>> ^Fusionaut:

al·right   
[awl-rahyt]
–adverb
all right.
—Can be confused:  all right, alright (see usage note at the current entry ).
—Usage note
The form alright as a one-word spelling of the phrase all right in all of its senses probably arose by analogy with such words as already and altogether. Although alright is a common spelling in written dialogue and in other types of informal writing, all right is used in more formal, edited writing.
{EDIT} forgot the reference http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/alright
>> ^Opus_Moderandi:
Yeah, he does seem to be alright.



Well, bury me in an ant hill and smear me with jam. That'll teach me not to research my grammar nazi comments.

>> ^Yogi:

Did you not read all that stuff below the video?

I did, but then I watched the video and it was obvious that a lot of "that stuff" was bullshit that didn't reflect the reality of the interview.

Her first point is that this information was supposedly all leaked by someone of the lowest military rank. That he had access to all of this information says awful things about our security procedures.

She goes on to say she thinks Assange is "something of an information-anarchist", that he believes all information should be free and transparency for its own sake. That means he's an actual anarchist in the same way that a grammar Nazi is an actual Nazi.

Her concern is that we shouldn't need Julian Assange. The government ought to be more transparent on its own and they shouldn't be saying/doing these things that they're attempting to cover up. Personally, I wish the government didn't need this pressure, either, but I don't believe government can ever be that good without having its collective feet held to the fire.

I think the video description is far more of a mischaracterization of her than her statements are a mischaracterization of Assange.

>> ^xxovercastxx:

I wonder if you could paint the whole face, wire the mask up with soft circuits and then connect to an arduino or something similar to run a programmed animation loop. I suppose you could make the animation random but still symmetrical pretty easily, actually. It's just a matter of whether the soft circuits themselves generate enough heat or if something will need to be added.


Well that thermochromic ink is pretty nifty (with the fabric/acrylic ink base). It's been around awhile--like "Mood Rings", but like @blankfist says, "It's Awesome!", due to the application an idea this guy used (now I've got to see if "Rorschach" in the movie uses anything like this or just flat-out uninspired CGI). Imagine using a wider or more controlled version of the thermochromic ink with something like meta-materials; that will come out soon enough (the neater stuff is military only here in the US I would assume). It was found recently that the meta-material molecules set themselves up automatically into Möbius symmetrical setups or "M.C. Escher" topology. If you combine the paint (if possible) afterward, I'll bet you'll be able to get some literally eye-popping effects. Maybe just not the type the military would want. Especially, if you can adhere the "ink finish / lacquer" to the inner portion of the (typically, meta-materials are aiming for "see-through" optics--which is why the topology and structure is very interesting) meta-material.

Really off-topic after this:

Using what @xxovercastxx said, adhering it (maybe with multiple type of thermochromic inks--giving it a far wider chromatic range, at varying temperatures) internally and using the meta-material you might be able to go from invisible to Abrams Tank to Porsche. You'd have to insulate the inner layer somehow to give you very fine control over the temperature or perhaps you could just flat out use electricity to change the colors. I'd imagine changing a thermochromic ink from reacting to temperature to electricity (or hell, anything kinetic: sonic waves, magnetism, etc...) wouldn't be very hard as they are closely related in the first place. You could essentially use light if the inks are responsive enough and it doesn't require a "non-stop" wave of photons; if you could make it behave like a switch that would be perfect. Then throw in some nano-technology with atomic manipulation and you'd have something incredible.

Hell, I wouldn't put something like that one the battlefield; it'd be a damned work of art! Plus, it'd probably cost more than a full-wing of F-22s just to develop; but the stuff that would come out of a development project like that would benefit humanity for a long time.

<sarcasm>Nah, let's just keep building more military.</sarcasm> At least, I know a lot of scientists try to use our addiction to the "military-industrial-complex" as a way to GET some key technological advances made. NASA does the same thing, but they tend to be better at it per dollar spent.

Möbius Symmetry link goes here.

PS: I like to include M.C. Escher (painter--think Inception as well as August Möbius (mathematician; and famous for his Möbius Strip topology of a a finite(?) two dimensional plane twisted at one end (pick a corner ) then connect it to the opposite side (make sure "top" meets "bottom"). Adding electronics I'm sure will be, if not already, worked on heavily. Especially, as I said in military type technologies (cloaking armor, etc...) But, with these you could--with enough precision make an Abrams Tank look like an Edsel. Although shooting it will kill that effect fairly quick (although I'm sure mitigation of visual anomalies will greatly depend on angle-of-view and distance) --

"Hey! That Edsel has four and one-half wheels! Ford is outrageous; why would we by this lemon!?!" His cousin responds right after;

"Bob! I got no idea whatever your sayin!?!" "It clearly has four wheels on my side!!!". "I thought Edsels were black?"

Another off-topic bit about "Edsel(s)":
Not the doo-wop group (although, the group is related to the real "Edsel"; they changed their name after the Edsel came out to capitalize on the name recognition from: "The Essos") that my dictionary keeps telling me it is; "Edsels <--with the "s" is misspelled according to the THREE combined English dictionaries. WTF? Typically I try to only misspell when I'm doing something as above in the first sentence by "Bob", "sayin" is part of my colloquialisms for them. I know, I tried hard for that "50's" feel... Yes, this is also so far off topic that I should just blog it. Can one of the admins throw a gadget in for us to use in our posts--like this, to count the topic changes. Perhaps a grammar-Nazi™ one!. Done!

P.S.- I didn't check for continuity logic or reading comprehension (and at this length, it's always needed--as it can sound like buck-shot mentally). Take as is. That reminds me: I should make a "colloquialism" English dictionary add-on for Firefox with auto conversion and "by decade" setups. It'd be fun (there's probably one around already ).

Merry Christmas everybody.
Also, the mask rocks! I also added one-helluva-edit after thinking about it; it seemed worth the trouble to bring up.
So hopefully you read it and didn't feel like I was wasting your time. Long posts are like that.

Oh yeah to grammar nazi it up even more Then should be Than.

yeah took a look, agree w/ dag. why not take a look? As a grammar nazi that hates bad descriptions/titles, they do test my nerves a bit.

3 more comments have been lost in the ether at this killed duplicate.

Grammar Nazi Attack!

Where is it you say they're playing?

>> ^pmkierst:

Proving yet again that just because your a dick doesn't mean you can't have incredible talent.
Or indulge in a lot of guitar playing masturbation



And who's "a dick" is it?

I dislike grammar Nazis but this was entertaining and had some actual meaning.

My grammar nazi hurts >> ^GeeSussFreeK:

I guess they won't axe that kind of question again!

Pst, I don't think there should be a comma between "flesh eating" and "dad". Also, isn't it flesh-eating? Grammar nazi out.

Hahaha I got that...>> ^Throbbin:

Your a hero of the grammar!>> ^JiggaJonson:
Are you asking about the sentence in quotations? Yes it's correct grammatically.
Most people understand that you need a "noun and a verb" in every sentence. It's a bit more helpful to think of what you need in a sentence as a subject and a predicate in my opinion. The reason for this is that, while it's true that nouns and verbs are usually present in a sentence, frequently words that would usually function as verbs can be used as nouns and vice versa because you have to consider all other words that modify those words. For example:
Running = something that you do
but, when it's modified by another word like "his" to form a sentence like
"His running sped up."
^In this case, the word "running" is actually the subject of the sentence. So, you could say, because the word "running" is performing the functions of a noun, and is being modified by the predicate or the action in this sentence, running is a noun.
Now for the sentence above, the subject is being modified a lot
values is the simple subject modified by 'of the figure of merit shown (mdn (min, max))'
then you have your predicate, the Be verb 'are'
The subject and the predicate for the meatier part of the sentence is all good, one subject and one predicate and no out of place modifiers.
The only tricky part of understanding this sentence is the list at the end. All the "n=whatever" listed here would fall into a category of what's called the predicate nominative or in other words, whet the predicate, or word functioning as a verb, is naming.
You probably see these frequently and don't realize it: "When the plot to kidnap Westy is discovered, Gwiz will be a suspect." For each case, if the verb descibes a state of being, like 'am' as in 'I am,' look for what that state is. So for the aforementioned sentence, 'plot' is being modified by 'is' and the state of being in that case is 'discovered.' For the second part (abbreviated) "Gwiz" mod by "will" state of being is "suspect."
Alllll of that being said, the list at the end is all a part of that same predicate nominative (albeit a long one) and the individual groups of values are separated by semicolons correctly. The reason semicolons are used as opposed to commas is because semicolons function as a sort of 'trump' for a regular comma. In the case of this list, commas are used frequently to separate smaller segments of the number values. Because of this comma use, semicolons are needed to keep things from getting confusing.
Here's an example:
I've traveled to London, England; Paris, France; and Rome, Italy.
as opposed to
I've traveled to London, England, Paris, France, and Rome, Italy.
^and that probably doesn't look incorrect but that's only because you know of the cities I listed here. If I were to pluck out some countries/cities from a dense part of Africa like this:
I've traveled to Libreville, Gabon, Parakou, Benin, Lome, Togo, and Cuassola, Angola.
^Here it becomes difficult to categorize the city/country name because of their unfamiliarity.
But if you get some help from semicolons...
I've traveled to Libreville, Gabon; Parakou, Benin; Lome, Togo; and Cuassola, Angola.
It's much easier to categorize everything, as is the way with the correctly punctuated sentence you presented.
For more on semicolon use I strongly suggest you check out this link http://theoatmeal.com/comics/semicolon . It's both hilarious and informative.
Finally, I asked at the beginning of this post "Are you asking about the sentence in quotations?" because what you said "I hate this sentence is it right" is not correct. You need a comma to separate the independent clauses "I hate this sentence," and "is it right."
Corrected: I hate this sentence, is it right?
Grammar Nazi awaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay!!!

In reply to this comment by NordlichReiter:
There has never been, a more wretched hive of punctuation and editry.

Also, these are not the commas you are looking for.

Nordlichreiter has LEVELED UP!
+5str
+3agi
+4int
+6sta
+500,000 awesomeness

Your a hero of the grammar!>> ^JiggaJonson:

Are you asking about the sentence in quotations? Yes it's correct grammatically.
Most people understand that you need a "noun and a verb" in every sentence. It's a bit more helpful to think of what you need in a sentence as a subject and a predicate in my opinion. The reason for this is that, while it's true that nouns and verbs are usually present in a sentence, frequently words that would usually function as verbs can be used as nouns and vice versa because you have to consider all other words that modify those words. For example:
Running = something that you do
but, when it's modified by another word like "his" to form a sentence like
"His running sped up."
^In this case, the word "running" is actually the subject of the sentence. So, you could say, because the word "running" is performing the functions of a noun, and is being modified by the predicate or the action in this sentence, running is a noun.
Now for the sentence above, the subject is being modified a lot
values is the simple subject modified by 'of the figure of merit shown (mdn (min, max))'
then you have your predicate, the Be verb 'are'
The subject and the predicate for the meatier part of the sentence is all good, one subject and one predicate and no out of place modifiers.
The only tricky part of understanding this sentence is the list at the end. All the "n=whatever" listed here would fall into a category of what's called the predicate nominative or in other words, whet the predicate, or word functioning as a verb, is naming.
You probably see these frequently and don't realize it: "When the plot to kidnap Westy is discovered, Gwiz will be a suspect." For each case, if the verb descibes a state of being, like 'am' as in 'I am,' look for what that state is. So for the aforementioned sentence, 'plot' is being modified by 'is' and the state of being in that case is 'discovered.' For the second part (abbreviated) "Gwiz" mod by "will" state of being is "suspect."
Alllll of that being said, the list at the end is all a part of that same predicate nominative (albeit a long one) and the individual groups of values are separated by semicolons correctly. The reason semicolons are used as opposed to commas is because semicolons function as a sort of 'trump' for a regular comma. In the case of this list, commas are used frequently to separate smaller segments of the number values. Because of this comma use, semicolons are needed to keep things from getting confusing.
Here's an example:
I've traveled to London, England; Paris, France; and Rome, Italy.
as opposed to
I've traveled to London, England, Paris, France, and Rome, Italy.
^and that probably doesn't look incorrect but that's only because you know of the cities I listed here. If I were to pluck out some countries/cities from a dense part of Africa like this:
I've traveled to Libreville, Gabon, Parakou, Benin, Lome, Togo, and Cuassola, Angola.
^Here it becomes difficult to categorize the city/country name because of their unfamiliarity.
But if you get some help from semicolons...
I've traveled to Libreville, Gabon; Parakou, Benin; Lome, Togo; and Cuassola, Angola.
It's much easier to categorize everything, as is the way with the correctly punctuated sentence you presented.
For more on semicolon use I strongly suggest you check out this link http://theoatmeal.com/comics/semicolon . It's both hilarious and informative.
Finally, I asked at the beginning of this post "Are you asking about the sentence in quotations?" because what you said "I hate this sentence is it right" is not correct. You need a comma to separate the independent clauses "I hate this sentence," and "is it right."
Corrected: I hate this sentence, is it right?
Grammar Nazi awaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay!!!

>> ^joedirt:

The sentence above is wrong. The correct usage would be:
"The values of the figure of merit shown are in Table 1."

Definitely looks like data that should be in a table.

>> ^nanrod:

Brings a whole new meaning to the term "grammar nazi".


Well, yes and no; the Literal Grammar Nazi is not that new.