0%

15-letter words containing e, s, m

  • combat fatigues — the uniform worn by soldiers when fighting
  • combat neurosis — battle fatigue.
  • combat trousers — Combat trousers are large, loose trousers with lots of pockets.
  • combined forces — the forces of two or more countries, fighting together
  • combustibleness — The state or quality of being combustible.
  • combustion tube — a tube of heat-resistant glass, silica, or ceramic, in which a substance can be reduced, as in a combustion furnace
  • come to oneself — to recover one's senses
  • come up against — If you come up against a problem or difficulty, you are faced with it and have to deal with it.
  • come up smiling — to recover cheerfully from misfortune
  • comfortableness — (of clothing, furniture, etc.) producing or affording physical comfort, support, or ease: a comfortable chair; comfortable shoes.
  • commendableness — The state or quality of being commendable.
  • commercialising — Present participle of commercialise.
  • commiseratingly — in a manner expressing commiseration
  • commissionaires — Plural form of commissionaire.
  • commissionnaire — Alternative form of commissionaire.
  • committee stage — (in British parliamentary procedure) the detailed examination by MPs of proposed legislation
  • committeeperson — a member of a committee.
  • common disaster — the death of an insured party and a beneficiary occurring at the same time in the same accident.
  • common shelduck — a large, brightly coloured gooselike duck of the Old World, Tadorna tadorna
  • common-sensible — sound practical judgment that is independent of specialized knowledge, training, or the like; normal native intelligence.
  • commonplaceness — The state or quality of being commonplace.
  • community chest — a fund raised by voluntary contribution for local welfare activities
  • company manners — rules of politeness that people, esp children, are supposed to observe in the presence of other people
  • company pension — a pension scheme run by a company for its employees
  • comparativeness — of or relating to comparison.
  • comparison test — a comparison of particular qualities or traits in two or more things in order to get a measurable assessment
  • compassionately — having or showing compassion: a compassionate person; a compassionate letter.
  • compatibilities — capable of existing or living together in harmony: the most compatible married couple I know.
  • compendiousness — The state or quality of being compendious.
  • competitiveness — of, pertaining to, involving, or decided by competition: competitive sports; a competitive examination.
  • complementaries — forming a complement; completing.
  • complementizers — Plural form of complementizer.
  • complicatedness — composed of elaborately interconnected parts; complex: complicated apparatus for measuring brain functions.
  • complimentaries — of the nature of, conveying, or expressing a compliment, often one that is politely flattering: a complimentary remark.
  • composite print — a photograph characterized by overlapping or juxtaposed images resulting from a multiple exposure or the combining of negatives (composite print)
  • comprehensively — Something that is done comprehensively is done thoroughly.
  • comprehensivize — to make (an educational system) comprehensive
  • compressed slip — (networking)   (CSLIP) VanJacobsen TCP header compression. A version of SLIP using compression. CSLIP has no effect on the data portion of the packet and has nothing to do with compression by modem. It does reduce the TCP header from 40 bytes to 7 bytes, a noticeable difference when doing telnet with lots of little packets. CSLIP has no effect on UDP, only TCP.
  • compressibility — the ability to be compressed
  • compromise rail — a rail for linking rails having different sections.
  • comptrollership — controller (def 1).
  • computer ethics — (philosophy)   Ethics is the field of study that is concerned with questions of value, that is, judgments about what human behaviour is "good" or "bad". Ethical judgments are no different in the area of computing from those in any other area. Computers raise problems of privacy, ownership, theft, and power, to name but a few. Computer ethics can be grounded in one of four basic world-views: Idealism, Realism, Pragmatism, or Existentialism. Idealists believe that reality is basically ideas and that ethics therefore involves conforming to ideals. Realists believe that reality is basically nature and that ethics therefore involves acting according to what is natural. Pragmatists believe that reality is not fixed but is in process and that ethics therefore is practical (that is, concerned with what will produce socially-desired results). Existentialists believe reality is self-defined and that ethics therefore is individual (that is, concerned only with one's own conscience). Idealism and Realism can be considered ABSOLUTIST worldviews because they are based on something fixed (that is, ideas or nature, respectively). Pragmatism and Existentialism can be considered RELATIVIST worldviews because they are based or something relational (that is, society or the individual, respectively). Thus ethical judgments will vary, depending on the judge's world-view. Some examples: First consider theft. Suppose a university's computer is used for sending an e-mail message to a friend or for conducting a full-blown private business (billing, payroll, inventory, etc.). The absolutist would say that both activities are unethical (while recognising a difference in the amount of wrong being done). A relativist might say that the latter activities were wrong because they tied up too much memory and slowed down the machine, but the e-mail message wasn't wrong because it had no significant effect on operations. Next consider privacy. An instructor uses her account to acquire the cumulative grade point average of a student who is in a class which she instructs. She obtained the password for this restricted information from someone in the Records Office who erroneously thought that she was the student's advisor. The absolutist would probably say that the instructor acted wrongly, since the only person who is entitled to this information is the student and his or her advisor. The relativist would probably ask why the instructor wanted the information. If she replied that she wanted it to be sure that her grading of the student was consistent with the student's overall academic performance record, the relativist might agree that such use was acceptable. Finally, consider power. At a particular university, if a professor wants a computer account, all she or he need do is request one but a student must obtain faculty sponsorship in order to receive an account. An absolutist (because of a proclivity for hierarchical thinking) might not have a problem with this divergence in procedure. A relativist, on the other hand, might question what makes the two situations essentially different (e.g. are faculty assumed to have more need for computers than students? Are students more likely to cause problems than faculty? Is this a hold-over from the days of "in loco parentis"?).
  • computer screen — the working area on the monitor of a computer
  • computer system — a computer or a set of computers that works together
  • computer vision — a robot analogue of human vision in which information about the environment is received by one or more video cameras and processed by computer: used in navigation by robots, in the control of automated production lines, etc.
  • computerisation — (chiefly, British) alternative spelling of computerization.
  • comrade in arms — a fellow soldier.
  • comrade-in-arms — A comrade-in-arms is someone who has worked for the same cause or purpose as you and has shared the same difficulties and dangers.
  • concertmistress — the first violinist in an orchestra
  • confessionalism — the belief that a religion, esp Christianity, should have a set of essential doctrines to which members of that religion must adhere
Was this page helpful?
Yes No
Thank you for your feedback! Tell your friends about this page
Tell us why?