Slashdot Mirror

Your calculations show that 0.01% of the atmosphere is CO2. Hence you argue, it is impossible for a 27% increase in the CO2 levels to affect anything. 0.004% of the human body is iron. So the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere is 250 times the percentage of iron in the human body. http://www.britannica.com/ebi/article-202929 Using your reasoning, I guess iron has absolutely no effect on the human body and is just there as filler eh? 20grams is 0.03% of the weight of a 60kg man. Yet, the lethal human dose for arsenic is 20g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arsenic 50mg is 0.000083% the weight of a 60kg man. Yet, the lethal human dose for hydrogen cyanide is 50mg. If it is inhaled, concentrations of 300 parts per million is all that is needed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyanide

You bring up good points.

However, just because *you* do not have time, does not mean that someone else might not have. Since all articles are entered by volunteers, chances are someone cares enough about the subject. Most of the time, these peopel care enough about the subject not to spout drivel. Often they link to more authoritative sources, or to where the information was compiled from.

I'm certainly not saying that one should cite Wikipedia as gospel, nor that it is always the best source of information. It's not going to give you the same level of detail as someone's dissertation on the Hall Effect, and probably not on anything else either.

However, in the case that the GP referenced (the Wikipedia definition of a rootkit), it's a very GOOD first-pass definition. Not exhaustive, but certainly better than I would expect to find in Britannica or the dictionary. (A quick search of Britannica's online encyclopedia shows *NO* reference for a root kit. Or rootkit.)

Wikipedia's not going to be the best definition, but as a "What the hell is this?" resource, it's a GREAT tool for finding out basics on subjects. Or, as basic as the general public is going to care or understand about.

Just for the record, what subjects do you consider important, which Wikipedia has been lacking in? What are you comparing it to?

As an example of my basis of comparison:

Britannica: http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9038924?query =hall%20effect&ct= (~375 words)

Wikipedia: (More, with pictures.)

Neither of these goes into as much detail as current research has (for example, no mention that I noticed of electronic propulsion via Hall Effect Thrusters). However, the Wiki article appeared to have generally more information, with room for growth. If someone wanted to know, "What's the Hall effect?", and did not have ready access (or time) to read the latest research papers and background material, it's a good start.

sheriff:
a senior executive officer in an English county or smaller area who performs a variety of administrative and judicial functions. Officers of this name also exist in Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland, ...

Sheriff.

You got away lucky, it could have gone very bad.

Being as I am a philosopher, I think I'm actually in a position to give a little critique of your response.

The vast majority of philosophers uphold theism. -- Proof by reference to obscure authority is not a sound argumentive technique. If you are going to make such a claim, the burden is upon you to support it. Further, word choices such as 'vast majority' simultaneously attempt to represent claims as being strong while leaving them vague. Philosophical arguments are not well founded or defended using superlatives nor vagueness. You're making a large claim. How, exactly, do you actually plan to support it?

'theism,' incidentally, refers to the belief that there is/are a god or gods, and that they are some way involved with existence. It is not, as a theologial position, restricted to, or inherently supporting of, Christianity or any other specific religion.

The two most widely respected (even among their atheist colleagues) philosophers of religion are Alvin Plantinga and Richard Swinburne, who have spent most of their careers showing that many Christian doctrines can be supposed to be true. -- Again, you make a completely undefended claim, yet attempt to represent it as a widely accepted fact. This is also an unsound argumentive method. If you are going to try to make a claim about the opinion of a large number of people, you must clearly define the members of the group, and then present evidence to support your claim. Further (while not making a critism of either Plantinga or Swinburne), someone making a career out of a debate upon suppositions does not in any way in and of itself have any bearing upon the possible existence of god(s).

Take a look, for example, at Swinburne's The Resurrection of God Incarnate (Oxford University Press, 2003). -- Yet again, you make an attempt to invoke a reference to a seperate authority, rather than present an argument of your own. While you've provided a specific reference, there is still an expectation that one will present at least the outline of an argument, rather than expect someone to infer it from an entirely seperate work.

Therefore, one cannot say that religion in general is a "silly thing". -- You attempt to claim your unsound references in some way actually constitute and argument, and form the basis for a conclusion. They do not. Your conclusion in no way follows from them, and in no way actually addresses Grishnakh's statement of personal opinion.

If you held the necessary academic qualifications -- philosophers (formally credentialed or not) refer to this as the Genetic Fallacy, the source of an argument in no way actually affects the validity or soundness of the argument itself.

and were able to frame an argument correctly, -- perhaps this is an unfair aspertion, since you have not demonstrated you yourself would recognize a correctly formed argument if you saw one, not having presented one yourself. (People in glass houses...)

people might care. -- You cared enough to respond to begin with, so it's apparent that other people might care about the topic regardless of your own opinion of a position different than your own.

Err, no. Rand believed that selfishness was a virtue and altruism a vice to be avoided. Or at least that is the interpretation here.

Which puts your accusation of "ignorance" on other poster's part, in rather amusing light.

I'm finally learning, seem to be the real barrier that divides Libertarians from other people.

Actually, no. Please note that the most adamant defender of Libertarianism on this thread appears to be barely literate and only partially coherent. Add to this the fact that the other defenders are contradicting each other as to what do their own ideals mean, and are unable to answer simple questions. Sprinkle it all with an apparent confusion as to Rand's function in the Libertarian line of thought as well as even the basic meaning of her ideas -- which you just exhibited.

That is why people have hard times with Libertarians, because it seems that Libertarianism is merely an incoherent amalgamate of half-baked ideas with a central motive of extreme selfishness and greed. Which, I would agree, does divide them from most decent people.

Is that the same list as at

http://corporate.britannica.com/press/inventions.h tml

which has Viagra, toilet tissue and the electric guitar on it?

Impressive list with regarding to quantity, too bad about the quality.

If universities actively use their resources to push the Napster service, they are actively using their resources to help MS break the law in two ways: extend the desktop monopoly and break into the audio/video market.

The captive market for music already exists. Their options are to either spend a lot of time blocking packets to unclog their network, spend more money on better networking, or subscribe to this service, which unclogs the network and removes fear of legal liability if they can make it work.

Or the MPAA/RIAA could modernize its business. Being a bottleneck in distribution of entertainment doesn't work once you go beyond distribution fof physical media and enter the world of networked computing. Nor does the current move towards extortion seem to be either popular nor sustainable. Just because they once had a model that used to be profitable doesn't mean the world owes them a handout to keep them in money once that model becomes antiquated. The times don't fit the MPAA/RIAA's outmoded business model, they need to adapt or die.

The rest of your post is just anti-MS FUD.

Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it's FUD. And just because it doesn't favor MS doesn't mean it's FUD either. MS has worked hard over many years to earn the poor reputation it has among the tech community for it's shoddy software and predatory business methods.

My mistake, I read http://www.britannica.com/eb/article?tocId=9063942 / and assumed that premier = president. He still did fairly well, but like you say he wasn't elected.

Funny thing about Feynman is he was the descendant of Russian and Polish Jews. http://www.britannica.com/nobel/micro/207_91.html

There's a decent amount of evidence that has been mounting over the past few years that a large component of redshift is in fact intrinsic, i.e. not attributed to the Doppler effect.

In some ways, it seems related to the much-glossed-over "K Effect" of a few decades ago, where it was found that bright, bright blue stars seemed to be systematically redshifted.

Researchers like M. B. Bell are of the opinion that the intrinsic redshifts are superimposed on a Big Bang flow (reducing the actual velocity we should be measuring). Others, like Arp, believe that the Hubble Flow is an illusion, and that the universe is actually relatively static once you take away the intrinsic redshifts.

David Russell's paper that just came out supports either view, and shows that other explanations (like Tully-Fisher Relationship errors or rotational velocities) are far too small to account for the large discrepancies.

(Some more hubbub on the topic.)

In either case, intrinsic redshifts will take a lot of pressure off researchers to find 'dark energy', because the discrepancies of speed/distance are much reduced.

Then, perhaps, we can stop looking for something that isn't there? :)

But how can this Wikipedia thing exist if it is not listed in Encyclopedia Britannica, which, since its authors say is better, must surely be the authoritative guide to everything?

http://www.britannica.com/dictionary?book=Dictiona ry&va=objective&query=objective

3 a : expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations

And, of course, Groklaw doesn't distort the news.
And that last remark, well, I don't recognize that in Slashdot.

From here:

In an age when anyone can post their version of the facts on the Internet, Encyclopædia Britannica maintains its reputation as the most authoritative source of the information and ideas people need for work, school, and the sheer joy of discovery.

Hmmm... is someone feeling a wee bit threatened? :-)

"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win." Mahatma Ghandi, courtesy of WikiQuote ;-)

Keylock, around 10th century BC

Archimedean Screw, around 3rd century BC
Astrolabe, 2nd century BC

The Sandglass, before the 14th century
First pendulum clock, 1656

Keylock, around 10th century BC

Archimedean Screw, around 3rd century BC
Astrolabe, 2nd century BC

The Sandglass, before the 14th century
First pendulum clock, 1656

I might also have wished, ideally, for a nod to the astrolabe, somewhere there, within a listing of the most incredibly nifty gadgets of all time.

As far as pre-modern computing goes, I can think of few devices more compelling.

it was originally designed to share and consolidate information from all its users. The Wikipedia is designed specifically to facilitate that.

OTOH, you can see the currency and objectivity of the corporate approach to information control with this query. At least it gives you an answer quickly.

% GDP/US$ spent on defence:

USA: 3.3%, $370.7b

China: 3.5-5.0%, $60b

Russia: 1.4%, $18b (2005)

France: 2.6%, $45b

Germany: 1.5%, $35b

North Korea: 22.9%, $5.2b

Cuba: 1.8%, $0.57b

Iran: 3.3%, $4.3b

Syria: 5.9%, $0.86b

Canada: 1.1%, $9.8b

Australia: 2.8%, $14.1b

Japan: 1%, $42.4b

UK: 2.4%, $42.8b

Israel: 8.7%, $9.1b

Europe and Canada have high tax burdens compared to the U.S. Think how much higher those tax burdens would be if those countries were spending 5%+ of their GDP on their militaries. That might not cause many of their compaies to fail, but it surely wouldn't help any of them succede!

On the contrary, it looks as though the going rate is about $30-60b for industrialised countries, including most-likely hypothetical symmetric opponents, regardless of GDP, size of territory or population.

I'd say more pertinent questions are 'Who does the US feel so threatened by that it feels the need to spend more than China, Russia, the UK, France, Germany, Japan and Australia combined?' and 'Might it be that the US is just a little paranoid?'

One way to look at this is that the U.S. taxpayer is subsidising the socialist economies of the West by providing their defense. It's an open question whether those countries could maintain their social programs and provide for their own defense if we didn't keep them dry under our umbrella. The fact that they are right now having to cut back their social programs and taxes to save their economies suggests that they would be forced to choose between guns or butter if we left them on their own.

Maybe during the Cold War that point of view could be taken, but I don't think it's valid any longer.

So, we pay for the Canadians and the Europeans to have a fancy ``social safety net'', then they laugh at us because we don't have one, and insult us because we have a big military. Maybe we should let those sleazeballs on the Continent deal with the Balkans and the Middle East and Russia and China on their own dime, and just take care of ourselves for a while? I bet we'd be laughing a lot longer than they would ....

If you're worried about China, stop providing about one third of their defence budget purely through Wal-Mart!

As far as the Balkans go, yes, Europe probably should have taken a greater, and sooner interest. Given the history of that region, though, some reluctance is pe

If wikipedia could allow the experts to keep there own copy of a page which only they can edit.

Khruschev was Russian.

While Robert McHenry makes some good points, there are also some amazing differences in Wikipedia's favor. Try looking up "The battle of Leyte Gulf" (the largest naval battle in history, during WWII). While I don't have a subscription to Britannica, their website says the article is 288 words. In contrast, the Wikipedia article is 3,141 words, including strategic background, detailed descriptions of each phase of the battle, and the aftermath. It includes maps, photographs, and statistics, book references, and web site references. As a person who is reasonably knowledgable on the subject, I give it an "A" for accuracy. Plus I didn't have to pay to see it :-). I'd say there's something to be said for the open publishing process!

+ "mold, or a US$995.00 loaf of bread, mostly free of mold?"

"That Britannica link goes to the "concise" oort cloud article unless you're a member, so I'm not sure that's a good comparison."

Actually I'd say it's an excellent comparaison.

"You are viewing a brief summary article. Members can login to view the full article" - (they won't tell you the price, but apparently it's $7.95 per month) EB

I pay more than that for Wikipedia, but in return, I know that everyone in the world has free access to an encyclopedia.

You can just go here. You can do limited searching for free. For $6/month, you can subscribe and have access to the entire encyclopedia. I've subscribed, and I think it's worth every penny. $6 represents about 7 minutes of my labor, which is a much better deal than Wikipedia.

Lets compare the Hamilton example in both Concise Britanica and Wikipedia

First off in wikipedia you get the full article, rather than a shorter article and a sales pitch. Thats the main problem with britanica, its not part of the free internet. It's content is only for those prepared to pay. Well I want a resource that I can point my friends, family and colegues to. Britanica does not cut it.

I was not sure which 'Hamilton' Robert McHenry was refering to. Of more interest to me was William Hamilton the mathematician, creator of the quatornians. I can read something about him on wikipedia, but not in Britanica.

Maybe a better comparision is with other free internet sources. I'd trust the reliability of wikipedia far more than any other source on the internet.

And the date issue, is now fixed! How quickly could an error in Britanica be fixed? Seems like these monkeys are pretty quick off the ball.

Wikipedia got a nicer picture!

Britanica, consistantly times out. Wheres the 'reliability' in that.

I think Robert McHenry is disingenious, his whole article revolves around one bug, and the usual unfounded critiques of open source. Anyone in software knows how easy it is to find a bug. One bug does not make a useless bit of software or resource. The article seems like the typical rubishing piece, put out by another orginization feeling threatened buy this 'open' stuff.

You totally miss his point. He checked an article which he knew was likely to have a problem based on his experience with Britannica

Frank Vincent Zappa (December 21, 1940 - December 4, 1993) was an American rock/jazz fusion musician, composer and satirist

Frank Zappa
born Dec. 21, 1940, Baltimore, Md., U.S.
died Dec. 4, 1993, Los Angeles, Calif.
U.S. rock musician and composer.
orig. Francis Vincent Zappa

"A million monkeys might eventually write Shakespeare, but how would they recognise it once they had?"

This memo describes a protocol suite which supports an infinite number of monkeys that sit at an infinite number of typewriters in order to determine when they have either produced the entire works of William Shakespeare or a good television show. The suite includes communications and control protocols for monkeys and the organizations that interact with them.

"A million monkeys might eventually write Shakespeare, but how would they recognise it once they had?"

This memo describes a protocol suite which supports an infinite number of monkeys that sit at an infinite number of typewriters in order to determine when they have either produced the entire works of William Shakespeare or a good television show. The suite includes communications and control protocols for monkeys and the organizations that interact with them.

• Britttanica
• Wikkki

Wikki

Britiannica

Wikki

Britanica

Wikki

Britiannica

Wikki

Britanica

People can still visit the Enclyclopedia Britannica website and get the "facts" if they choose (for a fee of course). There is also a CD/DVD-Rom that can be purchased for about $70, albeit every year to get updates. Encyclopedia makers are just like the music industry, in that there is a new market and a new business model is needed. Either you evolve or die.

Anyway, Wikiped is merely an "Everything" for dummies. A launching point. There is a reason why teachers require students to have more sources than just an encyclopedia.

I will say one thing Wiki excels at over traditional resources is Science and Technology. For example: The Oort cloud, which is a theoretical source of comets, is often gospel in many lower level science and encyclopedia text books.

Britannica Article

Wiki Article

As you can see there is a major difference in the way the theory is presented. Britannica as science fact and Wiki as theory.

I worked as a slave for the notorious Church of Scientology when I was "just out of college" and swore I'd never do that kind of thing again because I was just being used by the higher ups to make themselves rich.

I imagine that in this case there was plenty of psychological manipulation going on. However, in a free market, it takes two to exploit. One to exploit, and to allow himself to be exploited. Clearly you figured this out and got out of that awful situation.

I greatly respect true paragons in their field, but I despise cheaters. Richard Nixon won his election by cheating.

Yeah, but it's also generally accepted that he lost in 1960 because of cheating.

EA gets its massive profits by cheating also. Any corporation that worked its employees twice as long for the same pay is not really productive. It's cheating.

It's stupid. It's unhealthy in the long run. But I don't understand how it's cheating. You are free to quit and they are breaking laws, so I'm not sure how you can call it cheating.


The reason laws are necessary to prevent this sort of thing is because it gives bad management a way to "seem" good. Instead of using ingenuity (the American way) to increase production, they use pur brute force. This is pathetic, especially from a technology company.

You've never worked for a startup have you? The fact of the matter is, if you are working for a startup with only a frew people, you usually need both ingenuity and brute force. That's just the way it is. Of course, the potential payoff is much higher, too.


Limiting people to working 8 hours a day by law basically says, "If you cannot be profitable with people working 8 hours a day, don't go into business in the first place". This would require entrepreneurs to structure their ventures appropriately.

This is idiotic. "Whoops! Sorry, I can't finish this heart surgery because it's 5 o'clock and I started at 8 (with my government alloted hour for lunch). The night shift is here, but you'll die before I explain exactly what I've done and what I haven't. Good luck."

This would be the stupidest law passed since prohibition. First off, a lot of people want to work more than 8 hours. When I'm really into what I'm doing, I often work more than 8 hours without realizing it. Your law would probably put every family farm and half the startup companies in the country out of business and raise prices significantly for all of us. I'm a family guy, and do not want to work to the point where I don't see my kids and wife or not have much time with them, but I am more than happy to pull some 12- or 16-hour days once in a while when necessary. Working for a startup, I pulled a few 60 hour or so weeks in a row back in the late spring to help get some software out the door. I can tell you I've earned plenty of sweat equity and my boss's gratitude. However, I've told every employer I've ever worked for that I am willing to do overtime when necessary (every good employee is), as long as it's the exception, not the rule. No one forces you to work for EA. If enough people refused to do what they require, then they will have to find another solution. It doesn't take laws to change this, just a working free market. You can't legislate people to have a spine.

Can you get productive work out of people after they have worked a full 8 hours?

Absolutely. I'm good for 12-16 hours on most days. I don't like to work this way, and I wouldn't be able to do it for weeks on end, but with some Mountain Dew, a pile of good tunes and a stack of MST3K tapes, I can code well for a really long time. Over a long weekend or work week, I've done that kind of thing several times.


Ask yourself this, "Would you want a surgeon operating on you after he'd just perform

That's from a dictionary.com, maintained by an american corporation, of course they're going to leave out Mussolini's "corporatism", an essential part of the economic policies of fascism! The Encyclopaedia Brittanica (rather more reliable than an american dictionary, and quite well respected...) doesn't, however:
http://www.britannica.com/eb/article?tocId=219369

The fascist economic theory corporatism called for organizing each of the major sectors of industry, agriculture, the professions, and the arts into state- or management-controlled trade unions and employer associations, or "corporations," each of which would negotiate labour contracts and working conditions

So you're wrong, by the definition of fascism widely accepted outside a particular fascist state: The american corporatist NewSpeaking of "fascism" is not what is meant when a non-american such as myself (and I am the original AC poster) says "fascism".

Why do you say that gas turbines are some of the most efficient fuel to energy converters known to man? Every link I can find in a google search says otherwise. http://www.britannica.com/eb/article?tocId=45726 for example.

Gas turbines seem to only become highly fuel efficient when the heat of their exhaust gas is captured by a secondary system, like a steam recovery boiler. http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/v33_1_00/turbi ne.htm

Well, I guess if your whole country (at 16,639 sq mi) is 2/3 the size of West Virginia (which ranks 41/50 in USA state size), then I would hope you could do same day delivery to anywhere in the country...

Here's the Britannica Online's discussion of libertarianism. Here's the Wikipedia discussion of libertarianism. Both encylopedia's mention Ayn Rand -- which is appropriate, given that her ideas overlap very much with libertarianism -- but do not mention that Rand was not and did not consider herself a libertarian. Wikipedia has a lengthy discussion of the topic, which I would consider a good introduction for a college-student; Britannica's introduction to the topic might suffice for a five-year old. In fact, Britannica's "discussion" of libertarianism is barely more informative than a dictionary-definition of libertarianism.

I have an old collection of Britannica's in my closet, collecting dust. I consider them a depricated tool that are only of use to children. To adults, they are barely more useful than dictionary-definitions, and one will find more comprehensive information from Wikipedia, or simply a well-informed web-search.

One individual, in a debate with me online, even claimed that since an economist (Murray Rothbard) wasn't mentioned in the Britannica, his work wasn't worth reading. This is the kind of idiocy that these biased depricated encylopedia's furnish. Childish thinking among adults. Encylopedia's, including Wikipedia, are a useful introduction to ideas. They do not cover all important ideas, and -- even Wikipedia, certainly Britannica -- offer depricated and flawed overviews of ideas, masking the complexity in a field.

how often do you see Encycolpaedia spelt that way anymore?

Quite a lot really. Also paedophile, foetus, faeces, mediaeval and so on...

Unfortunately NASA are out of luck the 'flying shuttle' was already patented in 1733, replacing the 'Spinning Jenny'.

Given M$'s slave driving ambitions, the reference to autocracy must be intentional. Microsoft's audacity never ceases to amaze.

If you like that kind of thing, you might as well do your research in pre 1990 Pravda or Tass which are essentially identical. Remember the Russian proverb as you do, "There's no truth in the news and no news in the truth."

The admission of preference of message is a symptom of much greater dishonesty. The other symptom is the huge proportion of the Microsoft budget that goes into PR, hype and slander.

For all the alledged "noise" RMS is accused of, can anyone imagine him doing something as pointless as the things Bill Gates did for XP launch? Imagine RMS renting helicopters to transport a carboard box, hiring Madonna and putting his face on a 40 foot high screen to announce a new version of emacs. That, my friend, is the "news" MSNBC trumpets.

These goals make it impossible for M$ to ever be objective or as good or better than Google. When Slate publishes an article recommending another browser over IE, Slate is sold off. Guess where that Slate article shows up on a newsbot search for "IE Firefox." Somewhere way way after four or five blurbs about Firefox errors. A Google news search for the same thing finds an article that references Slate at #10. Google's bias is to refelect the news not to make Firefox look bad like M$'s site is. The same pattern is demonstrated whenever anyone mentions a M$ search engine. The contents are filtered by meta rules that manipulate rather than inform the reader.

I can only hope that most people think like you that it's better to be informed than manipulated.

Christianity is not now, nor has ever been, a requirement for citizenship in the USA

True, but I know of many immigrants who, although not Christian themselves, came to this country because they believed America to be a Christian nation and, as such, they believed it to be a nice place to live (and they weren't disappointed). They told me their country was definitely not a Christian nation and they felt in fear most of the time. You know, kind of like the feeling you got when Bill Clinton was in office, only worse (I know it seems impossible that one could feel worse than that, but that's what they said. :-) ).

And I'd like to quote

Hmmmmm....one quote vs. thousands of documents to the contrary.
Looks like you are one of them unfortunate sods with one of them modern revisionist educations. Or as some would say, an education with blinders on.
Or is that what they mean by a "liberal" education?

For a WAY more comprehensive education on America I suggest you get your hands on a copy of The Annals of America by them Britannica people. Unfortunately it seems to be unavailable for purchase(which sucks, because I was hoping to purchase a set). You should be able to find it in your local library. I find it funny that it's published by the British.

It's somewhat ambiguous, but I believe that the article you refer to states that it's actually the African elephant that weighs up to 7500kg, and that Indian elephants are smaller than African elephants, so could be expected to weigh less.

Encarta puts Indian elephants at "up to 5000kg" and Britannica put the weight of an Indian elephant at "around 5500kg".

The record about the heaviest elephant ever does check out though at Guinness, so I suppose it's quite possible that an exceptional Indian elephant could have reached 8 tons.

Europe too.

Anthropology tends to be tied to Sociology over here...

As Archaeology is a discipline within Anthropology, Sociology is a specialization of Anthropology. Anthropology is incomplete without the study of cultural context. An accurate simplification would be that as siblings, Archaeology and Sociology study the same things, but at different times. One in the present, the other in the past. One relies on remnants of civilization to learn about its subject via recontruction, the other studies it live. Of course, this is a simplification, and in actuality most of the disciplines within the larger science of Anthropology (the study of man) borrow from one another or overlap.

...whilst Archaeology tends to be associated with History or even Classics, hence the disparaging 'Archaeology is the handmaiden of History' quote often trotted out.

You may be confusing various subsets of Archaeology, with the discipline itself. Sub-fields of Archaeology include Classical and Historical Archeaology. The science remains the same, despite the specialization.

= 9J =

Europe too.

Anthropology tends to be tied to Sociology over here...

As Archaeology is a discipline within Anthropology, Sociology is a specialization of Anthropology. Anthropology is incomplete without the study of cultural context. An accurate simplification would be that as siblings, Archaeology and Sociology study the same things, but at different times. One in the present, the other in the past. One relies on remnants of civilization to learn about its subject via recontruction, the other studies it live. Of course, this is a simplification, and in actuality most of the disciplines within the larger science of Anthropology (the study of man) borrow from one another or overlap.

...whilst Archaeology tends to be associated with History or even Classics, hence the disparaging 'Archaeology is the handmaiden of History' quote often trotted out.

You may be confusing various subsets of Archaeology, with the discipline itself. Sub-fields of Archaeology include Classical and Historical Archeaology. The science remains the same, despite the specialization.

= 9J =

The latin root is irrelevant now. The English borrowed the form for singular and made its own plural form. It's the use that dictates the form, as much as grammar nazis dislike that. Even Britannica uses viruses.

(The trouble with seems to be the lack of quotes for the Latin plural form; the reason could with virus being a collective noun. also, declined forms are mixed - some use it as a 2nd declension neuter, few as a 4th. Dead topic, anyway.)

No, that is not what the word colonize means.

I know you meant to write planet. You know you meant ot write planet. Shit happens.

Yes, I read the original post. It doesn't make you less of a hypocrite though--do you understand the meaning of the word?

That's the way it is and nothing'll change that.

I would hope that the passage of time will help you become better adjusted to society in general.

You could also do with forming a sense of humour... Having one would have avoided this thread altogether.