Slashdot Mirror

A lot of embedded systems will behave strangely if you feed them a lot of characters like this

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki...
http://www.unicode.org/cgi-bin...

That character is four bytes in UTF-8 which kills systems that assume a maximum of three - which used to be true for Chinese and Japanese, but isn't now.

It's also two UTF-16 code points, which will mess up systems that assume each character is a single code point.

Now you'll say "Those systems are all buggy". That's true now, but it wasn't true when a lot of them were designed - Unicode used to be limited to 64K characters which meant it was a fixed width encoding for UCS-2. And that three bytes was the maximum encoding for UTF-8.

When it grew those ceased to be true. Which is fine for systems that are maintained - the vendor would find bugs created by the standard change and push an update. Unfortunately a lot of systems - particularly embedded ones - aren't like that. Hell, Android isn't like that. Google push updates out to vendors but if your machine is EOL you're SOL.

Otherwise what are we to make of a "cotton picking machine?" Is it a machine that picks cotton (a cotton-picking machine) or a machine that picks and is made out of cotton (a cotton picking-machine?)

Neither. It is colloquial expression for a machine of little value, or located where it does not properly belong (although it should have a hyphen).

Graydon Hoare sounds like the SIGSEGVs he got from his crappy C++ code triggered him.

Then, in classic SJW form, he completely overreacted. And keeping with the SJW "thought" process, it wasn't his fault: a bad workman always blames his tools...

Rust is the intersectional racist victim-mongering language - we are all victims of RAAAACIST C and C++ - languages that allow you to think for yourself - and therefore you are responsible for your code.

Rust is the perfect SJW language - it tells you how to think and absolves you of any personal responsibility for your code.

You should choose your sources in life with greater care. Someone is using you.

• The Origins of the Net Neutrality Debate Telecommunications companies and their suppliers have been nursing dreams of tier pricing for years. July 8, 2006
• net neutrality - Etymology - Coined in 2003.

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki...

See https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki...

Arguably, Russia's involvement in the US elections was aimed at this goal, at least in part.

Except Russia didn't do shit last year. So many Americans have joined the Birthers in believing completely-fact free hysterics. Eating up the some of the worst propaganda ever created - with a spoon. This the part where some asshat quips something like "go back to RT, Boris" - except they are as wrong now as when they ran around in 2003 smearing Iraq war skeptics as Saddam Lovers.

It has long been Russia's intent to smear the "great experiement" that is the United States of America's democracy

No. It's been their intent to rebuff all the 'evil empire' crap by pointing out American Exceptionalists throw stones in glass houses. Course, you got so butthurt over it you created a word to start throwing out to deflect from the fact that not only does your shit stink, it stinks more.

You know, stuff like complaining about how the USSR "didn't respect human rights" while keeping Jim Crow going strong in the South. Stuff like complaining about how the USSR suppresses democracy, but how dare you mention the dozens of countries overthrown by the CIA. Whining about lives lost to communism while you're busy killing millions in Korea and Vietnam.

After all, if the United States - long champion of overthrowing democracy

Fixed that for you.

Yes.

And by other definitions, it means something else.

1. https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki...
2. http://www.dictionary.com/brow...

Hopefully that's gonna be postponed 'til I'm dead. As the Germans say, "hinter mir die Sintflut" (it loses a bit in translation, basically it means "for all I care, the deluge may follow when I'm gone"). Literally.

You do know that this is just the German translation of the well-known Louis XV quote "Après moi, le déluge", right?

(Wikipedia tells me that is probably better attributed to Madame de Pompadou: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki... )

If you assign a wolf to protect the chickens, you don't blame the wolf for eating the chickens.

Or a fox in sheep's clothing. :-)

Smiling (for those that don't know) because the sayings are actually:

• Fox guarding the henhouse
• Wolf in sheep's clothing.

Yes, for example "crypto-fascism" means a hidden affinity for fascism. "Cryptobiology" is hidden or secret biology.

"Cryptography" comes from the root words meaning "hidden writing" or "secret writing".

People are sloppy with words; the only thing that really matters is whether that they make themselves understood -- presuming there's enough meaning in their utterances to even raise that question. If you want to play the word-police card in response to the sloppy use of "crypto", the deck is stacked against you here by etymology.

What's an "imperial fiat"?

You could have looked that up, but instead chose to mock the other AC. Bad form.

Fiat is latin and means "let it be done" (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/fiat). It is commonly used to describe the way money is created these days ("fiat money"), so you might have heard it before. I hope I don't need to bring you up to speed on the word imperial. The other AC obviously thinks that the net neutrality regulation didn't come to be in a proper way befitting a democracy, but by an "emperor's" decree: imperial fiat. I didn't read the rest of your comment.

Eh, it'd be tricky to put in umlauts anyways; Slashdot doesn't do Unicode and generally doesn't play well with non-ASCII characters. "ueber" would be an old way of indicating the umlautted vowel; it's not used much any more. https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki...

> Queue the excuses and finger pointing. That is all.

Cue.

Let's not forget the failed literary critic. Stupid does as stupid do.

P.S., Asshole, I'm not Chris.

Sure, Chris. Your crammar totally doesn't give you away.

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki...

No, "per se".

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki...

Kafkatrapping

Totally, completely wrong. "Jargon" is a pejorative word used by people who don't know what they're talking about.

A better phrasing would be: Terms-of-art, which are simply words used as abbreviations for other basic concepts. They are used because repeating the basic concept phrases over-and-over again would be so repetitive, so long winded, and take up so much time, that no one would have the endurance to ever get to the end of whatever they're reading/ writing/ speaking/ listening about.

All the other points you mentioned are bullshit; a stupid person's fantasy about what smart people are doing.

The DOJ has not recognized that this is their chickens coming home to roost. In other words, due to their past abuse of trust, we're technically removing their ability to abuse our trust. To complain about the backlash without recognizing why its happening is just short sighted, but not unexpected of a bureaucrat.

POTUS is simply the head of the executive branch of the federal government, that is the chief bureaucrat.

Nope. The actions of George Washington, John Adams, and Thomas Jefferson alone will tell you otherwise, not to mention Madison, Monroe, Jackson, and especially Lincoln.

Who himself was denounced as a warmonger and a tyrant, mysteriously by those who sought to preserve the vile institution of slavery and oppression.

And the federal government was supposed to have very limited powers (mostly defense, interstate commerce).

Also untrue, the Federal government was never as limited as people like you seek to implore, but even if it had been, that has become untrue, as its role has been changed through the express actions to change the Constitution.

In fact, I think you'll find that throughout the history of this country, it has been Federal inaction that has caused much more harm, not Federal action.

If you were capable of opening your eyes to admit it, anyway.

The idea of POTUS as a "leader" and visionary came out of 20th century progressive and fascist movements; it's no accident that "leader" translates to "Fuhrer" in Germany and "Duce" in Italian.

Oh man, man, man, you're relying on that?

Better check President out.

Oh oh, maybe the Founding Fathers were time-traveling 20th Century Progressive Fascists! That explains why you're wrong about so much!

In that sentence, you pretty much sum up the basic ideology of fascism and the justification for the Enabling Act. It's utterly reprehensible that anybody would actually still advocate that crap half a century after WWII.

In that sentence, you pretty much rely entirely upon an ignorance of history and leadership, including the ones like Churchill, FDR, and DeGaulle who were esteemed during WW2. Not to mention persons like Eisenhower, Kennedy, and dare I say it? Your purported hero of Reagan himself. The one you nominated for sainthood based on his inspired leadership and grace.

Which just goes to show how false your argument is, you're just a hypocrite.

It'd be one thing if you mentioned the perils of leadership, the cult of personality, the seduction of the demagogue, but instead you try to behave as if the mere existence of such was wrong, treating a weapon, not as a tool, but as an anathema.

Interesting that.

Do you think we're all fools, doctorvo, do you despise and hate us so much that you make such disingenuous arguments, or are you just such a fool yourself that you don't realize what you are saying?

Do you maybe mean bupkis? Unless you're talking about another sex fantasy fulfilled for Trump over there...

https://en.oxforddictionaries.... of squick
Cause (someone) to feel intense disgust

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki...
Seemingly phonaesthetic, formed of squ- as in squirm and -ick as in ick. Originated in the Usenet newsgroup alt.sex.bondage; popularized primarily in the newsgroup alt.tasteless.

Being curious, I decided to check this out, and I found nothing to suggest that "bête" was even a common synonym for penis, much less the original meaning.

Wiktionary, which you cite for your examples, says the same thing as the GP: Borrowed from French bête noire (literally "black beast"). Nothing about penises.

Unless you have a source I somehow missed, I conclude "bête means penis" is 100% bullshit.

You were probably taught Modern French, not Old French, in high school. We're talking about Old French here, because we're discussing the etymology of the phrase "bete noire".

Since we're looking at the origin of the phrase, and it's an ancient phrase, we need to look to the meaning of the word "bete" in Old French, and not its meaning in Modern French.

There are similar situations involving words derived from Old English where the earlier definition differs from the more common Modern English definition, and often in ways that we wouldn't expect.

For example, the Modern English word "weapon" is derived from an Old English word that meant "penis".

Another example is the Modern English word "tweezers". It's also derived from an old English word that meant "penis".

English is a fascinating language, especially when it comes to how it has borrowed from so many other languages. French is also fascinating, although it doesn't derive as many words from non-Latin sources. Both exhibit many modern words that have very unexpected original meanings.

Many words that are seen as innocent today were originally used to describe very primal things or actions such as the penis, the anus, intercourse, defecation, and so forth.

You were probably taught Modern French, not Old French, in high school. We're talking about Old French here, because we're discussing the etymology of the phrase "bete noire".

Since we're looking at the origin of the phrase, and it's an ancient phrase, we need to look to the meaning of the word "bete" in Old French, and not its meaning in Modern French.

There are similar situations involving words derived from Old English where the earlier definition differs from the more common Modern English definition, and often in ways that we wouldn't expect.

For example, the Modern English word "weapon" is derived from an Old English word that meant "penis".

Another example is the Modern English word "tweezers". It's also derived from an old English word that meant "penis".

English is a fascinating language, especially when it comes to how it has borrowed from so many other languages. French is also fascinating, although it doesn't derive as many words from non-Latin sources. Both exhibit many modern words that have very unexpected original meanings.

Many words that are seen as innocent today were originally used to describe very primal things or actions such as the penis, the anus, intercourse, defecation, and so forth.

Unemployment is down, GDP is up, stock market hitting highs.

Naw, the only people slitting their own throats are the piss bottlers who thought a self-shitting side o' beef that had no platform was the answer to everything.

And guess what, you're not getting jack shit of the GDP increase. You're getting fucked in the ass and too stupid to know it.

In 1945 in Berlin while Der Fuhrer was safe inside his bunker and the German industrialists that profited were quickly working behind the scenes to avoid having their money in Switzerland confiscated by getting friendly again with their American counterparts, the effects of Toxoplasma gondii had lessened to a very great extent. Thus came the German term Dachkaninchen used for the equivalent of what was derided originally by Hitlers press about the British during the years they stood alone against the Nazis.

It seems that even though the gdp of the US and Canada is up and the 1% is quickly becoming the .5% even as the numbers of homelessness and food price inflation is out of control, the facts are that there are still vast untaped food resources left in the US for the poor. As and example I give you the traveling homeless that come and go in our cities, a fair number of them travel with dogs. This is very smart because if you cannot get welfare then you have a handy piece of meat right there with you. Same with little old ladies who keep a pile of cats, when they can't afford to eat cat food as many seniors are forced to do then there is always the Dachkaninchen (roof rabbits) to fall back on if worst comes to worst. NOW THIS IS AN IGNORANT shit of a post!!!! At least according to my cats. MEOW

They had very narrow definitions of the terms. Just look at any modern dictionary, and you will understand that you are (and they were) wrong.

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki...
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki...

They had very narrow definitions of the terms. Just look at any modern dictionary, and you will understand that you are (and they were) wrong.

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki...
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki...

If you wanted to make a bundle as a climate scientist, you'd find credible proof that anthropogenic climate change isn't happening.

Except that nobody ever made money saying "everything is all right, nothing to see here". To make money, real money, you need an emergency, an incoming cataclysm, a "the end of the world is nigh" coupled with "and I am one of the few that can do something about it... for a proper compensation, of course".

• https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/whataboutery
• don't talk to this guy about his stupid dead cat

eh, just restrict yourself to Simplified Technical English or basic English when writing your manifesto, and be sure to randomize both sentence length and word choices.

Depending on how you apply it, it might be mayhem or feeding a troll (Hinkely is an old word for chicken)

A. No succinct questions, no succinct answers.

B. The single definition here : http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/...

Doesn't even mention the ingested material to be a meaning of "homeopathy".

C. This might help : the very fact that there *is* no substance is one of the things to understand when discussiing homeopathic medicine.

D. I don't think you understand how language, communication and words work. Evidence

1. Your initial claim about words not meaning what they are widely considered to mean.

2. Your initial claim and my reaction being about homeopathic medicine, but a lot of your subsequent discussion being about homeopathy.

3. Wrongly interpreting me to be saying voodoo magic works, multiple times.

4. Your incorrect uses of phrases like "homeopathic substances" and "adding placebo effect" could be a language problem, language theory problem, or lack of clarity on the subject matter. But they are the reasons i don't dabble into the worse ones among your analogies.

5. Your lack of follow up on my further questions on your definition of characteristic even after a reminder could mean you don't understand that within a single dictionary meaning there could be ways in which a word has a meaning in a particular context. Or it could mean you don't care, not sure.

5a. In this post again you pretend to have given a complete definition of characteristic, so my guess is more about your ignorance of subtleties.

Yes, English, Romance languages, Germanic languages have subtle connotation differences. So people might think they know multiple of these languages and yet get tripped up on these subtleties. But completely ignoring the existence of these subtleties after my multiple attempts to highlight them disqualifies you from 2 things :

1. Making claims about what autopilot means
2. My participation in your faulty parables, after i highlight the fault in the parables.

Some of my best friends don't understand how language works. I don't broach the subject with them, but i do answer their questions on related subjects without much hope of getting through.

"Finally you have beaten the dictionary, congratulations : https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki... [wiktionary.org]."

Thanks.

"Maybe, but since nobody around us is saying "voodoo magic works", you are distracting from the topic to avoid having to concede the point."

Again, you're doing it. You did say homeopathy works. Since voodoo is the analogy used for homeopathy, then the claim is 'voodoo works'. If you say voodoo does not work, and thus homeopathy doesn't work, we're at the end of the discussion, because I agree. That other people mistakingly think voodoo, homeopathy, toothfairy-magic , astrology, telepathy, etc. work, is not my problem and doesn't make it true (in the sense of being scientifically substantiated).

"2 points :
A. In many homeopathic medicines, there is no "homeopathic substance"."

No, there is ALWAYS a homeopathic substance. That that substance is completely inert (water) and does not contain 1 molecule on millions of liters of water, is exactly why it doesn't work. I've already given you the definition of homeopathy; it's the principle of diluting something which has similar symptoms as the disease to such a degree that nothing remains, but the water 'remembers' it by the constant shaking of it. ALL that follow that treatment is homeopathic.

"B. I am not quite grasping who knows what. One knows one thing, and "you" know another thing. How can "you" derive something from the two things without knowing what "one" knows ?"

Again; word games. You understand perfectly fine, you're just acting up. If you're confused by the 'one' and 'you', transfer everything into 'one', and that will make it clear to you, if you're going to whine about such things. Pretending you got 'lost' because of the 'you' and 'one' is pretty weak, dude. You (yes, you) know as well as I what is meant. Next you're going to whine and complain about spelling-mistakes and grammar too, no doubt, to strengthen your case?

"If your comfort in some other language is better , could you also add an explanation in that language?"

Not add, but sure, let's speak Dutch, then. But don't complain afterwards.

"Seriously ? Add ?"

You don't think adding color to pills isn't adding something?

"Please quote me saying this."

"An air conditioner created for voodoo purposes works exactly as an air conditioner created for cooling one's living room"

Let me guess. You're now going to say: ah, but I said FOR voodoo purposes, not BY voodoo purposes? In that case, your analogy makes no sense at all. A placebo effect isn't made FOR homeopathy. At all. Nor is homeopathy made FOR the placebo effect. the placebo effect is irrespective of homeopathy, as I have said numerous times by now.

This constant weasel-wording is getting on my nerves. Let's be VERY clear and succinct about this:

1)Do you think homeopathy works, yes or no?
2)Do you think the placebo effect works, yes or no?
3)Do you agree they are distinct and one is not characteristic of the other and vice versa?
4)Do you think that, if the difference between receiving nothing and receiving a homeopathic treatment show no difference in effect, while if one adds a placebo effect (like coloring the pills) shows an equal difference in effect as with something which is not homeopathic at all, it means that homeopathy has no effect, and the effect is purely due to the placebo effect?

you *are* being beligrant here

Finally you have beaten the dictionary, congratulations : https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki....

The point is that saying voodoo magic works (thus, in the analogy: homeopathy works) is demonstrably false.

Maybe, but since nobody around us is saying "voodoo magic works", you are distracting from the topic to avoid having to concede the point.

since YOU seem to conflate the two when talking about what works and doesn't work

Why don't you quote my statement where I "conflate the two" ?

It stands to reason that, if one knows the effect of a placebo, and you know the effect of a non-homeopathic substance, you can also derive the effectiveness of the homeopathic substance on itself

2 points :
A. In many homeopathic medicines, there is no "homeopathic substance".

B. I am not quite grasping who knows what. One knows one thing, and "you" know another thing. How can "you" derive something from the two things without knowing what "one" knows ?

If your comfort in some other language is better , could you also add an explanation in that language? I'll try Google translate along with your English to make sense, in case that language is also beyond me.

Or do you not understand the placebo effect? The way you keep talking about homeopathic medicine without placebo effect, one would think you have no clue what placebo effect means. Another instance raising suspicion of your ignorance of placebo effect is your statement from an earlier post "If you add a placebo effect to a homeopathic preparation".

Seriously ? Add ?

Similarly, you do NOT have to remove the placebo effect from the world to show what effect it has. It is sufficient that you can quantify the effect and the level of it, to determine what an additional substance (homeopathy) adds to it

Again, "additional substance" implies two things :
1. You think placebo effect is a substance ?
2. Homeopathy must be a substance ? Homeopathic medicine frequently is not a substance.

Then you say an air conditioner works even if one says it's due to voodoo magic

Please quote me saying this. I really want to meet this "one" guy of yours, he (or is it a she ?) is quite mysterious.

So claiming voodoo magic works is false.

Glad we can agree on something. Now why it is relevant, I have no clue, but hey! Look on the bright side !

Yes, I'm well aware of the etymology thank you. The sense meaning "equipped" stems from that same etymology, branching off from the more direct sense that survives to us today, by way of sense 3 here, "To adjust to a particular specification or requirement".

Except that in the interpretation of laws you use the common, ordinary meaning of a word. You don't stretch out to cherry-pick some uncommon usage. Definitions one and two in the site you link are the common usage now, and were also the common usage in the 18th century:
Regulate:
To dictate policy.
To control or direct according to rule, principle, or law.

Yes, I'm well aware of the etymology thank you. The sense meaning "equipped" stems from that same etymology, branching off from the more direct sense that survives to us today, by way of sense 3 here, "To adjust to a particular specification or requirement". Regulated soldiers are (were) those with the required equipment.

Compare also the term "regular army", which does not mean a common, typical, or average army, or an army obeying laws (per the etymology of "regular"), but a standing army ready to go with everything that it needs.

Also perhaps more illustratively, compare "ordnance", which explicitly means only military equipment, weapons and ammunition, and comes from the root "ordo-" which also means both pertaining to rules (as in "ordinances", laws, and "order") and "in a line" (as in the "ordinal" numbers), and is also the root of a synonym for "regular" in the most common sense today, "ordinary". It's also closely related to "ortho-", which has both normative ("orthodox" = "correct belief") and geometric ("orthogonal" = "at a right angle") senses. ("Correct" and "right" both stem from the same "reg-" root, BTW).

FWIW the root "norm-" also shares a similar pattern: normal as in at a right angle (a la surface normals), normal as in regular or ordinary (common, typical, or average), and norms as in rules (a la "normative"). I'm not aware of a sense of "norm-" that came to mean "military equipment", though.

imbed: "Alternative spelling of embed".

I see what you did there.

Try under g for gibberish. Then look up yourself: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki...

I have nothing to do with politics. I really like eagles, herons, etc. More correctly I like to watch them to soar above a city where I live.

It is not only extremely beautiful, but it is also like canary in a coal mine https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki... . It means the air is clean, there are enough of trees in parks, and we are doing well.

I do not fancy a world of only rich people, rats, and cockroaches left.

I'm not old enough to remember the 70s, but I am old enough to remember science books, articles, videos etc. referencing such science from the 70s.

I am old enough to remember the 70s. There was no controversy over the greenhouse effect then. It was well understood (having already been known for most of a century), and nobody doubted that if we added greenhouse gasses to the atmosphere, the temperature would warm according to theory. This was most evident in astronomy classes, where the greenhouse effect was taught usually with a textbook that concluded with a paragraph saying "by burning fossil fuels we are adding carbon dioxide to the Earth's atmosphere, and if we burn enough fossil fuels, this effect may be large enough to measure by the late 20th century." (Which is what my astronomy text said.)

There was absolutely a "new ice age" idea/theory that was given broad consideration and even acceptance.

No, there wasn't. There was the occasional pop science article, almost always ending with a question mark. Betteridge's law of headlines applied.

It's saltier than pork. More like dachhase.

But I'm wondering about the authors of the article if they jump from "not due to calories" to a conclusion that it must have been ritualistic. Why not taste?

Most languages come with masculine/feminine baggage. In French, you have to magically know that a book is masculine and a shirt is feminine. In English, things don't have a sex ("the" / "it" / "that"), but the right answer for the prom example is technically, "what is he wearing?". That's what it is in the English language.

So, IMO, this is a proposal to change a rule. If we're changing the language, I'd prefer not to overload and muddy the definition of the perfectly good pronouns "they", "their", "them", etc. That's why I asked what would be appropriate for that example. As you noted, it could be "is he", "is she", or "is it". IMO, none of those hit the mark (assuming the goal is to remove the masculine preferred). This is why we need a new series of words (ex. https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki..., or https://genderneutralpronoun.w...). Bastardizing the use of "they" is broken, but I guess that fits with all the rest of the "rules" of the this language... no point in being logical now :-)

Crashmarik's post simply said that cadmium contamination is a thing we need to be weary of.

Wary.

Crashmarik is the thing we need to be weary of.

The word is derived from the Slavic language root meaning "work" or "worker", and strongly suggests that a robot is to some extent intechangeable with human workers.

Did you not see "The World's End"? A running joke in the movie is that antagonists are not robots as robot means slave ("... and believe me, they are not slaves").

The word is derived from the Slavic word "robota", which could mean "forced worker" (peasants "obligated to compulsory service" under feudalism, see Robot Patent) or slave.

Corporate ethics (n): A common example of an oxymoron

The supreme irony is that "job" used to mean a form of employment that was exactly that. Perhaps it's merely cyclical.

Kluge vs Kludge:

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki...

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/performant

Yeah, I tried putting a giant rubber sheath over my monitor too, but apparently that doesn't stop you from getting an infection when you cyber. I feel his pain.

I thought sexual education in the US was all about abstinence, never mind the resulting teen pregnancy rates. That rubber thingie sounds like some European socialist hippie plot.