Slashdot Mirror

Onus probandi or Burden of Proof - is a principle in philosophy, science, and law.

https://en.oxforddictionaries....
https://www.merriam-webster.co...
https://www.collinsdictionary....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Technically speaking, Apple store desired language, fully complies with their restricted access closed garden. Need to pigeon hole Apple in you mind, consider and Ladies and Gentlemen's computer club and cheeky fucker's ain't invited. Yes, that store language is typical of that kind of club, no one is ever really at fault, the environment is creative whilst always remaining pleasant. Don't buy into that lifestyle, don't buy into Apple products, as simple as that. They most certainly do have their place within a broad and diverse environment, but specifically they are designed around a greater acceptance of that controlled country club environment ie targeted at the snooty snoots https://www.collinsdictionary...., the digital toffs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.... They do actively pay for exclusivity of computing environment, it is who they are, as a corporation, as staff members and as customers.

Note of clarification, I do not own any Apple products and never have, I did run Quicktime for a while and generally had is as backup but https://www.videolan.org/vlc/ (what more needs to be said, it does the job, with minimal fuss across multiple platforms). Not that I am opposed to Apple products, just somewhat unlikely to purchase them, well, until windows anal probe 10, now the unlikely is becoming the likely, as long as dual boot to Linux, specifically https://kubuntu.org/ is possible, to be blunt so that I can escape the garden when ever I choose to do so and still return, for a more pleasant and polite computing experience.

Oh jesus christ. Your bullshit is astounding. All your doing is refuting given definitions. Let me show you.

https://www.merriam-webster.co...
"or by gaining indirect control over the political or economic life of other areas"

https://dictionary.cambridge.o...
"and economic methods"

"https://www.google.com/search?source=hp&ei=DFzPW_zQGuS70PEPyMC9wAo&q=imperialism+definition&oq=imperialism&gs_l=psy-ab.1.1.0i131l10.7085.7085..9611...1.0..0.92.243.3......0....1j2..gws-wiz.....0.hSdjwZqWRg0"
Well this is the one I originally used and it's pretty clear with "influence through diplomacy or ...."

https://www.collinsdictionary....
"...or a desire for control over other countries."
"the policy and practice of seeking to dominate the economic or political affairs of underdeveloped areas or weaker countries"

"https://www.britannica.com/topic/imperialism"
"... or by gaining political and economic control of other areas"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
"or by gaining political and economic control of other areas"
"...or other means."

I know you want to be correct here so bad but literally every definition here proves you wrong.

What's your definition source? I ask because here are six that don't require direct conquest.

https://www.merriam-webster.co...
https://dictionary.cambridge.o...
https://www.google.com/search?... (no idea where google gets its definitions but there it is)
https://www.collinsdictionary....
https://www.britannica.com/top...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
https://en.oxforddictionaries....

This doesn't seem quite correct to me - I am British and have occasionally used the phrase to mean a long, moving line of people. The pairs thing doesn't make much sense.

countable noun [oft NOUN of noun, also in N]
A crocodile of people, especially school children, or vehicles is a long line of them, moving together.
[British]
The children walk in crocodiles from the schoolhouse to the dining-room for lunch. ...a long crocodile of coaches.

https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/crocodile

It's ok, I don't mind you looking like an idiot.

https://www.collinsdictionary....
https://en.oxforddictionaries....
https://www.dictionary.com/bro...
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki...
https://dictionary.cambridge.o...
https://www.thefreedictionary....

Me, I speak English.

"A blow to X" = "something causing X trouble", so I've no idea why you insist on turning it backwards. The headline uses the idiom correctly, and you apparently know less about English than msmash does, which is ... something.

So man is natural, but the things man makes are not natural. Birds, monkeys, beavers, etc. are natural, and things they make are natural too. In other words - we're screwed, we can never do anything that is "natural".

And what exactly are we screwed about? It's a fucking word. Words have meaning. What the fuck did you think the word "artificial" meant?

"Made or produced by human beings rather than occurring naturally, especially as a copy of something natural."
https://en.oxforddictionaries....

"Artificial objects, materials, or processes do not occur naturally and are created by human beings, for example using science or technology."
https://www.collinsdictionary....

"humanly contrived (see contrive 1b) often on a natural model : man-made - an artificial limb -
  artificial diamonds"
https://www.merriam-webster.co...

"made by human skill; produced by humans (opposed to natural): artificial flowers."
http://www.dictionary.com/brow...

Sheep, this is about the law. Do you know it is against the law in most countries in the world to aid and abet terrorism, do you know that memo is basically an admission of guilt before the fact. Those facts can now be gathered by a deep level NSA/FBI raid on Facebook to determine based upon that prima facie evidence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... whether or not Facebook as an entirety, any employee, become aware of terrorist plot or on going terrorist activity, as a required by law and failed to report it, as required by law because it would hurt the company bottom line and hurt their bonus.

The law is the law, a top executive at facebook categorically stated they would ignore terrorist activity if it served greater use of Facebook and of course the bottom line. Especially when you take into account increased Facebook activity, more chances to force more ads, POST A TERRORIST ATTACK. Terrorism is profitable for Facebook, simple reality and that memo clearly reflects that. TERRORISM SERVES FACEBOOKS BOTTOM LINE. People are desperate for information and where do Facebook users go, why of course straight to Facebooks ads.

Use Facebook and you serve corporate terrorism, because acts of terrorism drives a shit bucket ton of views and that scum bag clearly knows it. So why would you continue to use Facebook, because I'm alright jack https://www.collinsdictionary...., it serves my purpose, bugger everyone else haw haw. My response, find another way.

Wrong. The rational approach is to check a dictionary. Or several.

1. https://www.thefreedictionary....
2. https://www.merriam-webster.co...
3. https://www.collinsdictionary....

You might actually (gasp) understand what the other person is saying. Crazy talk, I know.

If the leaders of a democracy

Uh, oh, you did it now. You summoned the retards.

Let's just knock them all out in one post:

democracy: a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections

democracy: government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.

democracy: A democracy is a country in which power is held by elected representatives.

democracy: government in which the people hold the ruling power either directly or through elected representatives; rule by the ruled

The word "republic" is a bland word that means nothing more than the government is a public thing subject to laws. There many totalitarian governments that can accurately be described as republics that cannot be called democracies, yet all democracies are necessarily republics. You could make an exception with constitutional monarchies with elected representatives, though without supreme power being in the hands of the people, it runs afoul of most definitions of democracies.

A lot of dumb people have built a weird religion around Federalist #10, which is ironic, considering that these poorly educated conspiracy theorists whipped into a frenzy by populist demagogues are precisely the sort of people Madison was worried about. And for all of that whining about mob rule, it was the electoral college that gave us the stupidest person to ever hold the office of President.

All harassment is, by definition, repetitive.

Go.

Read.

The.

Dictionary.

All correct definitions of the word require the behavior to be repetitive.

In other news, Zero__Kelvin is right and all the dictionary makers are wrong.

It is literally the definition of the word.

According to you, not apparently enoug oter people to influence dictionaries.

Let's take Mirriam-Webster (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/harass):

b (1) : to annoy persistently

        was harassing his younger brother

(2) : to create an unpleasant or hostile situation for especially by uninvited and unwelcome verbal or physical conduct

See b2? No requirement of repetition. From Collins https://www.collinsdictionary....

Harassment is behaviour which is intended to trouble or annoy someone, for example repeated attacks on them or attempts to cause them problems.

The repetition is only in the example, not the definition.

The free dictionary https://www.thefreedictionary....

1. To subject (another) to hostile or prejudicial remarks or actions; pressure or intimidate.

Meaning 1 of the 3 listed does not require persistence.

And that's before we get on to the legal defintion of things which are quite specific and not 100% wat you expect.

Either way, not everyone, including respectable dictionaries (go on argue that you're a more authoratative source than Collins or Mirriam Webster) do not agree with your very narrow defintion.

I did, good catch, but I did a quick lazy lookup and this was the first result: https://www.collinsdictionary....

But at least back in the 80s, I fucked a chick called Gigi (Margary) while her husband watched and some weird gay guy rubbed my legs...\

Can we please stop with the false reporting?

The conservative party won a MAJORITY in parliament. What they did not win was a PLURALITY.

Please understand the difference.

I suggest you look up the meaning of overall majority

See, I can post links too!
http://www.thefreedictionary.c...
http://idioms.thefreedictionar...
https://www.collinsdictionary....

The OED lists its definitions in historical order. The Oxford Online Dictionary, by comparison, lists "kill, destroy, or remove a large percentage"as the first definition, and only has "kill one in ten" as the second definition. Which is marked as "historical". It also includes a usage note that says, "This sense has been superseded by the later, more general sense."

http://www.oxforddictionaries....

Collins Dictionary also has the one-in-ten meaning listed second: http://www.collinsdictionary.c...

As does dictionary.com: http://dictionary.reference.co...

Wiktionary lists the historical meaning first, but also presents evidence suggesting that this sense is basically never used any more, except when complaining about the change in meaning (at least in the British National Corpus): https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki...

Comprise: to be made up of (something) : to include or consist of (something)
http://www.merriam-webster.com...

Comprise: to have as parts or members, or to be those parts or members:
http://dictionary.cambridge.or...

to include; contain
to constitute the whole of; consist of
http://www.collinsdictionary.c...

Come on, they're claiming it was their petition to the FDA - "Fast track Drug and vaccine research for Ebola Hemorrhagic fever" - that did it?

I think what they're claiming is that the desired outcome was reached and the petition was pushing in that direction. The degree to which any one petition took a lead or decisive role might be unknown, however, any assertion that all those petitions were simply ineffective noise is ludicrous. Clearly, looking at the individual cases, there are some where the petition would have been a very significant form of pressure (to which electing one legislator does not favorably compare.)

Some of these petitions deliver nearly half a million signatures to the decision makers engaged with a specific problem. When the target is a corporation or some other entity that is actually concerned with public opinion, any thesis that the petition is inherently ineffective is about as dubious as anything gets. Particularly in light of the outcomes often going the way the petition was asking for, whereas prior to the petition, these same conditions were not extant (obviously that is why the petitions arise in the first place.)

They got 19,000 signatures. That's nothing. There was an international race to get control over Ebola. This petition had ZERO effect.

Slacktivism is for slackers - those who are too lazy to get their butts out of a chair.

Gratuitous, research-free, unjustified name-calling is for the ignorant, the disingenuous and the propagandist. I wonder which of those you represent.

Research-free? The term has been used repeatedly in news reports to deride the people who think that signing a petition or clicking on like will mean something - usually when comparing slacktivists to the people who are in the streets marching, protesting, resisting police, or actually doing something. Besides, how can you say it's research-free when I provided a link to slacktivism, or unjustified name-calling when it's a recognized phenomenon and wikipedia uses onchange.org petitions as an example of slacktivism?

Here are some more definitions of the term, which has been in general use for years, and is often defined as useless actions such as signing online petitions or buying a bracelet. Also implying that I'm either ignorant, disingenuous , or a propagandist is either ignorant, disingenuous, or the mark of a frustrated slacktivist. :-)

Looks like it is an accepted English word

Only oxygen can oxidize something, by definition.

In that case, I suggest you take a look at the definition of oxidization.

Incorrect. I never once said or implied that punishment in general implies big government; we're talking specifically about the death penalty.

And if you think punishment is the ultimate big government, then you imply the argument against big government means no punishment. We can play these word games where you try to say something that appears to be one thing but is really something else all day long. Just don't get mad when I call out what it implies.

Nonsense. The argument? You speak as if there is only one group at work here. This comment shows that there are multiple groups at work here.

I don't think you will find any group that thinks the government on a federal or state level should not do what the constitution demands or limits them from doing and still have that argument construed as being against big government. It doesn't have to be one group, but you will be hard pressed to find a group with a deviation from how I explained it.

But really, why refer to it simply as "big government" (among other ambiguous terms) and then act surprised when people don't know exactly what is meant? When you say "big government," it makes it sound like you're talking about government in general, and that's exactly what group I'm talking about.

Big government is a term used by people who object to the government's approach on freedoms and deviation from constitutional roles. I mean lets look the term up and see what it is..

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/big+government
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/big-government
http://www.macmillandictionary.com/us/dictionary/american/big-government
http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/big-government

Those all with a few different wordings state the big government is a derogatory term used to describe an over reaching government outside it's constitutional roles. But Wikipedia has a more detailed description of it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_government

the first paragraph on the page says "Big government (sometimes capitalized as Big Government) is a derogatory term generally used by political conservatives, laissez-faire advocates, or libertarians to describe a government or public sector that they consider to be excessively large, corrupt and inefficient, or inappropriately involved in certain areas of public policy or the private sector. The term may also be used specifically in relation to government policies that attempt to regulate matters considered to be private or personal, such as private sexual behavior or individual food choices. The term has also been used to define a dominant federal government that seeks to control the authority of local institutions - an example being the overriding of state authority in favor of federal legislation."

The reality of it is when the term is used, it is assumed those who hear it either understand the meaning or have the wherewithal to open a dictionary or do a Google search or at minimum ask someone to explain it to them. Perhaps it is a fault of those who use it in that we automatically assume the people on the other end already understand the concept. The term is not just two words Big and Government put together, but one phrase with two words that mean a specific thing or subject of things.

No. You just weren't sure which group I was referring to.

No, I'm confident you were not referring to any group who uses the term big government and instead were combining the definition of

You have also missed the point

The origin of words is often important, as are regional variations. I am assuming you realise that the Merriam-Webster is the quintessential American English dictionary. A quintessentially English English dictionary does not have the "or a split roll" addition to the definition (see also this one). My Macquarie English Dictionary (Australian English) dictionary reads: "1. two slices of bread (or toast) , plain or buttered, with a layer of meat, fish, cheese, or the like between. 2. something formed by similar combination." The term "Sub", traded so heavily by Subway is a contraction of Submarine sandwich which is claimed to be American in origin (along with quite a few US regional variations). While what Subway sell is a "sandwich" in arrangement that is not the term that much of the English speaking world would use outside of a Subway outlet: that is the point.

is it?

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/disorientating
http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/disorientating
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/disorientate

What is up with spelling Gauges without a U? Canada?

Both spellings are correct. source: http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/gage

No, historically cybersex always meant two people chatting to each other by something like IRC or IM in a sexual manner.

You may be right that the media has hijacked the term and misused it because they didn't understand it, but it's definition was historically always pretty clear. See here for the original definition:

http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/cybersex?showCookiePolicy=true

Using the word 'weapon' to describe something that may give someone leverage in a conversation or argument is not a new usage in English; it's a very common piece of figurative language.

Wasn't that clever? using an alternate definition of the word the original poster used in order to prove him wrong.

Definition:
any substance used in or resulting from a reaction involving changes to atoms or molecules, especially one derived artificially for practical use