Slashdot Mirror

harbinger.

RMS is seen as crying wolf, but many of his weirdest predictions have come true.

Viz. The Right to Read

And we're already there with Amazon's action's regarding remote Kindle book manipulation.

Cell phones? Remember the article on government snooping while the phone's turned off? The fact that cell phones can and do track you is blindingly true, but for some reason, people don't even want to hear it.

Er, your username 'erroneus' is quite apt because (1) erroneous is misspelled, and (2) I didn't use either "inVentivize" or "incentivizive" in my post. And both incent and incentivize exist in the dictionary as verbs, but incentivize is in more common usage, and the masses, fortunately or unfortunately, decide the future of language, because language is a living thing.

"Incentivize" is a neologism so it is still not recognized by many spelling checkers, but it clearly does exist in the dictionary -- even the OED. However something you may not know is that the word "incent" is also a neologism, and it appeared nine years after the word "incentivize" (1977 vs. 1968 respectively).

I can also point you to a modern source that I think justifies the usage: Peter Diamandis of the X-Prize Foundation is famous for saying, "You get what you incentivize". Saying "You get what you incent" just wouldn't sound right -- and almost nobody would understand what was actually meant by that, because almost nobody in recent mainstream media/press/culture actually uses the word "incent"...

Er, your username 'erroneus' is quite apt because (1) erroneous is misspelled, and (2) I didn't use either "inVentivize" or "incentivizive" in my post. And both incent and incentivize exist in the dictionary as verbs, but incentivize is in more common usage, and the masses, fortunately or unfortunately, decide the future of language, because language is a living thing.

"Incentivize" is a neologism so it is still not recognized by many spelling checkers, but it clearly does exist in the dictionary -- even the OED. However something you may not know is that the word "incent" is also a neologism, and it appeared nine years after the word "incentivize" (1977 vs. 1968 respectively).

I can also point you to a modern source that I think justifies the usage: Peter Diamandis of the X-Prize Foundation is famous for saying, "You get what you incentivize". Saying "You get what you incent" just wouldn't sound right -- and almost nobody would understand what was actually meant by that, because almost nobody in recent mainstream media/press/culture actually uses the word "incent"...

penis.

I don't think this applies to French Letters

Unless of course you consider your family a unit, then trading anything is pointless, such as a heart charging the rest of the body for the act of pumping blood.

It's interesting to see how the zeitgeist equates independence from family with independence.
The atomized families of today, compared to the families of the past, depend more heavily on the system (what we used to call society). The worst example I recall involves those who listened to the politician that called them bamboccioni and got indebted to buy a house, at high market prices, just before the economic crisis.

If replying please avoid the "how bad things were in the past" false cause fallacy.

Why? Are there better internet connections in the Greek Island of Lesbos?

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/whom

I wouldn't say it's definite either way; Wiktionary lists the "internet" definition of "troll" under both of its etymologies.

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/troll

Etymology 1
From Norwegian, Danish or Swedish troll, from Old Norse troll, possibly related to the Middle High German trolle (“spook, wraith, monster, ogre”)
2. (slang) An ugly person of either sex; (internet) a troublemaker

Etymology 2
From Middle English troll (“to go about", "to stroll", "to roll from side to side”), from Old French troller (French trôler) and Middle High German trollen (“to stroll”); fishing sense possibly influenced by trawl
6. (intransitive) To disrupt the operation of an online community, particularly by luring others into combative argument.

I doubt that it's really possible to say which of the origins of "troll" resulted in its use to describe internet troublemakers, particularly since it's had both definitions long before the internet was ever conceived of. Most likely it was a combination of both of them.

The real issue is that the people using faith-based evidence demand that their view be taught in all contexts; and really, the end goal is to be taught exclusively. And that's a problem, especially if we want to have any functional biologists in the future.

Also, you're confusing indoctrination sense 1 and sense 2. http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/indoctrination . At no point does teaching science actually call for or require or involve the ridicule of religion, because it's NOT RELATED. God doesn't exist in a scientific context - he isn't observable or describable, so he's not relevant.

Teach science in science class and hold church in church.

> As another student who was given one to trial...

Sadly it didn't seem to help your education. You were actually given one to try on trial.

Trial is a noun. You can't "do" a noun.

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/trial#Verb

Uninstall is indeed a verb.

Last time I looked

Look again.

I'm pretty sure the participle of dye is dyeing, actually.

I'm pretty sure the participle of dye is dyeing, actually.

This "memory palace" thing really is bullshit. It's just as absurd as "memory experts" (who are usually just promoting themselves and their products, frankly) you always see on talk shows who say it's all about neumonics or association.

I believe you mean mnemonics. As much as I hate bullshit, I hate it even more when people misspell that word, because it's close enough to this word that you could be creating legitimate confusion if the context were slightly less clear. If you need help remembering, there's a Keanu movie with the correct word in the title. It's about a guy who rents his memory space for organizations to store data in his brain, so once you watch it, it should be easy to associate that title with the concept of memory.

This "memory palace" thing really is bullshit. It's just as absurd as "memory experts" (who are usually just promoting themselves and their products, frankly) you always see on talk shows who say it's all about neumonics or association.

I believe you mean mnemonics. As much as I hate bullshit, I hate it even more when people misspell that word, because it's close enough to this word that you could be creating legitimate confusion if the context were slightly less clear. If you need help remembering, there's a Keanu movie with the correct word in the title. It's about a guy who rents his memory space for organizations to store data in his brain, so once you watch it, it should be easy to associate that title with the concept of memory.

What's a post about an EFF initiative doing for EFF? Marketing, and there's nothing wrong with it. I like to hear about what they're up to. I've got the bumper sticker and t-shirt. I never suggested ulterior motives are bad, just prevalent, but there's nothing malicious about people writing about their hobbyhorses.

I'm beginning to think you don't actually know what an ulterior motive is. Here's the definition from wiktionary:

An alternative or extrinsic reason for doing something, especially when concealed or when differing from the stated or apparent reason.

It seems to me that most EFF posts are about informing people about what the EFF is doing. Marketing is one of the the apparent reasons for running their web site and maintain their blog and publishing press releases. Writing about your "hobbyhorses" doesn't, by itself, qualify, as an ulterior motive. On the other hand, if someone is deliberately hiding their motives from you they are doing so for a reason and it's safe to assume the reason isn't good. If it was, there wouldn't be any need to conceal it.

So there are at least three levels of bad here, the first is the concealment of relevant information concerning the motive for providing information, the second is the presentation of biased information, and the third is that the person or people presenting the information intend harm to the audience. Sometimes the harm is incidental, for example some people have to die to protect the profits of health insurance companies, sometimes it's intentional, like a fraudulent make money fast seminar. But with few exceptions, ulterior motives are really quite bad.

'et al' is derived from the Latin for "and others"...so it does fit where he used it. Granted he didn't build a list, just used one example and then threw in 'et al'. Also, Wikipedia does list it as a synonym for 'etc'...

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/et_al

Slashdot summaries are frequently a bunch of opinions stated as if true, followed by pointless questions, submitted by people with a vested interest in the topic. Is this actual journalism, an opening for debate, or does this suggest another purpose?

Yes.

I'm thinking that this is a loaded question, due to the fact that the only link in the "summary" is on the text "Canonical more into serving their own interests".

Slashdot summaries are frequently a bunch of opinions stated as if true, followed by pointless questions, submitted by people with a vested interest in the topic. Is this actual journalism, an opening for debate, or does this suggest another purpose?

Define:confound

OSX. Apple's penultimate desktop operating system...

I'm confused. If OSX was their next-to-last desktop operating system, which one was their last? Have they released a new desktop OS?

Stocks (def: a device formerly used for public humiliation and punishment) != Stockades (def: an enclosure protected by a wall of wooden posts)

Stocks (def: a device formerly used for public humiliation and punishment) != Stockades (def: an enclosure protected by a wall of wooden posts)

No matter how much you disagree, he's right, democracy can never be tyranny, by their very definitions.

A tyranny is "a government in which a single ruler (a tyrant) has absolute power".

A democracy is "rule by the people, especially as a form of government; either directly or through elected representatives".

So it was a democratic decision to kill Socrates.

No matter how much you disagree, he's right, democracy can never be tyranny, by their very definitions.

A tyranny is "a government in which a single ruler (a tyrant) has absolute power".

A democracy is "rule by the people, especially as a form of government; either directly or through elected representatives".

So it was a democratic decision to kill Socrates.

Perpensity Propensity

I read UnXis as "unctuous":

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/unctuous

Adjective
unctuous
1. Oily or greasy.
2. Rich, lush, intense, with layers of concentrated, soft, velvety flavor.
3. Profusely polite, especially unpleasantly so and insincerely earnest.

It is perfectly valid for me to make myself a success and guarantee the success of my decedents.

Eh? How do you guarantee the success of somebody who's dead?

The investment in their factory to manufacture these machines will be more than the cost of a single unit.

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/profit
Look it up, it's a cool word.

``Orientate'' is considered perfectly correct in some dialects.

True, although the actual plural is indeed viruses. See http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/virus#Usage_notes

But just throwing around the vague concept of "open" without the real context doesn't help the discussion...

Open is just fine as a descriptive term. The problem is certain vested interests are engaged in an dishonest astroturfing campaign trying to subvert the definition so they can misapply it and trick people. In this case by making the decoder cheap and the encoder expensive so that consumers will not realize they are subsidizing it via higher cost products. They know full well that if people realize they are dealing with a proprietary standard they will try to avoid it.

Can I use H.264 as I please? No? Then it's not open, it's proprietary.

No matter how much some people try to spin it.

---

There are many corporate shills on social media sites like slashdot fraudulently misrepresenting company propaganda as objective third party opinion. Make these scums' life hell.

It is lose not loose. Why is it that so many people mix up these words?

In this case, it might well be accurate. If I loose (let loose, free from restraints, or even release my grip on) my smartphone, just like if I did the same with my wallet, I might very well be "forked".

Hopefully, thieves won't start grabbing phones out of our hands, but it's possible!

H.264 is an open, international standard.

What part of proprietary, owned by a cartel do you not understand?

H.264 is an open, international standard.

What part of proprietary, owned by a cartel do you not understand?

The headline reads as if KDE was interviewed on the topic of the Windows Release Manager Patrick Spendrin.

Which is perfectly expected. As of about a year ago, "KDE" means the KDE team, and "KDE Plasma Desktop" is its product. Where were you?

I'm convinced that the "higher" animals have feelings too, and deserve to not be tortured or slaughtered or bred in brutal ways. But don't pretend that they're people, because they're just not.

Well, obviously not, since since "people" is a plural for "human beings". This is a red herring.

"Person", according to Wiktionary,
is another word for "human being", too.

Wow, I thought rort and derivatives were generic English terms; global.

I would, however, expect rort to be decended from cockney rather than an obscure surname. In fact, a couple of online sources* suggest it is from an 19th century London term: rorty > "boisterous or rowdy, saucy, dissipated, or risqué".

Not sure where you came up with the political surname gig. Wait! Relying on presumptions will rort knowledge.

* yes there were more reputable sources, I just got bored.

> So wait...now I'm supposed to play with myself in public bathrooms?
Welcome to the wonderful world of Italian slang
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/sega

The two are the same. If you are without the belief that there is a theos, that is practically the same as the belief that there is no theos. And given that etymologies do not perfectly define a word, you are losing sight of the fact that in modern english, athiesm is an ism (to quote wikipedia, "a principle, belief or movement"). It is a lack of certain beliefs, but it also describes certain beliefs in and of itself-- it is an active, rather than passive rejection of theism.

I dont know what the fuss is about, unless it is discomfort at the idea that everyone has a belief system of their own, even if they would prefer to think of their own as mere rejection of all others. To say you believe nothing would imply that you reject even your own views, opinions, and ideologies.

Not everyone lives in the US or Canada...
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/spelt

Atheism is equally indefensible to Theism. The idea of a creator God is a question that, by definition, can neither be proven nor disproven.

In other words, if you want to be rational about it, then the only defensible position is agnosticism, not atheism. An agnostic wouldn't waste his time trying to prove to the religious that they're believing in a fantasy, because the acknowledge the possibility that the "fantasy" could be reality.

As I said previously, there's two conditions to the practice of your faith (or lack thereof) that matter to me:
1, that you're not harming anybody, and
2, that you recognize that you've made a conscious choice to believe something you can't prove.

I went further as to define evangelism as harmful, and on that point, you've failed both of my conditions. I don't give a shit what you believe. I'm not hurting you, I'm not foisting my beliefs on you, so what business do you have trying to foist yours on me? (for the record, I don't really care if Yahweh exists or not, because he doesn't play into the practice of my faith, which is much more earth-based, and focused on the interconnectedness of everything in the natural world. any gods, plural, that do exist are neither infallible nor omnipotent, and can only exert power over you if you let them. I also don't subscribe to a creation myth, preferring a cyclical universe)

Let's see, is the tendency of the term to diminish the value of Nigerians, or to indicate that the type of scam originated in Nigeria?

Do you honestly think that the term "Indian giver" started with the intent to diminish the value of Native Americans?

Yes. If Native Americans were seen as equals, they would have to be respected. If they were seen as inferiors, they could be conquered.

At THAT TIME the Europeans thought of them just as some race they can conquer.

Exactly. That was MY point.

Their propensity to offend them did not stem from a direct WANT to offend but from a default mindset of not treating them as equals -- they uttered the term not as an expletive to the Native Americans, but as a description to fellow Europeans.

Descriptions to fellow Europeans of a race they wanted to treat as lesser. Hence the attempt to diminish said race. I never said their primary concern was wanting to offend the Indians. I was only contesting your statement:

It is precisely the assumption that "no one is being offended" which led to widespread careless use of the term "Indian giver".

which is obviously full of shit because people who think they are so superior to another race that they have the right to conquer them don't refrain from using terminology that would offend said race. No `assumption that "no one is being offended"` was ever necessary for the term to become widespread because even if they knew with 100% certainty someone would be offended, they STILL WOULD USE THE TERM because they considered those people who would be offended to be lesser, as you yourself admit.

Also, for the sake of all who care about the English language, get a fucking dictionary and look up the word "expletive" before using it again.

It's both derogatory and based on false beliefs

So, then, who are you to judge that it is not derogatory to Nigerians to call any confidence tricks of that type as a "Nigerian" scam?

Who am I to judge? A human being in possession of the faculty of reason, that's who. Let's see, is the tendency of the term to diminish the value of Nigerians, or to indicate that the type of scam originated in Nigeria? If the former, it's derogatory. If the latter, it's not. This follows directly from the definition of derogatory.

It is precisely the assumption that "no one is being offended" which led to widespread careless use of the term "Indian giver".

No, I'm pretty sure everyone knew Indians would be offended and didn't care. In fact, historical evidence suggests the originators of the phrase intended it to be offensive, and intended to diminish American Indians by using the phrase. In using the term "Nigerian scam" I don't assume no one will be offended. If they're offended, that's their right. It doesn't change the point of using the phrase, which is to reference the origin of that type of scam, not to diminish Nigerians.

Also, as in your argument, calling this a "Nigerian scam" was already based on a false belief in THIS context -- i.e., it was really a Malaysian that was involved, not a Nigerian.

Calling this a Nigerian scam WAS NOT BASED ON THE BELIEF THAT A NIGERIAN WAS INVOLVED in this context. If that's not clear, I don't know how to get through to you people. The people calling this a Nigerian scam ALREADY KNEW this particular case was perpetrated BY MALAYSIANS and were using a FIGURE OF SPEECH that is already well-established. Formation of the term "Nigerian scam" was based on the TRUE BELIEF that widespread use of the scam originated in Nigeria, and use of that term to refer to the same type of scam originating in other countries is already common practice.

If your going too be pedantic, better you are in right!

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/couple
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/couple

Cheers!

Press (from Latin pressare -> French presser) first means "to press" or a device that presses. These are the basic meanings. Hence printing press (which presses). Only later is it extended to mean an abstract category of people.

• There is a word (or words) for describing a person or persons from an aspect of their paraphernalia (but I can't remember it at the moment). Suit means a suit of clothes; it has also come to mean people who wear them (the upper class/managers). Washington is the name of a city; it is also used to mean "US government". However, as pointed out in a different post, this usage for journalists only came about in the 20th century.
• It's true that there's a "the" there, but still doesn't necessarily make it a reference to a group of people. We say "the" rain. "Two in the hand" means "two in one's hand". "Handy with the stick" doesn't mean handy with (one, singular) stick; it means handy with one's own stick. "Freedom of the press" means "freedom of one's own press (printing device)".
• When people talk of the soap box, the ballot box, the jury box, and the ammo box, they're not talking about singular items (the ballot box), but rather the ability to use those items. Similarly, freedom of "the press" == freedom to use a press.
• The usage in "power of the purse" is identical to that of "freedom of the press". However, while only Congress has power of the purse, everyone has freedom of the press.

Here's why it matters: under your interpretation, the fullness of the 1st amendment is only granted to a special class. Many people think that's a bad idea. Under mine, every one has the right of the press.

Just a comment, and some trolling ftfys

Generally, I agree. I don't know what everybody is freaking out about over "privacy". Welcome to 2010. You don't have privacy anymore, and it's really not that big of a deal imho. "Privacy is a right" is a rediculous argument. Humans only have "rights" to whatever they imagine they have "rights" to. No law of nature is going to enforce your "rights".

I'm simply posting an emotional response based solely on the probably inaccurate summary.

This is Slashdot! 99% of all summaries are inaccurate. /. is similar to most other news media, except that there's even more pressure to pump out headlines to make geeks think they *need* to read.

I don't really care about privacy policies because I'm used to getting tracked all the time.

(verb) used to

I could'nt really care less

Wiktionary refers to a book classifying could care less as one of the Common Errors of English Usage

Just a comment, and some trolling ftfys

Generally, I agree. I don't know what everybody is freaking out about over "privacy". Welcome to 2010. You don't have privacy anymore, and it's really not that big of a deal imho. "Privacy is a right" is a rediculous argument. Humans only have "rights" to whatever they imagine they have "rights" to. No law of nature is going to enforce your "rights".

I'm simply posting an emotional response based solely on the probably inaccurate summary.

This is Slashdot! 99% of all summaries are inaccurate. /. is similar to most other news media, except that there's even more pressure to pump out headlines to make geeks think they *need* to read.

I don't really care about privacy policies because I'm used to getting tracked all the time.

(verb) used to

I could'nt really care less

Wiktionary refers to a book classifying could care less as one of the Common Errors of English Usage

The mistake they made was that they forgot (or didn't know how) to monetize the open source solutions they had. .

Ok, Pet Peeve time... "Monetize" does NOT mean 'make money out of something'

It is the act of creating currency - literally minting coins or printing notes or banknotes. It can also mean establishing a national currency.

There are hundreds of way to say "profit from", "make money from", "exploit financially", but pretty much one way to talk about monetizing currency.

So QUIT misusing "MONETIZE"!!!

And get off my lawn, dammit!

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/monetization