Slashdot Mirror

2 :in effect :virtually

http://i.word.com/idictionary/...

http://theweek.com/articles/46...

Words can means more than one thing. Literally is now ALSO = figuratively.

It's over. Multiple dictictionaries say so. Suck it up and deal with it, his usage was 100%, literally correct.

English is dynamic, a living language.

"Programmed to cause an accident" is self-contradictory. The crash would be intentional, not arising from extrinsic causes.

That's just obnoxious. An acceptable and frequently used definition for belief is "something one considers to be true", which does not in any way require faith.

If you want to say "I consider it to be true given the weight of the evidence" every time a normal English speaker would simply say "I believe it", go ahead. Just don't presume to correct people who use the correct word.

That is the whole point, IT is most "likely" true. Science is about finding theories that match the evidence and then improving on those theories or disproving them. saying it is true is still making a leap of faith that is completely unnecessary in science. It simply is the current best theory that fits all the available evidence.

That's just obnoxious. An acceptable and frequently used definition for belief is "something one considers to be true", which does not in any way require faith.

If you want to say "I consider it to be true given the weight of the evidence" every time a normal English speaker would simply say "I believe it", go ahead. Just don't presume to correct people who use the correct word.

"Fan" is short for "fanatic".
merriam webster on "fanatic"

Since "sports fan" is short for "sports fanatic", then sports fans are by DEFINITION, excessive.

So, no, not absurd at all.

So that's a meaningless definition. Perhaps you would care to try again - remember something quantifiable than can be applied as a straight-forward yes/no test.

We can go with US vs Microsoft which you rejected or Dictionary.com

1. exclusive control of a commodity or service in a particular market, or a control that makes possible the manipulation of prices. 2. an exclusive privilege to carry on a business, traffic, or service, granted by a government. 3. the exclusive possession or control of something.

or Merriam-Webster

1 : exclusive ownership through legal privilege, command of supply, or concerted action 2 : exclusive possession or control 3 : a commodity controlled by one party 4 : one that has a monopoly

Since you deny that the term "monopoly" is one that does not apply to shades of grey - even for layman's use - then black-and-white tests are your only option.

There are shades of gray; however, your definition is unsupported and overly simplistic. By your definition the most popular in town is a monopoly. By your definition, Apple is a monopoly only because you are redefining it to support your uninformed notion of monopoly. However a simple logic test destroys your argument. Apple does not have any exclusive control. Therefore it cannot be a monopoly.

Since we aren't lawyers, that isn't particularly useful.

Then why don't we go with general reference sources like Dictionary.com

1. exclusive control of a commodity or service in a particular market, or a control that makes possible the manipulation of prices. 2. an exclusive privilege to carry on a business, traffic, or service, granted by a government. 3. the exclusive possession or control of something.

or Merriam-Webster

1 : exclusive ownership through legal privilege, command of supply, or concerted action 2 : exclusive possession or control 3 : a commodity controlled by one party 4 : one that has a monopoly

Seriously, I've said from the start that your literalism wasn't helpful and to retreat further into legalistic definitions is even worse.

Please. This is your excuse that you cannot find anywhere in the whole of the Internet that supports your definition of monopoly. Just one source. Since you created your own interpretation of what monopoly means, everyone is being literal when they go with the commonly accepted definitions. Are you going to try to say black is white next?

You have indeed cited case law, my argument from the start has never been about case law.

I have support for my position. You have none. Period. End of story.

So far you've already denied that the RIAA is a monopoly, which destroyed your entire argument since my very first post made the equivalence between RIAA and Apple domination of the markets.

First of all, I said the RIAA is a cartel. The proper term is "cartel". Monopoly comes from the Greek with mono meaning "one". By definition, the RIAA is more than one company and by defintion not a monopoly. But there's me using the exact word in English (which isn't my first language) to describe something. What is it like in your world where can redefine words as you like?

Second of all, how is there any equivalence when the two things being compared are not even in the same category. The RIAA are exclusive owners while Apple is a non-exclusive reseller. The term that you seem to miss everytime is "exclusive". Wood is not a metal no matter how you want to redefine metal or wood.

Lastly, you can't refute any of my points that you can get music without ever going through Apple?

You keep using the term "monopoly". I do not think it means what you think it means.

Dynamite is derived from the Latin for "alive"

Eh?

Dynamite: Etymology: International Scientific Vocabulary dynam-(from Greek dynamis power)

Don't you hate news stories where almost every damn word is a link ?

Something's starting to annoy me. When you submit an article and link to a page on another site, you don't have to put the name of the site in a hyperlink. Nearly every person here knows how to get to the main page for the site if they want to, and usually the main page isn't directly relevant to the story.

Sometimes it seems like people link for every word in the article and it's hard to figure out which link is the one with the story.

I love web comics, but the problem I have with them is that I don't read them on a "daily basis" like the dead tree comics, so the ones with an ongoing storyline or character development lose a lot of their "flow." I like the "one day at a time" feel of something like Doonesbury or the kickass newcomer The Boondocks. When you read 'em all at once, it just doesn't feel right to me.

Other great online strips: the ones at Salon, especially Tom the Dancing Bug and Story Minute. And how could I leave out the deranged genius which is Space Moose!

The world hasn't been the same since Word.com got destroyed by their fish-oil selling masters. However, if you Google long enough, you'll find the old archive of Maakies still online.

Eschatfische.

The site has many interesting interviews with people in diverse occupations.

The site has many interesting interviews with people in diverse occupations.

The site has many interesting interviews with people in diverse occupations.

Dilbert_ writes "Since most dot com domains of the form www.[common english word].com are taken today, you could theoretically surf around using just a dictionary. Now you can search the web from a page that will will automatically generate a fresh load of links, based on a dictionnary. " For some reason this amuses me greatly.

Just found this link to an interesting Word Magazine article about the history of suburbs, the automobile, and how they got that way. It's called "why You Drive Where You Live"; worth reading.

mahlen

We are on an irreversible road towards freedom and democracy, but that could change.
--Dan Quayle

I was incredulous after reading the techie article (can't run dos under linux? dosemu...) and just angry after reading the English major one. Then, I stopped for a moment and thought to myself:
"Slate articles have always been misleading or just wrong when it comes to technology. They may be owned by a 'hi-tek' company, but the fact that they even manage to publish their magazine on the web is a surprise given their tech knowledge. It is obvious that the tech people and the writers/editors are on different continents."

As an Enlish/CS kinda guy, Slate just sucks. They try, but the site just doesn't interest me. Much of their commentary just seems dated or irrelevant. Forget the Microsoft connection, I jsut don't like slate!

If you're looking for a good general-interest web-magazine that's also tech-savvy, try salon. If you're looking for more human-interest stories, try word. Charged is good for those of us who have short attention spans and like nice, flashy grafx. The point is, there are a good number of worthwhile general interest web magazines. Slate just isn't one of them.

--Andrew Grossman
grossdog@dartmouth.edu