The Free Dictionary  
mailing list For webmasters
Welcome Guest Forum Search | Active Topics | Members

Profile: FounDit
About
User Name: FounDit
Forum Rank: Advanced Member
Occupation:
Interests: Psychology, philosophy, thought-provoking discussions
Gender: Male
Home Page
Statistics
Joined: Monday, September 19, 2011
Last Visit: Thursday, March 30, 2017 10:59:25 AM
Number of Posts: 7,706
[0.96% of all post / 3.81 posts per day]
Avatar
  Last 10 Posts
Topic: Don't seem vs Didn't Seem
Posted: Thursday, March 30, 2017 10:58:41 AM
Drag0nspeaker wrote:
You mean:
It seems like you didn't use the earlier plan I sent earlier later, you used the earlier earlier plan I sent you earlier earlier.
Whistle Whistle Whistle


Now you've got it!...

A great many people will think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices. ~ William James ~
Topic: (one) figures (that)
Posted: Thursday, March 30, 2017 10:47:54 AM
(one) figures (that)
One presumes or anticipates (that); one reckons or thinks (that). If we can maintain these increasing profits, I figure that we'll be able to open a second branch by the end of the year. Mom figures it's time I moved out and found a place of my own to live.

Other versions of this are:
"It figures" or "That figures".

These versions are sometimes used when you hear about something that may be unacceptably true.

For example: "I head today that our taxes are going to go up -- again!"
"It/that figures"

Often said in a sarcastic, or disgusted, tone of voice.




A great many people will think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices. ~ William James ~
Topic: Just For Grins
Posted: Thursday, March 30, 2017 10:28:55 AM
Some fun with words. It's likely only those with a very good knowledge of English will understand the jokes with these words.



Huntington Post's Mensa Invitational once again invited readers to take any word from the dictionary, alter it by adding, subtracting, or changing one letter, and supply a new definition. Here are the winners:

1. Cashtration (n.): The act of buying a house, which renders the subject financially impotent for an indefinite period of time.

2. Ignoranus: A person who's both stupid and an asshole.

3. Intaxication: Euphoria at getting a tax refund, which lasts until you realize it was your money to start with.

4. Reintarnation: Coming back to life as a hillbilly.

5. Bozone (n.): The substance surrounding stupid people that stops bright ideas from penetrating. The bozone layer, unfortunately, shows little sign of breaking down in the near future.

6. Foreploy: Any misrepresentation about yourself for the purpose of getting laid.

7. Giraffiti: Vandalism spray-painted very, very high.

8. Sarchasm: The gulf between the author of sarcastic wit and the person who doesn't get it.

9. Inoculatte: To take coffee intravenously when you are running late.

10. Osteopornosis: A degenerate disease. (This one got extra credit.)

11. Karmageddon: It's like, when everybody is sending off all these really bad vibes, right? And then, like, the Earth explodes and it's like, a serious bummer.

12. Decafalon (n): The grueling event of getting through the day consuming only things that are good for you.

13. Glibido: All talk and no action.

14. Dopeler Effect: The tendency of stupid ideas to seem smarter when they come at you rapidly.

15. Arachnoleptic Fit (n.): The frantic dance performed just after you've accidentally walked through a spider web.

16. Beelzebug (n.): Satan in the form of a mosquito, that gets into your bedroom at three in the morning and cannot be cast out.

17. Caterpallor (n.): The color you turn after finding half a worm in the fruit you're eating.

The Washington Post has also published the winning submissions to its yearly contest, in which readers are asked to supply alternate meanings for common words. And the winners are:

1. Coffee, n. The person upon whom one coughs.

2. Flabbergasted, adj. Appalled by discovering how much weight one has gained.

3. Abdicate, v. To give up all hope of ever having a flat stomach.

4. Esplanade, v. To attempt an explanation while drunk.

5. Willy-nilly, adj. Impotent.

6. Negligent, adj. Absent mindedly answering the door when wearing only a nightgown.

7. Lymph, v. To walk with a lisp.

8. Gargoyle, n. Olive-flavored mouthwash.

9. Flatulence, n. Emergency vehicle that picks up someone who has been run over by a steamroller.

10. Balderdash, n. A rapidly receding hairline.

11. Testicle, n. A humorous question on an exam.

12. Rectitude, n. The formal, dignified bearing adopted by proctologists.

13. Pokemon, n. A Rastafarian proctologist.

14. Oyster, n. A person who sprinkles his conversation with Yiddishisms.

15. Frisbeetarianism, n. The belief that, after death, the soul flies up onto the roof and gets stuck there.

16. Circumvent, n. An opening in the front of boxer shorts worn by Jewish men.



A great many people will think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices. ~ William James ~
Topic: Don't seem vs Didn't Seem
Posted: Thursday, March 30, 2017 10:08:15 AM
Drag0nspeaker wrote:
I hadn't noticed that, but yes - it's (2) or (c).

The combination of tenses in each of those two works well.

You don't seem to be using the plan I sent you.
This is present progressive, basically (seem to be using) with the negative auxiliary 'do not'.
This fits well with your feeling that the situation is still ongoing.
If I may butt in, I like this one the best.

It seems like you didn't use the plan I sent earlier.
This one has the past tense for 'use' (the tiling-plan on paper is finished), but the present for 'seems' - the coordination is still ongoing ('seem' is one of those 'durational' verbs which doesn't need a progressive tense).
This one could be confusing because of the word "earlier". He was, in fact, using an "earlier" floor plan.



A great many people will think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices. ~ William James ~
Topic: Internet Privacy and Consumer Protection in Trouble?
Posted: Thursday, March 30, 2017 9:54:24 AM
Drag0nspeaker wrote:
In my mind - I don't care whether my ISP provider knows that I use Google more often that FF on one computer and FF more often on another, and that I rarely look at a news-site and rarely watch a film (only occasionally adventure or comedy). It doesn't matter if they sell that to someone.

If it were my debit-card number or something, then I'd complain.

I can't see my individual data being worth buying. Bulk data would help companies advertise more effectively, but not my individual preferences.

Why might anyone want to know when I last saw my doctor about my corns?
Your point about bulk data is valid. It's the personal data that everyone is concerned about precisely because it could very well contain your debit card number if everything you do online is collected and/or sold for profit.

Also, since all our medical records are now kept on computers, data sent or stored there could be used as blackmail (treatment for an STD, for example, or a significant health problem) against a political/business opponent.

*************
On another subject:
I don't get how this can be political (as in Democratic/Republican).
I can see some dyed-in-the-wool Republican farmer in Alabama being more annoyed about someone spying on his internet use than a Democrat schoolteacher in NYNY. Or vice-versa - it depends on what they use the internet for and why they might be embarrassed by someone knowing!
It doesn't seem to bear any relation to one's politics.

As I mentioned on another topic - the person making most noise about internet privacy at the moment is D Trump Esq.
His rants about 'tapping' seem to indicate that he supports privacy.
He wants privacy on the internet, so the only reason he can have for cancelling this law is "because Obama approved it".

This seems to be his reason for a lot of his actions. "If Obama did it, I'll reverse it."
Rather like the Senate a couple of years ago "It doesn't matter what it's about, if Obama is trying to do it, we'll stop it."
This is exactly how it becomes political. As said above, if data is collected on an opponent illegally or legally, it can be used against someone, even if untrue, the accusation may be all that is needed if doubt can be sown.

************
It doesn't really matter to me - I just don't like big government, whether it's the Worker party, the Preservative party or the Loose Voters party - Republican or Democrat.
It's not so easy for me to see within the UK (you all can probably see the UK better than we can) but I can see more easily what's happening in the USA - It doesn't matter which government you have, they work for the industrialists. Maybe the Republicans are owned by a different consortium than the Democrats, but it makes little difference.
True, but there is an influence here that has been traditionally held as a tenet of faith about government. That is, that government is dangerous and needs to be kept limited (power corrupts, remember Lord Acton). Over the last century our government has increasingly grown in power and scope to the point that traditionalists such as myself, are concerned and want its regulations and laws rolled back, or at the least, circumscribed to the benefit of the people. This was partly what propelled Trump to the White House.

*************
There seems to be another difference between the American and British 'worlds'.

American (FounDit style) "Our Liberals seem to think government is the saviour for all that ails you. Have a problem? Look to the government. No need to depend on yourself."

As written above concerning the growth of gov't.

British (The style I see in "Vote for Me" ads this week)
Conservative - "The English government will handle everything for you, just don't vote Scottish Nationalist".
Labour - "The English government will handle everything for you, just don't vote Scottish Nationalist".
SNP - "When we're free of the English, the GermanEU government will handle everything for you"
Liberal - "More independent choice, but still within the UK".


A great many people will think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices. ~ William James ~
Topic: Internet Privacy and Consumer Protection in Trouble?
Posted: Wednesday, March 29, 2017 11:58:28 AM
I see you posted this while I was typing.

Hope123 wrote:
I wondered if the fact I didn't know much about it was influencing my opinion about the internet. Even if it does not affect me personally, it is the principle.
I would agree with you on the principle. People should have their privacy and it should be protected.

There was a chance to limit the spread of the loss of privacy with this rule, but that is now gone - at least for a while.
Ok, I'm playing catch-up here. And there seems to be a good deal of inconsistency in what I'm reading.

You said this was a chance to limit the spread of the loss of privacy with this rule. So that means privacy has already been lost, and we're just trying to limit the spread...Think That seems a bit like being a little pregnant. We either have privacy or not. It can't be limited.

In the article you linked, I read: "The repeal was strongly backed by major providers such as Verizon, AT&T and Comcast, who argued that ISPs were being subject to stricter privacy laws than companies like Google or Facebook." [emphasis mine.]
So that means Google and Facebook have had less restrictions than ISP's, which would indicate they can share personal data, and this law simply expands the group who can share, or sell, personal data.

The law "would have forced ISPs to get clear permission from users to share personal data such as "precise geo-location, financial information, health information, children’s information, social security numbers, web browsing history, app usage history and the content of communications”.
So it would seem that Google and Facebook aren't currently forced to obtain that permission, but ISP's would be.

But then I read that Ajit Pai, the new head of the FCC says: "Moving forward, I want the American people to know that the FCC will work with the [Federal Trade Commission] to ensure that consumers’ online privacy is protected though a consistent and comprehensive framework.
So that has to be a lie if GOOGLE and FACEBOOK, and now ISP's can share personal data. So we're back to government lying again. Sounds familiar, huh?

However, I am not the only one who is upset by this.


http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-39427026

Anger as US internet privacy law scrapped

Edited to Add -

https://openmedia.org/en/canadian-internet-traffic-travelling-through-us-making-canadians-even-more-vulnerable-nsa
Well, it is called The Worldwide Web after all, so it's no surprise traffic is routed from one country to another, and since it was invented here, that shouldn't be surprising at all.

So we're back to government and whether it is a good thing or a bad thing for it to be involved. If it helps folks protect their privacy, that's a good thing. If it defeats privacy, or restricts freedom of speech, that's a bad thing.

The only thing to do is demand privacy and freedom be protected, and vow to vote out any who countermand that.



A great many people will think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices. ~ William James ~
Topic: Internet Privacy and Consumer Protection in Trouble?
Posted: Wednesday, March 29, 2017 11:25:22 AM
Hope123 wrote:
I saw the tongue-in-cheek but I'll answer seriously. No change of heart. It is your government I don't trust, especially now.
I don't trust them either. That's why the people in government need to be watched and replaced often - something we don't do often enough. Like the old joke: politicians are like diapers -- they need to be changed often, and for the same reasons.

I would not be concerned except that some CDN ISPs route through NY, I believe.
So what is the problem with that? Again, if it is bulk data being collected and sold, and no personally identifiable information is contained, where is the problem? My only concern is: can we trust them (ISP providers, cell phone carriers, gov't. employees, et al.) to keep personal info from being used against us at some future time? Right now, it doesn't seem to be a problem, but the future -- who knows?

Besides, the internet is a whole new ballgame without laws and rules. Obama put the rule in place in the first place perhaps to prevent the opportunity for misuse. Makes me wonder why Trump sees a need to get rid of it. d'oh!
This is always true of any new invention. Laws are always passed in a reactionary way - after we discover how things are used to abuse people. It would be impossible to foresee how this could happen in the beginning of any new thing invented. As to why Trump rolled that back, I don't know. I haven't heard anything about it. Here it is the constant drumbeat about some alleged Russian connection, but still no evidence to back it up, just allegations. It all looks like kabuki theater to me.

I know my government is obviously not perfect but it has never given me any reason to suspect that my personal data has ever been used by them or given to anyone else. And yes, I have lots of reasons for trusting them until they ever give me reason not to.
What reasons do you have for suspecting your personal data will be given to anyone else now, simply because it crosses the border?

So how did your government give you personal reason to not trust them?
Well, it all began in 1776...no, seriously. For me, it started with my experiences in the war. I experienced the hypocrisy, the stupidity and lies of political leadership over military leadership, and the foolishness of not permitting our forces to do the job they were trained and sent to do, resulting in the maiming and death for far too many, both military and civilian, for the ego of one man - Lyndon Johnson. Read Dereliction of Duty by H.R. McMaster. I wish I could say I read it. I only began, and had to quit in disgust.

My government has prosecuted healthcare workers who snooped into private files.

Laws are being enacted right now because a Quebec police department hacked into a journalist's phone to try to get information about his source. There was a BIG uproar when Canadians found out about that.

My government was sanctioned (lost the election as well) by citizens for disclosing information to the US government that caused 3 innocent Canadian citizens who were incorrectly on a no-fly list to end up being tortured. We don't torture. I think they just got a big settlement from our government.

As for reasons to trust generally - The mainstream media in Canada continuously does investigative journalism of the government and the money laws we have keep our government relatively free of corruption.
Well, our media seem to be interested only in Trump. Nothing came of the use of the IRS under Obama when it refused to do its job for conservative groups. No investigation ever was conducted. Nothing came of Hillary selling out 20% of our uranium to the Russians for millions in cash donations to their foundation, or the half million dollars in speaking fees for Bill right after she approved the deal. No investigation there either, nor of the Attorney General, Loretta Lynch, meeting with Bill while Hillary was being investigated and absolved over her illegal email deletions. But that's just government people covering their butts, as usual, and is a bit of a digression from the topic at hand.

Well mostly - the big scandal - lol - in Canada right now is that our PM as a gift, took his family on a helicopter ride from a boat to the private island of a long time family friend. I guess they were supposed to swim. (The opposition triggered an investigation because the cost of the trip to the taxpayer including all security was a "whopping" $127,000 after he paid the cost of the public transportation he is not allowed to use. (Contrast that with $3M a weekend, many weekends. We're just a mickey mouse operation here. 😀) The Conservative leader raised the issue in Parliament just to get at Trudeau. But it was really funny when it came out that she had also taken a travel gift that same holiday.

I'm not the only one. Many Canadians HAVE lost their respect and trust for the US. When Obama was president Canadians didn't think it was a big deal that the government at that time agreed to keep the border moving smoothly in exchange for two more pre-clearance airport locations to the US. American customs officers with their guns would be allowed on Canadian soil. Now since Trump, in spite of all the grumbling by Canadians, this Liberal government is going ahead with it, making many Canadians furious, including me.
You lost me here. Going ahead with what -- keeping the border moving smoothly in exchange for two more pre-clearance airport locations? Why is that a problem?

BTW - I'm a social liberal. As for this topic of governments, I have voted both ways. We are allowed to vote for policies, not loyalty to parties.

I'm not sure what "Liberals seem to think government is the saviour for all that ails one" has to do with trusting your information to your government. Whistle
Our Liberals seem to think government is the savior for all that ails you. Have a problem? Look to the government. No need to depend on yourself. They always have a program to solve any problem. Just apply.




A great many people will think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices. ~ William James ~
Topic: word association(Psychoanalysis)
Posted: Wednesday, March 29, 2017 10:30:54 AM
loud

A great many people will think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices. ~ William James ~
Topic: Kevin hoping to ask the "ghost" a last question
Posted: Wednesday, March 29, 2017 10:15:25 AM
Drag0nspeaker wrote:
I think that the verbs and tenses are OK (they don't 'clash' or disagree) - but I can't actually work out what the last bit means.

There is a comma missing near the start:

Kevin, hoping to ask the "ghost" a last question, followed "the entity".
The main sentence is "Kevin followed 'the entity'."
The participle phrase is just a comment about Kevin, so it is separated by commas on both ends.

However he temporarily lost his vision due the light that pointed directly into his eyes
He was blinded by the light shining in his eyes.

"being stopped in the middle of the living" - this is the bit I don't get. It seems like two phrases, but . . .



My guess is: However, he was temporarily blinded by a light shining directly into his eyes which stopped him in the middle of the living room.


A great many people will think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices. ~ William James ~
Topic: Some Sweet to Balance the Sour
Posted: Tuesday, March 28, 2017 4:21:39 PM
This is quite a story.

Domestic abuse survivor finds love with first responder who helped her

A great many people will think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices. ~ William James ~

Main Forum RSS : RSS
Forum Terms and Guidelines. Copyright © 2008-2017 Farlex, Inc. All rights reserved.