Slashdot Mirror

I think GP could be considered correct. http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/facetious

Heh, see: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/poxy

Ah abusive language is the last resort of someone with little left to say. Right. Making abusive generalizations about 300 million people sounds a lot like bigotry. Also, rude comments about belief systems that most people (on the planet)subscribe to is intolerant and prejudiced. I look forward to reading your future nuggets of "truth" and wisdom. Also, here is a link that might be helpful: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/bigotry.

I moved mine to channel 11, a non-interfering channel, and wah-lah, performance problem solved.

It's voilà, damnit!

You should have talked to the administrator instead....they are hard to kill to enforce policy. Had I been the admin at your place of work, you would have gotten LARTed real bad.

That being said, I agree with you for other reasons.

I was an admin on a place with symantec corporate as the local antivirus. For some stupid reason it would also target "hack tools" and delete them. Being an admin, those "hack tools" are the tools of my trade, and that dumb piece of software would delete them as soon as I unpacked them.

The worst thing was that they had recently "enhanced" the control panel by adding groups. That meant that it was impossible to issue commands or policies to individual workstations, only groups. Basically, I ended all by myself in a group, with special privileges to disable my antivirus client (being the BOFH has its advantages). That is, until I installed SuSE 10, when the antivirus in my workstation got mothballed with the rest of the windows partition.

I don't hate America per se. I hate mankind in general.
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/misanthrope

wiktionary disagrees

It's a verb too:

to treble (third-person singular simple present trebles, present participle trebling, simple past and past participle trebled)

1. (transitive) To multiply by three; to make into three parts, layers, or thrice the amount.
2. (intransitive) To make a shrill or high-pitched noise.
3. (intransitive) To become multiplied by three or increased threefold.

From: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/treble

I would refer you and anyone else here:

http://simple.wiktionary.org/wiki/open

Part of the definition there includes the phrase "not closed", and I don't see anything but reinforcement for the fact that open means what it sounds like, it doesn't have anything at all to do with implied conditions or rights.

Wiki has list. But it's disappointingly short (even if you go to the creative extras list). Perhaps you could devote some of your spare time to updating it!

Wiki has list. But it's disappointingly short (even if you go to the creative extras list). Perhaps you could devote some of your spare time to updating it!

Didn't have time to read your odd FanFic

If you haven't heard of BOFH, then you're not a true geek, you're just a pretender dilettante.

I am so far from "shovelling" that your remark is amusing, but I am saddened to see you are still as fanatically rude as ever, especially considering the rather innocuous content of my earlier reply. Here's a clue: you're doing it wrong.

It's called ravioli code

Badmouth, v.: 1. (informal) To criticize or malign, especially unfairly or spitefully.

Criticize, v.: 1. to evaluate (something), and judge its merits and faults
2. to find fault (with something)

When I say I don't think that it's right to badmouth him, I mean that I don't think one ought to insult or deride him. Point out why we should be against his agenda, yes, but not attack his person or spew hatred and vitriol.

It's that kind of thing that made me equate any criticism of President Bush with "Huh huh, look how he messes up words so much."

Badmouth, v.: 1. (informal) To criticize or malign, especially unfairly or spitefully.

Criticize, v.: 1. to evaluate (something), and judge its merits and faults
2. to find fault (with something)

When I say I don't think that it's right to badmouth him, I mean that I don't think one ought to insult or deride him. Point out why we should be against his agenda, yes, but not attack his person or spew hatred and vitriol.

It's that kind of thing that made me equate any criticism of President Bush with "Huh huh, look how he messes up words so much."

Here's a better link:
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/just_deserts

"Middle English originating from the old French 'deserte' meaning 'to deserve'. This in turn is from the Latin 'deservire' which in Vulgar Latin means 'to gain or merit by giving service'."

I can't offer any definitive sources, but from what I've read cannibals claimed that human flesh tasted much more like pork, and the term long pork has been used to refer to it at times.

Look it up in any dictionary. They will tell you that the pronunciation is either. I just explained how I, and how I have observed others I know, make use of each pronunciation.

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/route
http://www.answers.com/route
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/route

Wiktionary, and my Australian Oxford English Dictionary (paperback edition), list "root" as the official pronunciation in Australia. It seems that the the "rowt" pronunciation may originally have been an Americanism.

Airwalls are great!

Unless there's a wireless network...

http://dict.leo.org/ende?lp=ende&lang=de&searchLoc=0&cmpType=relaxed&sectHdr=on&spellToler=on&search=panzer&relink=on

Und für Deutsche:
http://de.wiktionary.org/wiki/Panzer
"Beispiele: [1] Durch ihren Panzer sind die Gürteltiere gut vor Feinden geschützt."

For all non-German speakers: Parent is wrong, his parent is right.

Well, time to add another to the list.

Remember, if you want to be a scientist, you just have to be smart. If you want to be a well-known-until-the-end-of-time scientist, you have to be smart and suffer from at least a little megalomania (see the war of currents or Einstein's failure to accept quantum theory).

I'm still shocked fewer people don't realize Leibniz beat Newton to Calculus. Oh well, great disputes make for great reading.

Oh well, one could spend countless hours recalling the great debates of science, it's a shame that some of them are about who's name goes in the history books. Strangely, ingenuity & legacy complexes seem to go hand in hand. I'm saddened to think that there may be others buried in history by ultra competitive researchers.

It's arguable (as are all things regarding religion http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/religion#Usage_notes ), but everyone has a religion. (Religion as in a person's believe _regarding_, not necessarily in, deities.)

Weak Atheist: I see no evidence to support that proposition; I don't believe you.

Strong Atheist: God does not exist.

Weak Atheist: That seems reasonable, but since you're making a positive statement to that effect I expect that you have irrefutable evidence or at least a rigorous proof of that?

Strong Atheist: Well...

Weak Atheist: I'm sorry, but I don't believe you either.

Spot the person who has no religion.

I am consistently amazed by the rights that people, particularly Americans since this is where I reside, think they have. It used to amuse me. Then it saddened me. Now it frightens me to see the "false rights" that people want defended. They include, but certainly are not limited to:
1. Freedom from being offended.
- I've actually heard people who think that offending a person audibly is equally punishable as assaulting a person physically. When I tried to argue this idea, they kept yelling "It's the same thing. It's the same thing. It's the same F---ing thing."
2. Freedom _from_, not _of_, religion.
- It's arguable (as are all things regarding religion http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/religion#Usage_notes ), but everyone has a religion. (Religion as in a person's believe _regarding_, not necessarily in, deities.) So, just because you are an atheist, you don't have a right to total isolation from religion. Although I sympathize at how annoyed you must be.
3. Constitutional right to vote.
- This was even spoke of recently by Barack Obama. I'm disturbed to see how many people think the U.S. Constitution affords them a right to vote. The truth is, the Federal Government only restricts the criteria that can be used for denying a person the privilege of voting. Your state's constitution may protect additional rights, but that is rarely ever spoken of. I think that it would increase voter turn out if we properly described voting as a privilege instead of a right.
4. The right to drive an automobile.
- This is certainly a privilege, not a right. It is also a privilege that is too freely granted, and too infrequently denied or revoked.

Please feel free to contribute to the list. I guess you have the _right_ to argue with it too, but why would you want to? ;-)

Ever heard of yak shaving?

WWWWW.

Of course, I had to look it up. It's a shortened version of "god speed you".

• Cars don't kill people, people kill people!
• Buy your friends from the comfort of your sofa!
• Once I was afraid of dying, nowadays I am afraid of living!
• We create your children!
• A car! A car! My kingdom for a car!
• Society v2.1: You ARE the contents of your wallet!
• Better 1 government in the air than no air!
• Your health is important to us, pay up to get more increased life-benefits!
• Please fill in form 432B for that, but to get it you will need to fill in form 213B which requires form 432B, have a nice day!
• We (c)(r)eate you(r) mental atmosphe(r)e!
• Who watches the watchers who are watching them?
• Get fast rich at the expense of a life, buy now in packs of 12, get 1 free!

Perhaps a good approach is something that seems to have already started. To use some current jargon, they could "refactor" wikipedia.org into a series of differently-named sites to cover topics that aren't "encyclopedic", but to some people are worth keeping around.

For example, the Pokemon and World of Warcraft articles, mentioned by others as obviously not appropriate. But to a cultural historian, they are well worth saving. Just not in a general encyclopedia. Instead of deleting the articles that some people put a bunch of time into, why not work closely with the people interested in such things, and move their articles onto another server with another name? Wikipedia itself could have some summary pages on the topics, with links to the other sites.

I've been making a lot of use of one of them that exists: wiktionary.org. Now, it's quite obvious that documenting every obscure word in every obscure language is utterly inappropriate for wikipedia, or any other encyclopedia for that matter. Traditionally, a books that does that is called "dictionary", not "encyclopedia". Wiktionary is an interesting take on this idea, organized as one big interlocking dictionary of all the world's languages.

It's pretty clear that wiktionary is the start of something very useful (though it's rather incomplete and in need of a lot of help from a lot of people). It's also clear that its material doesn't belong in wikipedia, except maybe for a few summary articles. There's also a lot of cross-linking between wikipedia and wiktionary. So I'd list this as a successful case of splitting off a significant chunk of human knowledge, kicking it out of wikipedia, and reorganizing it as a successful wiki in its own right.

As an amusing example of wiktionary's usefulness, a few weeks ago I noticed an apparent anomaly in the use of a 2-char Chinese word that I probably can't include here, but it's pronounced ai4ren2 in Mandarin and aijin in Japanese. Using the classical characters, wiktionary has an article giving the Japanese, Mandarin (and Min Nan) meanings of the word. They show two rather different interpretations of the characters whose basic meanings are "love" and "person". This could be a nice example of how a single writing system doesn't always make it possible for people who speak different languages to communicate in writing. In this case, they just might miscommunicate some significant information. You won't often find this problem mentioned in a typical single-language dictionary, but wiktionary's format makes for easy comparison of such borrowings.

Rather than just deleting articles from wikipedia because they're not "notable" (whatever the hell that might mean to the deleter), we could cool down the fuss by saying that they're more information on the topic than is appropriate for wikipedia, and should be moved to wikiX, for some appropriate X.

Of course, sometimes the classification is a bit fuzzy. Consider, for example, the word "truthiness", which has good articles in both wikipedia and wiktionary. Each article is (at least for the present) well written for its site. In particular, the wiktionary article gives 19th-century citations for the word's use, and also goes into its etymology, appropriately for a dictionary site. OTOH, the wikipedia article is nearly as funny as Colbert's introduction of the word, and includes links to related topics such as "big lie", "noble lie", and "consensus reality".

It's a pretty good example of how to handle a borderline case.

Perhaps a good approach is something that seems to have already started. To use some current jargon, they could "refactor" wikipedia.org into a series of differently-named sites to cover topics that aren't "encyclopedic", but to some people are worth keeping around.

For example, the Pokemon and World of Warcraft articles, mentioned by others as obviously not appropriate. But to a cultural historian, they are well worth saving. Just not in a general encyclopedia. Instead of deleting the articles that some people put a bunch of time into, why not work closely with the people interested in such things, and move their articles onto another server with another name? Wikipedia itself could have some summary pages on the topics, with links to the other sites.

I've been making a lot of use of one of them that exists: wiktionary.org. Now, it's quite obvious that documenting every obscure word in every obscure language is utterly inappropriate for wikipedia, or any other encyclopedia for that matter. Traditionally, a books that does that is called "dictionary", not "encyclopedia". Wiktionary is an interesting take on this idea, organized as one big interlocking dictionary of all the world's languages.

It's pretty clear that wiktionary is the start of something very useful (though it's rather incomplete and in need of a lot of help from a lot of people). It's also clear that its material doesn't belong in wikipedia, except maybe for a few summary articles. There's also a lot of cross-linking between wikipedia and wiktionary. So I'd list this as a successful case of splitting off a significant chunk of human knowledge, kicking it out of wikipedia, and reorganizing it as a successful wiki in its own right.

As an amusing example of wiktionary's usefulness, a few weeks ago I noticed an apparent anomaly in the use of a 2-char Chinese word that I probably can't include here, but it's pronounced ai4ren2 in Mandarin and aijin in Japanese. Using the classical characters, wiktionary has an article giving the Japanese, Mandarin (and Min Nan) meanings of the word. They show two rather different interpretations of the characters whose basic meanings are "love" and "person". This could be a nice example of how a single writing system doesn't always make it possible for people who speak different languages to communicate in writing. In this case, they just might miscommunicate some significant information. You won't often find this problem mentioned in a typical single-language dictionary, but wiktionary's format makes for easy comparison of such borrowings.

Rather than just deleting articles from wikipedia because they're not "notable" (whatever the hell that might mean to the deleter), we could cool down the fuss by saying that they're more information on the topic than is appropriate for wikipedia, and should be moved to wikiX, for some appropriate X.

Of course, sometimes the classification is a bit fuzzy. Consider, for example, the word "truthiness", which has good articles in both wikipedia and wiktionary. Each article is (at least for the present) well written for its site. In particular, the wiktionary article gives 19th-century citations for the word's use, and also goes into its etymology, appropriately for a dictionary site. OTOH, the wikipedia article is nearly as funny as Colbert's introduction of the word, and includes links to related topics such as "big lie", "noble lie", and "consensus reality".

It's a pretty good example of how to handle a borderline case.

1. To give a name or title to.
2. To furnish with a right or claim to something: The coupon entitles the bearer to a 25 percent savings. Every citizen is entitled to equal protection under the law.

1. give a title to
2. give a title to someone; make someone a member of the nobility
3. give the right to

1. To give a title to; to dignify by an honorary designation.
2. To bestow the right to do (to own, to demand, or to receive) something, to someone.
3. To give a title to a book, film, play, etc.

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

assignation: An appointment for a meeting, generally of a romantic or sexual nature. Modern usage confines the word to mean an agreed-upon place for illicit sex.

No, it's actually 'fluffer'.

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

Uh.. yeah sure http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/validify

http://s8.invisionfree.com/weaselwords/ar/t167.htm

Pretty common usage *shrug*

and Jafiwam for injecting some sense into the thread.

I eat gimchi, and I like it, a LOT. I used to like the sweetened version, but after being unable to find it in restaurants in SF/Bay Area (outside of Ran Du, in Stockton, CA, run by a Chinese woman who grew up in Korea), I had to accept the more sour/pungent variety. Now, when I eat my Shin Ramyun, I sometimes put in several spoonsful of gimchi and the spicy tofu or spicy soybean and an egg.

I don't often burp or fart from eating gimchi. If the astronauts eat enough of it prior to blastoff (no pun intended) their systems might acclimate to mitigate expulsion of gas. Probably some antacid, or Mountain Tea (Greek OR Chinese varieties) might soothe the acidic effects and affects.

I suspect many of the "funny" comments here come from those who hardly eat or never tried gimchi. In a pinch, or on a regular diet, gimchi is a massive helluva lot better and more nutritious than most of the chemically treated garbage in our US diet. I'll stake my health on that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kimchi

I wonder if natto has been to space yet, but:

http://www.japanfile.com/modules/smartsection/item.php?itemid=462

"The natto bean is a nutritional dynamo. For every 100 grams consumed, you are filling your body with 16.5 g of protein, 10.0 g of fats, 9.8 g of sugar, 2.3 g of fiber, and 1.9 g of ash for a total of 2,000 kilocalories. To say nothing of the host of vitamins and minerals you are getting: 0.07 milligrams of B1, 0.56 mg of B2, 1.1 mg of niacin, 90 mg of calcium, 190 mg of phosphorous, 3.3 mg of iron, 2 mg of sodium, 660 mg of potassium, and absolutely no cholesterol. There is more. Natto contains all eight of the necessary amino acids not produced by the human body as well as essential fatty acids like linoleic acid and enzymes that aid digestion. All of this has earned natto the respectful moniker of hatake no niku (field meat)."

More at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natto

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

A Japanese friend introduced me to natto, and he sorta smugly (or I mistook his voice or facial expression) suggested that I won't be able to eat it. I asked if it were meat or some vegetable. He again stated he thought I would not be able to eat it. So, he nuked it, and I ate it with the mustard and soy sauce, and he went "Hmmph", smiled, and was pleased.

However, I would not recommend fry-heating natto on a domed/covered skillet -- unless you don't mind the "aroma" nearly-instantly permeating EVERY garment or cloth in your home or apartment. Well, if you want to offend or seek revenge, then steam/fry or steam-nuke a few small servings. You'll wake up your neighbors in the building...

Gimchi AND natto should should be fast-tracked not only for spacefarer consumption, but also for consumption in more restaurants.

This entire list is bunk. Look at some of the skills that are not obsolete (like the assembly discussion above, using a compass, map reading, writing a check, spelling, etc). The editorial action on that list is apparently MIA. They do list some of the skills as "not completely obsolete", but a huge number of skill don't belong on that list at all. Just because the authors don't possess that skill (or the basic ability to understand when it would be used) doesn't mean it's not very relevant to society today. The skills just may not be practiced as broadly as they once were.
Perhaps the site author thinks the skill to look up the meaning of the word obsolete is obsolete?

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/absquatulate Henry James mist have made up that one.

No wonder I couldn't find it in the spell-checker. Being crescent-shaped, I thought it was have that as a root.

From Wiktionary, a lie is "1. An intentionally false statement; a falsehood. 2. A statement intended to deceive, even if literally true; a half-truth." Perhaps Wiktionary has learned to lie as well?

No. The plural form of "cache" is "caches". The singular form of "cachets" is "cachet", which means something else.

This is really something you could have looked up on your own.

No. The plural form of "cache" is "caches". The singular form of "cachets" is "cachet", which means something else.

This is really something you could have looked up on your own.

Or do they mean fixed?

Germany is correct. Germane is a chemical compound.

Well, when you speak of "solar" energy, most folks assume you mean the star around which Earth orbits. You know, "Sol." The root of the word "solar."

All the elements of which the Earth is composed other than Hydrogen and Helium, however, came from the innards of other stars that went nova. So that plutonium is, in fact, not actually solar. The various hydrocarbons that we combust and the inertial conversion (hydro and wind power) are certainly derived from solar power, but nuclear ain't.