Most Bizarre Errors You Constantly See

[TheRightToArmBears]

The 'people only use 10% of their brains' myth has to be my least favourite, I can only assume that people who think so are using 10% of theirs.

Eh the one that I see most common on here is 'I could care less'.
My god it annoys me. The correct phrase is 'I couldn't care less' and I'm beginning to think those who use the other one are just trying to either annoy me or fool others into also doing it.

There are plenty more but that one bugs me the most.

Actually 'I could care less' works, although it can come across a bit strangely without the right tone of voice. 'I could care less' implies that the person cares very little but could, at a stretch, care a little bit less. I actually prefer it, it's less obvious and a little more interesting than 'I couldn't care less' which I feel is a bit flat. That said, there are many, many more nonsensical phrases in English, I really don't understand why people get so irate about this one.


Also, all spelling ones. 'definite' has no 'a' (it's just 'finite' with a prefix, how fucking hard is this?), 'lightening' is an increase in light levels, 'no one' is two words (who the fuck looks and 'noone' and thinks 'yup, looks good to me!'?) and to lose is to be defeated whereas 'loose' is the opposite of 'tight'.

 

[Asita]

Pretty much every time someone says the phrase "Evolution is just a theory".

Look up the term "Theory" in a scientific sense, then you may talk. Otherwise, I present you a dunce cap.

Related grief: "If it was proven it would be a Law, not a Theory" (Worse still, I think that still can actually be found in some high-school level textbooks!)

For those reading at home, Scientific Laws and Scientific Theories are distinct entities and one does not graduate into the other. At its simplest they can perhaps best be broken down thusly: A Law is an observation, a Theory is an explanation (often connecting multiple Laws). Hence we have the Law of Gravity and Gravitational Theory to explain the Law.

 

[blackrave]

Oh yeah another one that really clips my begonias.

"The reactor's going critical!"

Oh, well that's good. Means it's entering its normal operational parameters after all.

Oh boy, nuclear reactors and nuclear materials
1.Reactor can't cause nuclear explosion (worst case scenario it can have effect of radioactive bomb)
2.It is fairly easy to filter out radioactive particles from water
3.YOU CAN'T GET SUPERPOWERS FROM RADIATION, DAMMIT!!!

 

[snootyjim]

Gaming-related: people using the term "targeting reticule [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/reticule?s=t]" when they mean "reticle [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/reticle?s=t]." A reticule is a type of purse. What makes the use of the far less common "reticule" even weirder is that I don't think anyone even pronounces the U-sound when they say it out loud.

According to the link you provided in your post, "reticle or ( less commonly ) reticule".

 

[Albino Boo]

No, we all do basic training with the L85-A2, which uses a 30 round mag.

Maybe I was thinking of cadets there.

What unit are you in, if you don't mind me asking?

I work at RAF High Wycombe as part of the Air Component. I work in a bunker too... so I rarely see grass and mud let alone roll around in it!

But all forces do basic training with the same rifle. There is a set 16 hour training done for everyone as part of initial training... even padres have to do it!

I'm surprised your alive with that serco catering. SHH, I believe that bunker is still officially secret, black mark on your next DV.

 

[Yopaz]

Pretty much every time someone says the phrase "Evolution is just a theory".

Look up the term "Theory" in a scientific sense, then you may talk. Otherwise, I present you a dunce cap.

That makes me want to smack them up. That's the reason I have stopped using the word theory when I am not certain about things since I want to make a distinction between the use of the word. A theory is not just something we think for fucks sake!

 

[Someone Depressing]

People who say, "I could care less". That means that you think it's average, not that you couldn't care for it any less. You are an idiot if you use this in the wrong sense, which it is mostly used in, and I hope you burn.

 

[Dr. Thrax]

Gaming-related: people using the term "targeting reticule [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/reticule?s=t]" when they mean "reticle [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/reticle?s=t]." A reticule is a type of purse. What makes the use of the far less common "reticule" even weirder is that I don't think anyone even pronounces the U-sound when they say it out loud.

In the definition for "reticle" it says "(Less commonly) Reticule" with a link to the word "reticule", "reticule" is defined as (According to your link):
1. a small purse or bag, originally of network but later of silk, rayon, etc.
2. Optics. reticle
Below that it's defined as:
Also called: graticule a network of fine lines, wires, etc, placed in the focal plane of an optical instrument to assist measurement of the size or position of objects under observation

So "reticle" and "reticule" are really the same thing in these terms.



I will echo sentiments over the use of "turrent". God that's just a horrible sounding word and I can't even say/type it without twitching.

 

[XMark]

In any case where a line from a movie is misquoted, it's because the misquote works without the prior context of the scene.

"Play it again, Sam" works as a quote, while "Play it, Sam" wouldn't because if it's just the quote itself it doesn't properly imply that "it" is a song which has been played before multiple times.

Will Smith very clearly pronounces Earth correctly in Independence day, but "Welcome to Earth" by itself does not portray the attitude and aggression of that line well enough, hence its being quoted as "Welcome to Earf".

"Beam me up, Scotty" and "Luke, I'm Your Father" are both attempts to include the name of the person who it's being directed to, since it would be more difficult for people to know what you're quoting from otherwise.

On another subject, I don't really mind "I could care less". I always thought that the fact that it means the opposite of what it's used for just means that it's meant to be said ironically. Like "Oh, that's just great!"

 

[Vausch]

Pretty much every time someone says the phrase "Evolution is just a theory".

Look up the term "Theory" in a scientific sense, then you may talk. Otherwise, I present you a dunce cap.

That makes me want to smack them up. That's the reason I have stopped using the word theory when I am not certain about things since I want to make a distinction between the use of the word. A theory is not just something we think for fucks sake!

What makes me want to smack them is when they say "creationist/ID theory".

ID is not a theory. There is no evidence for ID. They are not on equal grounds and teaching both to students is not "Presenting both sides of the argument", it's introducing religious aspects into a classroom that by law they should not be exposed to outside of a class that specifically teaches religious studies.

 

[Beffudled Sheep_v1legacy]

Most common error? Misquoting or even attributing quotes to the wrong guy... Hearing people say (also highly "paraphrased" which is a nice way of saying wrong!) "I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it." for example and attributing it to some revolutionary figure rather than a forward thinking Frenchman who defied censorship to put forward the idea of freedom of religion and religious tolerance. His name was Voltaire people!!! GET IT RIGHT!!!
And this coming from a guy who isn't exactly always thrilled with the French... Hey I can have issues with people and still recognize that they've contributed to the world culture.
Another error: People also tend to tout Separation of Church and state as if it were actually written into the US Constitution as a law. Its not. The only part of SoC mentioned is in the 1st Amendment and not specifically in that term but rather that the government "shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". Meaning that the state nor federal gov't can't make laws that favor one religion over another, which includes atheism. It doesn't mean that civil servants are banned from speaking about their beliefs, nor exhibiting those beliefs. But people take it to an extreme.

Voltaire never actually said or wrote that. It was written originally by Evelyn Beatrice Hall (Also known as S.G. Tallentyre) in her biography of Voltaire. Not as something he himself said but as an illustration of his views.

 

[Genocidicles]

Goddamn dinosaurs without feathers.

I can understand older stuff doing this, like Jurassic Park and what not, because they were made before it was discovered that Dinosaurs had feathers.

But stuff with Dinosaurs in it nowadays doesn't have that excuse, like the newest Walking with Dinosaurs thing. They still depict dinosaurs as giant reptiles, when in actual fact they were closer to giant birds:

 

[Drops a Sweet Katana]

The main ones that get me are the fairly basic scientific errors that seem to constantly crop up in various forms of entertainment. Shit like:
-Getting DNA from strands of hair.

Spoiler

Hair is made up of keratin, a protein, and thus doesn't have any DNA in it. When forensic investigators look for hair, they look for the cells on that maybe on the ends.

-Spacecraft stopping if their engines are shutdown in pretty much any sci-fi thing ever.

Spoiler

There's very little to resist movement in space save for the odd speck of dust and maybe some influence from incident photons, but that's about it

-Spacecraft deorbiting by pointing straight at a planet's surface.

Spoiler

Spacecraft don't do that. The best way to deorbit is to burn in the opposite direction to their motion, thereby decreasing their overall forward velocity, causing the orbital radius to decrease with the square of the velocity (which can be derived from the equations for kinetic and gravitational potential energy: (mv^2)/2 and (GMm)/r, respectively.)

-The liberal usage of various particles that we hardly ever directly interact with.

Spoiler

You probably know what I'm on about. Neutrinos, gravitons, quarks, antimatter, dark matter, blah, blah, blah. You get the idea. So many times you'll hear in sci-fi things something to the effect of 'Fires the anti-matter cannons!', 'Spin up the graviton thrusters.' or 'I'm picking up a large neutrino emission.' Yeah, no. Lemme just break it down:

A neutrino is roughly the size (in terms of mass, since measuring the radius is an iffy prospect) of an electron (in the order 10^-31 kg, about 10000 times smaller than a proton or neutron) but without a charge. Considering how small the nucleus of an atom is compared to its total 'volume' enclosed by its electron orbitals, something like 1-2% of the total volume (don't quote me on that, I'm probably wrong), and how small the neutrino is, it's no surprise that interactions between atoms and neutrinos are exceedingly rare. Now, size isn't everything with this, since electrons, given enough energy, can interact with a nucleus. However they can do so due to their negative charge, which allows them to interact with the positively charged nucleus through the electromagnetic force. Neutrinos being neutral can't do this, and will more often than not pass straight through several atoms before actually hitting anything. In fact, a neutrino can pass through about 1km (again don't quote me on that) of lead before actually hitting something. This makes neutrinos pretty damn hard to detect, and harder still to use as projectiles. They also DON'T MUTATE what with them being all fundamental and shit.

Gravitons are the hypothetical exchange particles in gravitation. Kinda like virtual photons for electromagnetism and W-bosons for the weak interaction. The key word in that was HYPOTHETICAL i.e. we don't know with much certainty if it even exists let alone how it behaves. Chances are, it won't really be of much use to us.

There are a few more but I didn't realise how long I'd take writing about neutrinos.

 

[EMWISE94]

It might just be me, but honestly, whenever i see people shortening words into 3-letter-initialisms it sends torrents of rage towards my very core! mainly because its becoming ridiculous, to the point where its like they're speaking in code, half the time I'm romping around the internet i keep running into shit like MRW, IMO, JFC and half the time i have to decode this shit myself (because looking it up is a sign of weakness!)

speaking of initialisms,

NASA, SOPA, NATO are Acronyms!

FBI, CIA, ICBM are Initialisms!

there have been several times I've seen people say an initialism is an acronym or in worst cases an abreviation is an acronym!

now i hope I haven't screwed up those fact, or I'm gonna look like a douche

 

[Yopaz]

Pretty much every time someone says the phrase "Evolution is just a theory".

Look up the term "Theory" in a scientific sense, then you may talk. Otherwise, I present you a dunce cap.

That makes me want to smack them up. That's the reason I have stopped using the word theory when I am not certain about things since I want to make a distinction between the use of the word. A theory is not just something we think for fucks sake!

What makes me want to smack them is when they say "creationist/ID theory".

ID is not a theory. There is no evidence for ID. They are not on equal grounds and teaching both to students is not "Presenting both sides of the argument", it's introducing religious aspects into a classroom that by law they should not be exposed to outside of a class that specifically teaches religious studies.

Just seeing you write tha sent a shiver down my spine despite knowing you're a reasonable person.

I actually had this exact discussion where someone said that intelligent design and evolution should be considered as 2 different scientific theories since having one theory seemed narrow minded. I asked him if we should also have a theory that things dropped fall upwards before I explained exactly wju we can only have one theory about something, the nature of a scientific theory, why evolution fits the requirements and why creationism does not.

He actually agreed with me at last. Proudest moment of my life.

 

[Candlejack000]

People calling bison buffalo. They are in their own genus that includes no other animals. In fact the plains bison is called "Bison bison bison".

I know that it is generally accepted by most dictionaries to call them buffalo, but it still bugs me. There have never been buffalo native to America, only Africa and Asia.

Besides the term buffalo when referring to the bison comes from the French word b?ufs.

 

[kurokotetsu]

-The liberal usage of various particles that we hardly ever directly interact with.

Spoiler

You probably know what I'm on about. Neutrinos, gravitons, quarks, antimatter, dark matter, blah, blah, blah. You get the idea. So many times you'll hear in sci-fi things something to the effect of 'Fires the anti-matter cannons!', 'Spin up the graviton thrusters.' or 'I'm picking up a large neutrino emission.' Yeah, no. Lemme just break it down:

A neutrino is roughly the size (in terms of mass, since measuring the radius is an iffy prospect) of an electron (in the order 10^-31 kg, about 10000 times smaller than a proton or neutron) but without a charge. Considering how small the nucleus of an atom is compared to its total 'volume' enclosed by its electron orbitals, something like 1-2% of the total volume (don't quote me on that, I'm probably wrong), and how small the neutrino is, it's no surprise that interactions between atoms and neutrinos are exceedingly rare. Now, size isn't everything with this, since electrons, given enough energy, can interact with a nucleus. However they can do so due to their negative charge, which allows them to interact with the positively charged nucleus through the electromagnetic force. Neutrinos being neutral can't do this, and will more often than not pass straight through several atoms before actually hitting anything. In fact, a neutrino can pass through about 1km (again don't quote me on that) of lead before actually hitting something. This makes neutrinos pretty damn hard to detect, and harder still to use as projectiles. They also DON'T MUTATE what with them being all fundamental and shit.

Gravitons are the hypothetical exchange particles in gravitation. Kinda like virtual photons for electromagnetism and W-bosons for the weak interaction. The key word in that was HYPOTHETICAL i.e. we don't know with much certainty if it even exists let alone how it behaves. Chances are, it won't really be of much use to us.

There are a few more but I didn't realise how long I'd take writing about neutrinos.

In Sci-Fi a sudden burst of neutrinos could perfectly be interpreted that a weapon (or spacecraft or piece of technology) using very energetic reactions (fussion, cosmic ray, particle accelerator level of energy and reactions) is being activated. Also they may have better detection equipment (they don't need the large pools of pure water) that could detect the burst. It is usually very abdlydone, but there are context where it could be justified.

Also, W-bosons (and Z) have been measured. Also, I believe that virtual photons are very close to normal photons (mostly changing in the lifespan), so they have been detected.

My error is what Maths are and what Mathematicians do. Maths aren't formulas or calculating. Maths are about Theorems, about properties, about structures. It is not solving equations or doing calculations. A mathematician tries to prove things and see new properties and create new mathematical structures. It is constructing FIleds, Sets and Groups and seeing how they behave and what theorems can be proven. It is about logic, creativity and imagination. And if you are into APplied Math, it is about making models.

 

[Vausch]

Pretty much every time someone says the phrase "Evolution is just a theory".

Look up the term "Theory" in a scientific sense, then you may talk. Otherwise, I present you a dunce cap.

That makes me want to smack them up. That's the reason I have stopped using the word theory when I am not certain about things since I want to make a distinction between the use of the word. A theory is not just something we think for fucks sake!

What makes me want to smack them is when they say "creationist/ID theory".

ID is not a theory. There is no evidence for ID. They are not on equal grounds and teaching both to students is not "Presenting both sides of the argument", it's introducing religious aspects into a classroom that by law they should not be exposed to outside of a class that specifically teaches religious studies.

Just seeing you write tha sent a shiver down my spine despite knowing you're a reasonable person.

I actually had this exact discussion where someone said that intelligent design and evolution should be considered as 2 different scientific theories since having one theory seemed narrow minded. I asked him if we should also have a theory that things dropped fall upwards before I explained exactly wju we can only have one theory about something, the nature of a scientific theory, why evolution fits the requirements and why creationism does not.

He actually agreed with me at last. Proudest moment of my life.

It's not so much when someone just says it because they don't understand what the term means. It's more like people that have an agenda and are wilfully ignoring the proper definition while assuming that every argument has equal validity. It's pretty much what you just said with the hypothetical gravity situation except they actually are assuming it's just as valid. THAT is what gets to me.

 

[Kyoufuu]

The word 'anyways'. Anyway is not a noun, you cannot have more than one anyway!

Also, all spelling ones. 'definite' has no 'a' (it's just 'finite' with a prefix, how fucking hard is this?), 'lightening' is an increase in light levels, 'no one' is two words (who the fuck looks and 'noone' and thinks 'yup, looks good to me!'?) and to lose is to be defeated whereas 'loose' is the opposite of 'tight'.

Do you use someone, anyone, and everyone? If so, why not use noone?

 

[Yopaz]

Pretty much every time someone says the phrase "Evolution is just a theory".

Look up the term "Theory" in a scientific sense, then you may talk. Otherwise, I present you a dunce cap.

That makes me want to smack them up. That's the reason I have stopped using the word theory when I am not certain about things since I want to make a distinction between the use of the word. A theory is not just something we think for fucks sake!

What makes me want to smack them is when they say "creationist/ID theory".

ID is not a theory. There is no evidence for ID. They are not on equal grounds and teaching both to students is not "Presenting both sides of the argument", it's introducing religious aspects into a classroom that by law they should not be exposed to outside of a class that specifically teaches religious studies.

Just seeing you write tha sent a shiver down my spine despite knowing you're a reasonable person.

I actually had this exact discussion where someone said that intelligent design and evolution should be considered as 2 different scientific theories since having one theory seemed narrow minded. I asked him if we should also have a theory that things dropped fall upwards before I explained exactly wju we can only have one theory about something, the nature of a scientific theory, why evolution fits the requirements and why creationism does not.

He actually agreed with me at last. Proudest moment of my life.

It's not so much when someone just says it because they don't understand what the term means. It's more like people that have an agenda and are wilfully ignoring the proper definition while assuming that every argument has equal validity. It's pretty much what you just said with the hypothetical gravity situation except they actually are assuming it's just as valid. THAT is what gets to me.

Yeah, I agree with you, both are infuriating, but one is clearly worse than the other.

When debating this I don't try to make them agree that creationism is bullshit and evolution is the correct one, but rather than one fits the definition of a scientific theory while the other does not. If I can get them to admit or understand that then I consider that a success.

The word 'anyways'. Anyway is not a noun, you cannot have more than one anyway!

I've got two whys for you to ask whys not? Is always haves mores thans twos anyways.

Honestly speaking, I used to make the mistake of writing and saying anyways before I learned enough English. Most of my English came from watching TV and forums none of which are actually that good places for proper grammar or spelling...