themselves to admit
> this even today because it casts the Union, Lincoln, etc. in a very bad light but reality is what IS not what we wish were so.
No, you are putting words into other's mouths by saying all posters define it that way, and you are choosing to define the term in the way that best suits your conclusion:
Civil War:
http://hyperdictionary.com/search.aspx?define=Civil+War
http://webster.com/dictionary/Civil%20War
In order for it to not be Civil War, you must first make the assumption that those who seceded from the US formed a legitimate government independent of the US. The elected US government never agreed to that. The war was fought to determine whether that southern government formed was legitimate, and the result was a decisive no.
It is the Southern apologists that contort and bend definitions to try to make it seem as though there was some sort of justifiable reason to engage in insurrection, primarily for the purpose of extending slavery to new territories. It was in no way equivalent on any level to the Revolutionary War. -
Re:UmmmmI have read the other messages but for the life of me I can't figure out how you were able to achieve high grades in school unless your mind was extremely adept at making imaginary pictures while you were reading textbooks. It took a number of years before I realized that my mental picture making process functioned mostly at an unconscious level of awareness. It's something like having a photo album full of pictures, but not being allowed to look at them - instead, there's a servant gnome that examines the relevant picture and reports 'digitally' (with words & such) about what is in the picture.
I never read much of my textbooks. It was too difficult to keep track of everything, so I got enough of the lesson from lectures and spot-reading to feign an understanding of the material. As for federal (sic) schools -- what do you suggest instead? What I said ('Feral Government's schools') was stated as it was intentionally. While schools are supposedly run at a state/local level, the 'feral' Federal Government has a giant Department of Education that does a lot of meddling.
Anyways, John Holt and John Gatto, both award-winning schoolteachers, eventually gave up on trying to fix government schools. One of Holt's last books was Teach Your Own. Gatto had some good suggestions for current teachers in A Different Kind of Teacher, and in his other books too. Search for "seven lesson schoolteacher" for a succinct analysis of how the system fails.
The main problem with factory 'education' is that it's something done 'to' a child. It would be much more effective and efficient if the child was enlisted as an agent in their own learning experiences - primarily by letting the learner decide what and when they want to learn a given lesson.
Thanks for responding. -
Re:Ironic curiosity
You miss the point. Faith isn't scientific. If having faith brings you joy and peace, congratulations. But don't try to bring it into science, for faith requires belief without proof, and science requires proof before belief. Taking the concept from Carl Sagan, faith is usually prejudice and science is postjudice.
Actually, faith does not require belief without proof. Not in Christian terminology--i.e. not in the Hebrew or Greek of the Bible--and not even in English. I realize that in contemporary culture it has taken on that connotation, but it's actually not inherent to the word.
First, notice the way you had to qualify your definition, i.e. "belief without proof". You recognize that the word "belief", anyway, just indicates that you accept something to be true. It doesn't say anything about the justification for your belief, only that you have the belief. Well, in our translations of the Bible, "believe" and "faith" are both used to translate the same root word, in verb or noun form (pistis, pistia, etc.).
The actual meaning of "faith" is complex. It has more than one sense, both in the Biblical languages and in English. It can mean fidelity, loyalty, faithfulness. "I made the promise in good faith." "He has been a faithful companion." It can mean conviction of the truth of something. It can mean trust in something, or reliance on it. There's an interesting verse in Paul's letter to the Roman church, with three different uses: disbelieve, unbelief, and faithfulness--where the third use is referring to God's own "faith". That's right, God is said to have faith--and in that case it obviously has nothing to do with a blind leap. (Here's the verse, if you're curious, along with the language resources.)
An illustration. Most people will say that Christian faith is more than simple intellectual assent; it involves a trust component. Trust? Aren't I talking about blind faith now? No, not necessarily. As I said above, there's a sense of trusting in something, relying on it. I would compare it to trusting in the skill of a pilot and the construction of an airplane to take you safely where you're going. Your trust might be blind--perhaps if you're from an isolated tribal culture with no familiarity with modern technology. Or it might be extremely well-founded, based on a familiarity with the engineering of the manufacturer and the maintenance procedures of the airline and the training & experience of the pilot. Or it might be slightly less researched--maybe you just know that the airline has a good track-record, and so you just trust in all the rest. In other words, your faith can have different levels of warrant. And the more research you've done, the stronger your faith will be.
And that is precisely how I view Christian faith--made stronger by better evidence. I trust in the promises of God and the work of the death and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth. I judge them to be trustworthy, and I judge myself to have good enough reason to exercise that trust.
If you want to read a defense of the idea that the Bible does not ask for a blind leap, but trust in a reliable source, you can check out this essay by Greg Koukl. (He makes a good positive case, though it's not exhaustive.) -
Anatomy of the Great Oil Swindle1972-3 Nixon or someone went to the Saudis and "persuaded" them somehow to remain only US dollars in return for oil. No idea what they promised, but it was big.
According to John Perkins' Confessions of An Economic Hitman, it was a variety of things:- Modernization of the country: all Saudis were too good to be garbage collectors, so goats eating garbage was common. Western companies got large contracts to 'westernize' the place. Garbage collectors were imported from Asia. Desalinization plants were built, etc.
- Military support for the Saudi Royal Family: "We'll keep you in power, all you gotta do is accept our 'dollar' and only our 'dollar' for your oil"
- A certain Saudi prince had a thing for blonds. So Mr. Perkins got him a blond escort.
- etc.
Perkins covers the many reasons why common people in non-westernized nations tend to hate the U.S. Feral Government - the things 'our' government has done/supported aren't especially nice. From the link above:"Economic hit men," John Perkins writes, "are highly paid professionals who cheat countries around the globe out of trillions of dollars. Their tools include fraudulent financial reports, rigged elections, payoffs, extortion, sex, and murder."
John Perkins should know--he was an economic hit man. His job was to convince countries that are strategically important to the U.S.--from Indonesia to Panama--to accept enormous loans for infrastructure development, and to make sure that the lucrative projects were contracted to U. S. corporations. Saddled with huge debts, these countries came under the control of the United States government, World Bank and other U.S.-dominated aid agencies that acted like loan sharks--dictating repayment terms and bullying foreign governments into submission.
Now... 35 years later, there are trillions of US dollars out there sitting in central banks waiting to be spent on mostly oil. If oil were to be available in Euros, the dollars would be useless. They would come back to the USA.
The dollar will be worthless in the near future - 6 months? 12 Months? Hard to predict exactly when, but if the 'Neoconvicts' do eventually wage another illegal war of aggression against Iran, China and Russia will likely repudiate the dollar immediately thereafter. If I had much cash, I'd be buying Euros... -
Re:religion
For one, evolution is a fact.
Let me repeat that... Evolution is a fact. Simply enough, what is the definition of evolution? According to Webster, it is the process of changing in a certain direction. We care not what direction.
For example, if you would have sexual relations with someone else (opposite gender reqd.) and created a child, they would have evolved from both of you. Simply, they have changed unique to either of you. This is a known fact.
Natural selection is the theory to describe why and how evolution pushes towards certain outcomes. Why are native Africans black? Why do Asians have different eyelids? Why are some people susceptible to certain diseases while others are not? Natural selection argues that there are forces within nature that shift certain traits to certain ways. This is the theory in which to attack. -
Re:"blithely"
Considering the definition and my general knowledge from doing tech support, I'd say just about all of them:
blithely:
1- of a happy lighthearted character or disposition
2- lacking due thought or consideration -
Re:It's NOT health care
Scientific method selectively applied, you mean. Drugs & surgery are the domain of the allopathic practitioner. My grandmother's oncologist sent her to a nutritionist at the start of her cancer treatment, where she was told to eat 5 servings of vegetables a day. Grandma later laughed and said, "she's crazy!". The oncologist never asked about nutrition again, perscribed lots of drugs (there was the $1000 weekly shot, and the $2000/month thalidomide) and grandma died anyways after six months.
I've tested these theories myself, and they work where nothing 'conventional' did.
'Toxin' is generic for substances that are not life-enhancing. Mercury and lead are toxins, as are the results of waste putrefying in a chronically constipated colon.
I took off my blinders because it was the only way for me to become well. It hasn't been easy, but it's been entirely worthwhile. -
Re:The Coyote and The Road RunnerAnd whether or not you personally feel those movies were "maligned", they were actually quite popular with the intended audience that CHOSE to watch them
1 a : evil in nature, influence, or effect. malignant.
2 : having or showing intense often vicious ill will. sinister.The audience has faded to black. The genre summer box office poison. Captivity grossed $2.6 million. Rockstar tried to catch the wave and missed.
. Why should your personal judgment override Manhunt 2's intended audience's CHOICE to play it?
A video game is not a movie.
The movies put you at a physical and psychological distance from the action. Manhunt 2 encouraged you to mime a disembowelment using the Wii controller as your weapon.
A good read in this context is Gene Wolfe's "When I Was Ming The Merciless."
As you grow older, you grow weary of attending a high school graduation one week and a funeral the next. The adolescent's judgment is not mature, and his choices are often wrong.
-
Re:The Coyote and The Road RunnerAnd whether or not you personally feel those movies were "maligned", they were actually quite popular with the intended audience that CHOSE to watch them
1 a : evil in nature, influence, or effect. malignant.
2 : having or showing intense often vicious ill will. sinister.The audience has faded to black. The genre summer box office poison. Captivity grossed $2.6 million. Rockstar tried to catch the wave and missed.
. Why should your personal judgment override Manhunt 2's intended audience's CHOICE to play it?
A video game is not a movie.
The movies put you at a physical and psychological distance from the action. Manhunt 2 encouraged you to mime a disembowelment using the Wii controller as your weapon.
A good read in this context is Gene Wolfe's "When I Was Ming The Merciless."
As you grow older, you grow weary of attending a high school graduation one week and a funeral the next. The adolescent's judgment is not mature, and his choices are often wrong.
-
Re:Who will wise up...I don't believe Manhunt 2 is considered pornography in the common interpretation of what pr0n is.
Pornograhy
Main Entry: pornography
Function: noun
Etymology: Greek pornographos, adjective, writing about prostitutes, from pornE prostitute + graphein to write; akin to Greek pernanai to sell, poros journey -- more at FARE, CARVE
1 : the depiction of erotic behavior (as in pictures or writing) intended to cause sexual excitement
2 : material (as books or a photograph) that depicts erotic behavior and is intended to cause sexual excitement
3 : the depiction of acts in a sensational manner so as to arouse a quick intense emotional reaction [the pornography of violence]
-
Re:so did he write them for free or didn't he
As in 'volunteer army', yes. The opposite of 'volunteer' is not 'paid', it is 'obliged' or 'forced'. An employee working under contract is obliged by the contract. An at-will employee could be described as a volunteer, but we tend not to use the term that way. See http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?sourcei
d =Mozilla-search&va=volunteer. -
It's worse than that...You're right that this new expert is a much better one that the other expert (and he has an easier job, too—it shouldn't be hard to drive a truck through the unreliable, untested, secret methods used by the RIAA expert in court).
However, with respect to this:
> Do you know this definition?
> http://www.webster.com/dictionary/slander
You should've asked him the definition of libel. Slander is spoken, libel is written, and defamation covers both. Just like evidence that exculpates someone shows them to be not guilty (or not responsible, this being a civil case), with evidence that inculpates someone being the exact opposite (showing them to be guilty or responsible for some offense).
And I'm no lawyer, just some average guy with a BS in math from a "party school" who barely obtained it. Yet, strangely, I seem to know more than our friendly Ph.D from the RIAA, given that I know the basic legal terms, I have plenty of ideas about what he could've done to make his case more reliable, and I wouldn't have been afraid to say "I see no evidence of infringement" if that's what the facts of the case supported. Although, I guess you don't get to submit hundreds of unchallenged declarations on behalf of the RIAA if you do that, because I sure don't know any other witnesses who always give testimony on behalf of one party, inevitably supporting their case. Even claiming that you still think they're guilty although you can't find any evidence on their PC and didn't bother to save your Encase logs because of that.
The RIAA expert, IMHO, should be barred from testifying until and unless he can establish the reliability of his methods. But don't take my word for it. Read Dr. Pouwelse's findings on the unreliability of MediaSentry evidence for yourself and realize that that evidence is being used in this case:Approach of MediaSentry
The technical information provided by MediaSentry is limited and their measurement procedure is simplistic. MediaSentry did not conduct a thorough investigation such as outlined above to provide evidence of infringement.
The statement from Tom Mizzone hints in item 27 that they systematically searched the Kazaa network for certain keywords, by means of modified Kazaa software. How they resolved relevant technical problems such as superpeer hopping, NAT translation, and firewall relaying by Kazaa is unclear.
In item 28, it is stated that no actual complete file transfer took place; It was only initiated at this stage. Item 30 again hints that MediaSentry simply took filenames at face value and did not mention any correction for pollution on Kazaa. Pollution levels can be as high as 90% for some files.
Item 33 indicates that MediaSentry has no knowledge of the limitations of Kazaa in file searching. Not many of the 2,499,121 users online would be able to see the mentioned 736 files. Reliable global searching in P2P file sharing networks is still an unsolved problem. Only users connected to the same Kazaa Superpeer are guaranteed to see these files when Kazaa operates properly (roughly 100 to 150 users as measured by Prof. Keith Ross).
Item 36 states that no computer hygiene precautions where taken. The collected evidence of the spacemansam@KaZaA alias cleary contains multi-peer downloading contamination. Therefore, it is difficult to establish the contribution of the various IP-addresses. It is possible that some IP-addresses contributed 0 Bytes to an actual download, thus there was only involvement and no actual contribution. -
Re:Dr. Pouwelse's qualifications...
With respect to question 1:
His qualifications are that he is heading a research group and has published several peer-reviewed scientific papers on the analysis of p2p network traffic.
With respect to question 2:
A brief check shows he's a professional engineer who subsequently acquired a PhD at one of the better universities (rank 53 worldwide, 13 in europe).
With respect to question 3:
Do you know this definition?
http://www.webster.com/dictionary/slander -
Re:"disorientate"?
-
Re:Gee I'd like to listen
Hey dumbass, here's a conundrum for you: why the fuck would anybody else bother to create an independent implementation when the one the Xiph people made already exists, works perfectly well, and is free in both senses of the word? Maybe you're stupid enough to waste your time doing something like that, but the rest of the world isn't.
Having only one implementation doesn't make the thing "proprietary," except perhaps in your twisted little mind!
http://www.webster.com/dictionary/proprietaryAll works regardless of license are copyright of the original authors and no license can revoke/modify the rights of the original author. They can only grant rights to others. Without a complete specification, the BSD code will not help someone much if they need to implement the codec in silicon via an FPGA.
While this original authors of OGG may claim that they did not copy code, having a specification to implement a decoder using clean room techniques can help protect manufacturers from potential copyright infringement suits if it turns out that one of the programmers did copy someone's code "accidentally".
PS. Calling someone you don't know from Adam a "dumbass" makes you look pretty stupid asshole.
-
Re:It's "MATH" not "MATHS"
I'm not necessarily an expert on the English language, but I tend to not bastardize it as Americans are often said to do (They even call this newfangled language "American" - before you know it someone will produce an American-English dictionary.)
In any case, I didn't think the Anglo-Saxons adopted the Old-french "Mathématique", since I've never seen the word "mathematic" used as a noun in English. Adjective, certainly, and even then it's listed as a variant to "Mathematical".
The nearest word I can find in Websters is "Mathematical" and the noun-plural form we are discussing "Mathematics".
Copy and paste from http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?sourcei
d =Mozilla-search&va=mathematicMain Entry: mathematical
Pronunciation: "math-'ma-ti-k&l, "ma-th&-
Variant(s): also mathematic
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English mathematicalle, from Latin mathematicus, from Greek mathEmatikos, from mathEmat-, mathEma learning, mathematics, from manthanein to learn; probably akin to Gothic mundon to pay attention
1 : of, relating to, or according with mathematics
2 a : rigorously exact : PRECISE b : CERTAIN
3 : possible but highly improbable
- mathematicallyConclusion: The name of the subject is Mathematic*s*; shortened to Math*s*. We win. Boo-yah.
-
Re:MRTG-1 Redundant huh? That is the only link to MRTG in this entire thread.
Here's a hint:
redundantMain Entry: redundant
http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=redu
Pronunciation: -d&nt
Function: adjective
Etymology: Latin redundant-, redundans, present participle of redundare to overflow -- more at REDOUND
1 a : exceeding what is necessary or normal : SUPERFLUOUS b : characterized by or containing an excess; specifically : using more words than necessary c : characterized by similarity or repetition [a group of particularly redundant brick buildings] d chiefly British : no longer needed for a job and hence laid off
2 : PROFUSE, LAVISH
3 : serving as a duplicate for preventing failure of an entire system (as a spacecraft) upon failure of a single componentn dant
Hope that helps. -
Re:The word "evolution" is often misusedTo evolve is to change. In a biological context, to evolve is to change by means of reproduction and mutation.
Hi liquidscript. This is a way over simplification. It also misses the point of the article that I was getting at.... I thought about also including a bit about viruses and computers... however I thought the humor would get lost.... I also know about plans for robots/computers in the future... where sex may actually be possible... But that is for another slashdot article... Reminds me of some Vax jokes.
In an industrial sense, to evolve is to change through design.
You left out the meat in a meat ball recipe. There is a distinction and a difference. It is a continual change from a lower, simpler, or worse to a higher, more complex, or better state. This dictates that something has to have something to do with something in the past and it has to be a continual change. Did a plane evolve from the little red wagon? Of course not unless you get silly. Why force us to say it was evolutionary? Maybe it was revolutionary? Perhaps "chemical reaction" describes what happened better. A simple design change that isn't necessarily making it a higher, more complex or a better state? Could be a more cost effective or not as labor intensive state. Maybe it is a material change that effectively is the same product for example. Most people also equate evolution with chance, as if man had nothing to do with it and intelligence was not necessary. A slap in the face to engineers and scientists everywhere. For example carbon nanotubes, did that "evolve" from something else? Of course not, it was designed by man. Why require them to say it did.
Words have different meanings in different contexts. All this argumentation about specific meanings of words, such as "to evolve," is useless semantics.
Indeed, what I was getting at in the first place. Evolution has become a meme http://webster.com/dictionary/meme or perhaps some might even say propaganda. They want everyone to use the word to spread it so it can become "fact" when in fact it isn't yet. It is a theory like wave theory, string theory to name just two. If you think it is fact, show me the proof. Feel free to get back to me on that one. Do me a favor and understand what a proof is before responding.
Have to be careful, he is advocating the thought police. Next he may want every paper to contain the word evolution someplace in it because no science could possibly be true without some sort of evolution. You don't want that do you?
-
Re:Fatugue again
I do not think this word "ironically" means what you think it means...
-
Re:Uh...
Funny, I got my definition for Bribe from Merriam-Webster. If you have a better authority on the definition, I'm happy to hear it.
-
Re:From the mouths of TFA:
"Minor and casual criticism can quickly ferment into a difficult stink, and attempts to burry it can often just make it worse."
Worse for everyone, worse for the northern England and Scottish readers, or for everyone but them?
See burry(3) and burr(n:5a,5b). -
Re:From the mouths of TFA:
"Minor and casual criticism can quickly ferment into a difficult stink, and attempts to burry it can often just make it worse."
Worse for everyone, worse for the northern England and Scottish readers, or for everyone but them?
See burry(3) and burr(n:5a,5b). -
Re:Did I miss something?
The problem here is that the Microsoft debate has watered down the word Monopoly.
You only have a Monopoly if you have exclusive possession or control. The word exclusive is key here. 73% is nowhere near exclusive, especially with something like online advertising where the product isn't shipped with any particular physical product and the market has a great deal of freedom to move around. -
Re:Real Experience
"Software developers have become adept at the difficult art of building reasonably reliable systems out of unreliable parts. The snag is that often we do not know exactly how we did it." is one of the most insightful things I've read since Fred Brooks.
The "We do not know exactly how we did it" part is insightful, though in the obvious-when-you-consider and most-other-things-are-like-that kind of way.
The "building reliable systems out of unreliable parts" part sounds like a mystical revelation but is in fact incoherent garbage. The definition of reliable (from the dictionary) is "giving the same results on successive trials". What software, be it a system, be it a module, is not reliable in that sense ? It may have a bug, but a bug which happens under specific, repeatable and avoidable conditions, does not make a software system or part any less reliable. -
Re:I'm #1
Two points. One, SMS/IM and email are fundamentally quite different because they function in a different capacity. Among other things, SMS/IM allow for you to know if the recepient is connected at a given moment, they allow for the real time transfer of information, and they're not designed to be edited and well thought-out before being sent. Simply put, there's a reason slander and libel are different words just like SMS/IM and email are. There's simply less weight given to an "off the cuff" remark than one which a person had conceivably several minutes to consider before transmitting.Webster: 1 : a means or system for transmitting messages electronically (as between computers on a network)
2 a : messages sent and received electronically through an e-mail system b : an e-mail message http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=e-mai l
The difference between SMTP and SMS/IM was not relevant to the case. Emails are as instantaneous as IM unless your on a crappy system. Email can be just as off the cuff as IM. And I've had many live conversations by email when on systems where IM was blocked. The two are just different implementations of the same basic system. -
Re:amazon
you sir, are dumb. may i suggest a dictionnary?
sow -
Re:Erradicae?
How is that ignorant?
Main Entry: eradicate
Pronunciation: i-'ra-d&-"kAt
Function: transitive verb
1 : to pull up by the roots
2 : to do away with as completely as if by pulling up by the roots (programs to eradicate illiteracy)
Barring that, it certainly seems that it's being *treated* as a disease. Sleep interferes with productivity, therefore it must be cured.
It could also be a metaphor.
Grammatically, the word's perfectly fine. Just because you have a preconceived notion on how it should be used doesn't mean it's wrong. -
Re:What definition of Geek are they using?
Maybe this one I thought that in her case, they were referring to the type that make their livings by biting off chicken heads. Well at least they have it half right, what with all the *insert cock joke here*
-
Re:Before coming to a knee jerk conclusion read th
These are authorative sources.
I think you misspelled authoritarian there
http://www.webster.com/dictionary/authoritarian -
Re:Well that's funny
Guys (the both of you) check the spelling
Hipocracy
The word you've entered isn't in the dictionary. Click on a spelling suggestion below or try again using the search box to the right.
Suggestions for hipocracy:
1. hypocrisy
http://www.webster.com/dictionary/hipocracy
And while you're at it:
Hypocrisy
Main Entry: hypocrisy
Pronunciation: hi-'pä-kr&-sE also hI-
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -sies
Etymology: Middle English ypocrisie, from Anglo-French, from Late Latin hypocrisis, from Greek hypokrisis act of playing a part on the stage, hypocrisy, from hypokrinesthai to answer, act on the stage, from hypo- + krinein to decide -- more at CERTAIN
1 : a feigning to be what one is not or to believe what one does not; especially : the false assumption of an appearance of virtue or religion
2 : an act or instance of hypocrisy
http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=hypoc risy -
Re:Well that's funny
Guys (the both of you) check the spelling
Hipocracy
The word you've entered isn't in the dictionary. Click on a spelling suggestion below or try again using the search box to the right.
Suggestions for hipocracy:
1. hypocrisy
http://www.webster.com/dictionary/hipocracy
And while you're at it:
Hypocrisy
Main Entry: hypocrisy
Pronunciation: hi-'pä-kr&-sE also hI-
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -sies
Etymology: Middle English ypocrisie, from Anglo-French, from Late Latin hypocrisis, from Greek hypokrisis act of playing a part on the stage, hypocrisy, from hypokrinesthai to answer, act on the stage, from hypo- + krinein to decide -- more at CERTAIN
1 : a feigning to be what one is not or to believe what one does not; especially : the false assumption of an appearance of virtue or religion
2 : an act or instance of hypocrisy
http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=hypoc risy -
Re:biannual != semiannual
Are you sure about that?
See for instance http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?sourceid =Mozilla-search&va=Biannual+ which says biannual means "occurring twice a year" compare with biennial http://www.webster.com/dictionary/biennial+ "occurring every two years" -
Re:biannual != semiannual
Are you sure about that?
See for instance http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?sourceid =Mozilla-search&va=Biannual+ which says biannual means "occurring twice a year" compare with biennial http://www.webster.com/dictionary/biennial+ "occurring every two years" -
Re:All Government Regulation is to serve...
That's how medicine was practiced in the US until the early 1900's. It didn't end well for many, many people. Many "doctors" were complete phonys fleecing people of money and splitting town before the patient died. Quack doctors were considered the menace of the day, every bit as much as child molesters are today. "Snake Oil" didn't become a common term for nothing.
http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?sourceid =Mozilla-search&va=Snake+Oil -
Re:Total Bullshit
Could you explain what this means:
"FCC Chair Stumps For Media Diversity"
and
"Michael Copps stumped against greater media concentration and instead argued for greater diversity of media outlets and voices."
I'm familiar with say: "Tough question, its got me stumped." Or: "I need to burn the remaining tree stumps in that field before I can plow it easily."
I've never seen the word used as you have. I checked google:
http://www.google.ca/search?q=define:+stump
None of Google's definitions seemed to match your usage.
I checked Webster:
http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary/stump
Main Entry: stump
Function: verb
transitive verb
1 : to reduce to a stump : TRIM
2 a : DARE, CHALLENGE b : to frustrate the progress or efforts of : BAFFLE
3 : to clear (land) of stumps
4 : to travel over (a region) making political speeches or supporting a cause
5 a : to walk over heavily or clumsily b : STUB 3
Which either #2 or #4 might match what you are trying to say?
Interesting, I never knew the word stump had so many meanings! Which meaning are you using and out of curiousity, why did you choose that word? -
Re:"Creation" is not a theory...
"Creation" is not even a "theory"
Maybe not in science, but it is in English:
1 : the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another
2 : abstract thought : SPECULATION
http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?sourceid =Mozilla-search&va=theory
When a Creationist/Biblethumper speaks of a "theory", he is typically not speaking of scientific theory. In their common English terms, Creation IS a theory.
But Creationism is NOT science. -
Re:MySpace needs the PR.
SO are you saying that the majority of the people who live in israel are semites and the majority of the people living in palestine are not semites?
Man you like to read a whole lot into things that aren't there. And i understand why you do it. Your agument doesn't last verylong without doing tricks like this.
I'm saying the majority of people living in Israel are semitic and nothing about the palistinian people.Last I checked that was not the case. Once again it is you who lack a grasp of reality.
Check again. And this time read the whole definition. As a matter of faxct, I will give you a couple links. definition 2 says jews but, lets look again. Wiki says right off the bat, It referes to people speaking a laguage from a language family and hebrew is one of them. Israel has two official languages, Hebrew and arabic. SO yea, that makes the semitic.
Oh yea, lets include websters and princetons definitions so you don't think I just picked obscure publications that agreed with me.The reality is that as a race the people living in israel are overwhelmingly caucasian.
And this has nothign to do with anything. It is just another one of your attempts to cloud the matters at hand by selectivly ignoring certain facts no matter how relevent in order to support your position. Now, If you really didn't know what semite ment, then I suggest you open a history book a learn something. If you did, And i suspect you do, then chose an arena for spouting half truths and inacuracies that doesn't invole the expectation of inteligence. Nothing i have said is false, it is all there and availible for you to look up and discover for yourself. I would suggets you do so. Me tellng you the truth is really no different then whoever told you lies and half truths in the first place. Except i have told you the whole truth and didn't do it to make you belive as i do, just to be honest about the hate your spewing.
I would have posted back sooner but I just didn't feel like having a battle of truth and fiction with someone too lazy to open a history book or look further then the "Getting people to hate Israel handbook". I know it is shocking that your relaity as you know it, is false to some extent. But don't let that hold you back, You can look at the whole story and still hate or dislike Israel. Just do it for real reasons and not one concocted with the sole purpose of gaining support from less inteligent people. I'm sure there are enough real reasons to have a grudge against them without making shit up. Pick one of the real reasons.
What you have cited so far is for the most part grossly inacurate and lacking facts relevent to the interpretation of real events. This thread started because you were trying to incinuate that a person posting anonymously and supporting Israel didn't have any credit because it was anonymouse. Like everything else in this thread, when called on it, you got it wrong. I imagine you are either some highschool kid that doesn't know enough to be repeating what he has heard or a colledge student with some prfofessor trying to gain attention for an upcomming book so he takes the liberal racist attitude to guarentee air time on the evening news. Of course you could just be some asshat in a hate group somewere but i would prefere to give you the benifit of doubt. Seriously though, Books are your friend, reference books are really good to read, even if you don't understand it all. look this shit up and get the whole story! -
Re:Monitize?
It ma not be the "Queen's" English, but I found monetize in the Merriam-Webster dictionary. Based on the way I interpret the definition, I think Mr. Hawk is using it incorrectly. I read it as Yahoo will start printing money.
-
Re:YouTube can't "censor"
I realize this may seem pedantic but it's worth pointing out (again): censorship is restriction of speech by government actions.
Bullshit. Anyone can censor and everyone does censor in some way, probably every single day. There is absolutely no requirement that a government needs to be involved, except when dealing with legal issues related to protected speech, which is not the case here.
-
Re:YouTube can't "censor"
I realize this may seem pedantic but it's worth pointing out (again): censorship is restriction of speech by government actions.
Bullshit. Anyone can censor and everyone does censor in some way, probably every single day. There is absolutely no requirement that a government needs to be involved, except when dealing with legal issues related to protected speech, which is not the case here.
-
Re:As a rule . . .
Then we're just arguing semantics. Webster has a few definitions, we're talking about two different things. Like I said, I agree that Scheff was well within her legal rights, anybody can sue anybody else in a civil court for anything. Still doesn't make it right.
Complaining about something is not free. Just as complaints don't always hurt. When you complain, you put your reputation on the line as well otherwise, your complaint holds little value. And complaints give you free advertising as well. I've seen complaints give people more business first hand.
One thing is for certain, the lawyers won. -
Re:every time I try firefox, I go back.
You are right. I didn't dig deep in obscure menus to kill this annoyance that (1) should not be the in the first place and (2) should have a turn off option right on the pop-up. I know, it's an old glitch. Netscape has had it going WAYYY.... back.
glitch
1 : a usually minor malfunction ;
2 : a minor problem that causes a temporary setback
3 : a false or spurious electronic signal
I'm not sure how putting options in the "Options" dialog is a "glitch". I'm pretty sure implementing a clean UI free of clutter, rather then including every option possible on every pop-up for lazy/ignorant users, is not a glitch. There is nothing wrong with this feature being on in the first place, since there is nothing to stop you from turning it off or clicking "No". Please keep in mind not everybody cares if their passwords to trivial things are stolen, this feature is great for passwords like that. -
Re:duh
Naw... according to "Flood Geology", there really were dinosaurs, but they were killed in the great flood approximately 5000 years ago. Hence the term "antediluvian".
In fact, maybe I should throw the 'Answers in Genesis' people a bone by suggesting an argument for them: clearly, this result is yet another proof of creation science! After all, it's totally implausible that soft tissue could survive in rock for 65000000 years as mainstream science would have us believe! (Never mind the puzzle of how it could survive for 5000 years, for that matter.. -
Re:Similar to CD-RW?
You mean thongs, both versions of which can be seen on beaches.
-
Re:Headline Changed
clandestinely: marked by, held in, or conducted with secrecy.
-
Re:The Defense of I, II & III# Luke and Leah would end up sisters (come on... would that kiss be in Empire? Note that the original theatrical trailers highlighted aspects of the movie as a love story)
# Knew Vader would be Luke's father (come on "from a certain point of view"?In the pre-production art for Star Wars (I have the book) the character who becomes Luke is unmistakably female. I still believe that would have taken the story in a much more interesting and unexpected direction.
Etymology: Middle English fader, from Old English fæder; akin to Old High German fater father, Latin pater, Greek patEr Father
Darth Vader. Dark Father. The clues are there from the beginning.
-
Re:Depends on what you mean by "book"
The term "book" can have two meanings:
A tad more than two, actually.
So arguing over 3 books vs. 6 is simply arguing at cross-purposes.
Nope, it's arguing about the litteral content of the literary work in question: Inside the physical "book", sections are labelled by the author and publisher as books and volumes.
It is not arguing at cross purpose: I know for a fact that the division is 6 books, 3 volumes, one novel. This is the division that the creators of the work in question choose.
The people who argue against this are factually wrong, they based their error on a misinterpretation of the word "book", coupled with ignorance of the content of the work in question.
I will not pretend that they are right, when I can back up my claim with easily obtained evidence.
I guess that makes me a nerd. -
Re:Much better choices available.
"Actually, I think that product is owned by Halliburton."
No, you're thinking of the folks like to assign all evil to Halliburton, but when asked to name other contractors that can step right up and provide the same experience and services in the same time frame in the same parts of the world tend to draw something of a blank. A cognitive blank, as it were.
I think that phrase does not mean what you think it means.
-
Re:1 goat, 1 long knife
Fact: If Hollywood has TPCM it is possible they might actually design something that can't be cracked. Or at least not cracked effortlessly, as DVDs are now. Microsoft's failure with Vista is our opportunity, we should seize it.
Fact: According to http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?sourceid =Mozilla-search&va=fact, most of what you said is based on speculation, thus, does not constitute fact. Check your facts.