Slashdot Mirror

https://www.dictionary.com/e/t...

" You dems ran a HORRIBLE candidate."

How on earth is that not him getting lucky? I could use that scenario to explain the concept of luck to some one and they would understand it perfectly when I was done.

He has nothing to do with what the Democrats did but yet he benefited immensely from many of their decisions. He straight up got lucky https://www.dictionary.com/bro... that they made the choices that they did.

"Right now, you dems are pushing women, with nearly all being far left extremists that do not care about fiscal issues"

Maybe from all the way over there on America's far right they all look far left. Relative to the rest of the world we all live in though, many of them would be called moderates.

And yet he's not obligated to do so. Can I offer you a link: https://www.dictionary.com/bro...

Okay, people are not illegal. They may be in the country against US law, but a human being is not inherently illegal.

An alien can be illegal when they enter a country in an illegal manner. They are, in fact, criminals by the very fact of entering the USA illegally. Unless you want to claim a murderer is not a murderer, he may have committed murder, but a human being is not inherently a murderer.

I think you're viewing restitution too narrowly to limit it to material/financial interests, as recompense can take many forms. How do you feel about forcing a perpetrator apologize publicly? I feel like that's part and parcel to making the victim 'whole' via an acknowledgement of the crime against them, though forced public shaming would fall under the 'revenge' banner as well.

I'm going by the dictionary definition:

1. reparation made by giving an equivalent or compensation for loss, damage, or injury caused; indemnification.
2. the restoration of property or rights previously taken away, conveyed, or surrendered.
3. restoration to the former or original state or position.

Or if you prefer a legal definition:

1) returning to the proper owner property or the monetary value of loss. Sometimes restitution is made part of a judgment in negligence and/or contracts cases.
2) in criminal cases, one of the penalties imposed is requiring return of stolen goods to the victim or payment to the victim for harm caused. Restitution may be a condition of granting a defendant probation or giving him/her a shorter sentence than normal.

A public statement would only be (partial) restitution if it reverses damage caused by the crime, such as defamation. Publicly apologizing for stealing someone's money doesn't return the victim's money.

nightcats speculated:

Preoccupation with The Face: what if these apps were called something different, like Brainbook and Heart-time? What if they were designed to explore what is deeper than appearance, mere image? Would they have a different ethos, a different cultural focus, a different user base and therefore a more sensitive development model? But okay, words mean little anymore, I suppose it's a silly question in this culture.

First of all, words do have meaning - in fact, many of them have multiple meanings. (When there's more than one definition for a term, in the sense which it is used is typically obvious from the context in which it appears - but I digress.)

Apple appropriated the compound term "face time," eliminated the space between the two words, and used it as the name of its video calling app. The original term, however, significantly predates social media. Dictionary.com gives three, somewhat related definitions of "face time." Other online dictionaries list the same three definitions/senses, although some of them order those definitions differently, which is important only because the convention is that definitions are listed in order of the frequency with which they occur in everyday use. (The Urban Dictionary lists several additional slang definitions, most of which are variations on the use of "face time" as a euphemism for oral sex.)

Before Apple turned it into an app name, "face time" was most often used to mean face-to-face contact, as opposed to voice calls, emails, or other means of communication, and, used in that sense, it traces back to 1990 or thereabouts. (Merriam-Webster traces "face time" used in the sense of celebrities "appearing in front of the media or on television" to 1978, but that usage was basically confined to the entertainment industry and its associated publications.) Apple's useage is an attempt to equate video calling with face-to-face conversation for millenials and grandparents.

Facebook derived its name from the "facebooks" of campus fraternities and sororities, which are a kind of cross between a yearbook and a membership roster for participants in fratority life. (It's kind of ironic that the social media company is so aggressive about throwing cease-and-desist orders at commercial uses of the words "face" or "book" by other online sites, when the fact is that Zuckerberg appropriated a widely-used campus slang term for his own company's name - but I don't think that guy is capable of appreciating, or even understanding irony.)

What you're bemoaning is the narcissism and self-involvement of smartphone-and-social-media users (the ranks of which are not exclusively confined to milennials, although they do make up its largest sub-demographic). I think it's a legitimate concern, but what I take issue with is your assumption that these face-plus-whatever compound terms derive from a focus on the individual self that is somehow reflective of a cultural sea change.

I don't think it is. I think people have always been self-absorbed, going all the way back to Lucy. Every creative person I've ever met certainly is (to be an artist, you pretty much have to be a narcissist, because your choice of profession is predicated on the bedrock assumption that the works you produce are compelling enough to persuade people to pay you for them). Social media and smartphones have simply enabled and legitimized that fundamental human predisposition - and, unfortunately, helicopter parenting has validated it for the millennial generation.

We're human. The tendency towards excessive self-involvement is baked into our genes. Learning to resist it isn't easy for any of us - and it's especially hard for kids whose parents insisted on bubble-wrapping them, while assuring them all the while that the smell of their feces is as fresh as a summer ham ...

https://www.dictionary.com/e/t...

You are just an idiot.

There are no people "who believe in science", in the sense of having faith.

https://www.dictionary.com/bro...

Just take out the word "faith," which you're using in a circular fashion to un-define the word "believe."

Assume, as a thought experiment, that my words were impeachable and true. Now that you're refraining from insisting I'm "rong," you can simply ask: What meaning of these words, as would be described in a dictionary, add up to a true claim? OK, there, good job, you did it, you understood what I meant!

If it sounds so untrue that it must have been said by an "idiot," that proves you didn't try to understand it. Understanding involves finding the true meaning in the words. When the meaning of the whole eludes you, it implies only that you didn't choose the correct meaning of the individual words.

My goal is to say true words for people who are capable of comprehending them. Perhaps it would help if I also pointed out that I didn't try to make them accessible; they're targeted solely at people capable of comprehending words used for their literal meaning, even when that meaning was unexpected. You simply aren't expecting a person to have the perspective I explained, because it isn't one of the perspectives being shouted by the various echo chambers, so you presume there must not be meaning. This is why I don't try to be accessible; you might accidentally think you learned something from what I said, and I don't want that to happen unless it is true!

Definition of allele: "any of several forms of a gene, usually arising through mutation, that are responsible for hereditary variation." (emphasis mine) https://www.dictionary.com/bro...

If DNA testing relied on alleles that mutated only once every several hundred generations, they would be useless in estimating whether you are related to your first cousin or grandfather, because with recombination rates that slow, you would match pretty much everybody. DNA tests can tell the difference between a sibling and a cousin (with some margin of error--it's all probabilities); this is possible only because they look for changes that occurred within a few generations.

For ethnicity reports, essentially these tests simply report that you have results that are statistically similar to those with a known ethnicity.

You are just an idiot.

There are no people "who believe in science", in the sense of having faith.

https://www.dictionary.com/bro...

Here is the definition you might be looking for : https://www.dictionary.com/bro...

Well, quickly DDGing, 2 out of 3 dictionaries basically have this as the first definition, from https://www.dictionary.com/bro...

confidence or trust in a person or thing:

Or from https://en.oxforddictionaries....

Complete trust or confidence in someone or something.

And the free dictionary has similar as its second definition.
A lot of it is probably cultural, Americans are religious, as you can tell by their pious, devout leader whereas I'm Canadian. I just don't think about faith as religious as to me. To me faith needs some proof or at least agreement, so trust. Religion fails on both those points so is more of a hallucination then faith whereas my faith in the Sun coming up is based on prior behaviour and believe in the model of the solar system.

You forgot at least one: Selling creative labor.

This is a fundamentally incomplete creativity. The motivation, direction, criticism, approval of the creative work is highly likely to come from someone other than the "creative worker".

Its power to shape society - the only real reason why society should worry about creative workers being empowered, is extremely limited. Otherwise there is nothing special in creative works - as you yourself say later in this post. Creative work as a "business model" does not by itself deserve a wholesale change in society like you propose - unless it be for the possibility of societal transformation.

So even if it can be said to be creative by some definitions - I would not take it seriously for 2 reasons :
1. Incomplete creativity
2. Uselessness

I seem to recall that hunter-gatherers actually have loads of leisure time

Today's hunter gatherers are protected by armies or navies from the unpleasant realities. Migration - which used to be a constant endeavour or threat is usually impossible due to adjacent human civilization powered by agriculture.

If you are using the first definition of "actual" from here for your "actually", and using present tense to talk about prehistory - you will have to provide a lot more evidence. And still come to nothing because in any case, you agree with the real point that idleness / free time / resources not devoted to absolute survival does promote creative works. This idleness needs money in today's world. Which is the point.

Well, there's no reason to treat creative workers specially. If you simply want more works and will pay, offer commissions.

Whom are you telling to offer commissions ? Me ?

If you want to let people live leisurely, offer that to everyone equally, and give everyone a chance to do productive things.

I have barely enough money to offer a leisurely life to myself - and sometimes not that. Not sure whom you have started to talk to.

Note however, that if you don't need money, you don't need copyrights, which are an economic incentive to create and publish works

Nobody in the whole conversation said that "you don't need money" , and I made multiple arguments as to why creative workers need money. Again not sure who your "you" is. So while it is a interesting aside as to what to do in the completely irrelevant scenario of "you" not needing money, I would refrain from going there.

"Could cut years off some of the development time for projects."

I understand Rust is excellent software, but why give it a name that sounds degrading. "Rust" is something you don't want to happen.

Other foolish names:

"Lisp" is a speech impediment.

"Gimp" is a person who limps or is lame.

Why restrict technology names to only 1 alphabet? LaTeX uses Greek letters, also, and requires two paragraphs in the Wikipedia article to explain the name.

Or... Go with the flow? The next time you create open-source software, call it "Garbage"? Or "Feces"? Or maybe "Vomit"? Or, invent a new word. Maybe "Flonorba-gorba"?

Well, Merriam-Webster has an entry for moonquake. Oxford lists marsquake. The Free Dictionary has sunquake. Dictionary.com lists starquake.

While the 14th century usage may have meant something else, it's certainly well known that the entire planet Earth does in fact quake during an earthquake. Why do you think remote sensors can detect earthquakes half way around the planet? Definitions of words change over a couple of years, let alone several centuries. In this case, I'd say the term "earthquake" as in the planet is more accurate than the original definition. But it becomes problematic when you're talking about a quake on another celestial body.

I also believe the "earth", as in dirt, that was referred to in the 14th century was generally referring to cultivable topsoil. You're not going to find much of that on the moon, mars, or a star.

10 seconds does not preclude long time switching to a Linux desktop.

"Preclude" means "prevent." In context, the word doesn't make sense:

10 seconds does not prevent long time switching to a Linux desktop.

Even assuming you meant "include," you didn't seem to have any objection to the time spent switching to Apple, just the cost.

Skyjacking is a specific term that came into use in the 1960s to describe the rash of airplane hijackings that occurred in the late 60s and 70s. I count 20 skyjackings that involved the United States in just the decade of 1970. It is a specific type of hijacking that involves airplanes, and which typically takes place while the plane is in the sky during flight. Thus the plane is redirected to some other destination because the risk of the threat being real must be taken seriously.

I presume you are in your 20s to have not encountered this word, which is defined in pretty much every English dictionary there is. If you prefer "A hijacking that occurs on an airplane while the plane is in flight" over "skyjacking" then feel free to use the longer phrase in your writings and conversation. However your lack of exposure to this word hardly makes it "tabloid-headline made-up".

To totally beat this point to death, here are some various dictionary entries.
https://www.merriam-webster.co...
https://dictionary.cambridge.o...
https://en.oxforddictionaries....
https://www.dictionary.com/bro...
https://www.thefreedictionary....
https://www.macmillandictionar...

I also note that the Chome spellchecker knows this word by default as well.

Krugman's NYT column is called "The Conscience of a Liberal." Nate Silver and Krugman had a public dispute [mashable.com] when Silver left the NYT to form FiveThirtyEight. Silver said, about Krugman [talkingpointsmemo.com], "Plenty of pundits have really high IQs, but they don’t have any discipline in how they look at the world, and so it leads to a lot of bullshit, basically,” Silver said in that interview."

Economic models are data fit to curves. See the 'Philips curve' [google.com] and 'the breakdown of the Philips curve' [google.com]. However, this data exists in the context of other systems. "All Models Are Wrong" [google.com] of course, but it seems to me many economists don't appreciate the error in their models and are willing (and paid) to make grand pronouncements based on highly error-filled models. Often in support of one social narrative or another.

Hey look! Chaff!

That's an awful lot of words to avoid facing that Krugman repeatedly says his simplistic models are not complete and not supposed to be complete.

Krugman: "In the aftermath of the Great Recession, I went with my models and they always worked!" Unfortunately he missed biggest economic event of the past 80 years, the Financial Crisis while a few others did not (side note, he had a feud going with that guy who predicted it).

Yes, it has since the 1980s, but it started stalling around 2005, and that is the point of curiosity.

It's not all that curious. There are plenty of plateaus in productivity in our history. Finding one, especially in an asset bubble that was sucking up a ton of capital, is not all that weird.

You're surprisingly making a bit of sense here. But your assertion that this is not a puzzle in economic circles is wrong.

No, not because 'reasons'. Because of its fairness and resistance to corruption, cronyism and favoritism.

That you can not actually design beyond high-level platitudes.

Nothing I said is a platitude. Work on your literacy, there are many good educational aids out there.

Don't conflate all of Europe as one.

Don't skip over the word "most".

So that leaves Germany.

You apparently think Europe consists of 6 countries, one of which is located in South America. Also, you want to warn people to not over-generalize Europe.

Your reading comprehension needs work. I specifically said Venezuela was not part of Europe, in the part you cut out.

I know you're trying, bless your heart, but try harder.

We're not as homogeneous as Germany for sure, or even the UK so our population has a different temperament, values and intelligence

And why am I not surprised racist bullshit appears.

Nothing I said is racist. One of the reasons the term 'racism' is losing its power in suppressing discussion is because people like you bandy it about too much whenever you disagree with something. It's an incontrovertible fact different groups have different temperaments, intelligence and values. Look up the UN indices on national corruption. Look up national IQs. You know what "Boko Haram" means? Educate yourself, you'll appear less foolish per

So, you are seeking to contradict me on the basis of the synonyms I chose? "Right wing" and "Right-minded" are the same things, dear

No, those are not synonyms. From https://www.dictionary.com/bro... (the only definition, I'm not cherry picking):

right-minded [rahyt-mahyn-did]
adjective
having correct, honest, or good opinions or principles.

Being conservative has nothing to do with having correct, honest or good opinions. Try not to be so patronizing when you are wrong-minded, dear.

You should work on your reading comprehension. I asked if the word was fake.

It's apparently disparaging slang that's been around for a while: https://www.dictionary.com/bro...

Not what you think it is: https://www.dictionary.com/bro...

In adopting the universal Linux app packaging format, ...

That may be the Canonical definition of "universal", but not really the canonical definition. Just sayin'.

No, you weren't simply agreeing with me otherwise you wouldn't have been so wordy

It was the

Un.
Dur.
State.
Ment.

For the hard of reading, that one scene trashed four decades of established space combat; it's not nitpicking the hue of Laura Dern's hairdo.

Fin was an irrational bitch in the first movie and he was one in the second.

Oh yeah, SO irrational to say "hey my job is done here I'm out" a la Han Solo in the first movie. Only Han had his name on the shit list of one crime lord, not the whole Empire.

I really don't care if you disagree with me because that's just how it was.

Neat thing about facts is they don't give a shit whether or not dipshits believe in them. And it's a simple fact that someone who defects, knowing it means eventual almost-certain death, is not a coward.

Why is teeming in quotes in the headline?

How many undercover cops can there be?

Movies, Television. the title of a scene, the text of a speech, etc., superimposed on the film and projected onto the screen.

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/caption

Unfortunately it's literally impossible to have a debate about this on Slashdot

And that's because your argument of "equality for women" falls flat on it's face when you do shit like "ban a man from a position because of their gender."

Newsflash: This is the definition of equality:

equality
[ih-kwol-i-tee]
noun, plural equalities.

        the state or quality of being equal; correspondence in quantity, degree, value, rank, or ability:

When you mandate that a woman must be given a position you are intentionally saying: Woman =/= Man. So your entire argument and justification for this law is invalidated because your solution is more of the problem not less.

If you mean respect for an ability to code, that's conditional, but respect for someone as a human being should be by default.

Human beings are responsible for all great atrocities. To respect them by default is to demonstrate poor judgement. Courtesy, or courtly behavior*, is what we should grant all people whether we care about them or not — on the logical and not emotional basis that we interact more favorably with less fighting and more getting what we want when we are polite to one another.

* Apparently they don't understand targets over at reference.com, so scroll down

It seems that 80% of the population uses the phrase "begs the question" to mean "raises a question that needs an answer." We've all heard it used that way, but the other 20% knows that phrase actually refers to a logic mistake. (See Wikipedia.)

The problem is, if you use it correctly, most people won't understand your meaning, and if you use it incorrectly, some people will recognize your ignorance. Ignorance is correctable. This post is intended to help correct it some small way.

Wisdom dictates avoiding phrases that confuse people or fail to successfully communicate.

While I'm on the subject of things people misunderstand, and posting anonymously, here are some other things you might not know or should think about:

• * All vegetables are fruit; tomatoes, corn, and carrots included. Fruit is "any product of plant growth useful to humans or animals" by one definition, but a specific botanical term used in another way. People think they are clever when they say that a tomato is a fruit, but really they're just showing their ignorance of language.
• * Effect and affect mean different things. You can effect change or affect change, but those are different things. "Effect" can be a noun to mean the result of something, or it can be a verb meaning "to cause something" but "affect" means to influence something.
• * People who "couldn't care less" are unable to imagine a scenario resulting in them actually caring at all, while people who "could care less" do care and need some reason to decrease the amount they care.
• * I imagine the slashdot audience knows a forward slash "/" is used in URLs and Unix based systems to designate directories while a backslash "\" is used in poorly thought out operating systems for the same thing. Every time some commentator or news anchor says "backslash" when referring to a URL, it makes me die a little inside.
• * When someone is "nonplussed" it means they are confused. People don't understand how to use it or what it means when someone uses it correctly. Again, this is a case of a thing which good communicators don't use.
• * Using the word "they" as a way to refer someone in a non-gender specific way is perfectly acceptable. I'm happy to cite Shakespeare as a reference, but then again he didn't always spell his own name consistently so take that with a grain of salt.
• * Not everyone speaks English. Extraterrestrial aliens in sci-fi movies or Germans in war movies can be assumed to be speaking their own language but we are watching a recreation for entertainment. Don't fill your movie with subtitles just because you think your audience will find reading subtitles more realistic. That's not how humans work, or when they do, they're stupid humans.
• * Using three periods to indicate information has been left out for clarity is proper. Using three periods to indicate anything else is just confusing. I've had a lot of personal experience with this one. A former co-worker did this regularly and I still don't really understand what they intended to convey; I just know they weren't using ellipses correctly.

This post brought to you by your local reluctant grammar nazi. Doubtless I've made several errors in this post which you're gleefully waiting to point out. Please feel free to reply with your corrections; I won't read them.

One more thing, everyone should read Wikipedia's list of common misconceptions once a year.

You have confused average with median.

While pedants love to counter with this, you're wrong. In colloquial English, the word "average" means "typical", not necessarily the arithmetic mean. A few sources (from the first three dictionaries that popped up on google):

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/average
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/average?s=t
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/average

Furthermore, the statement assumes that it makes sense to measure intelligence on a single scale; and by far the most common scale to do that is using IQ. IQ tests are designed to result in a normal distribution, which means that both the median and the mean are the same, and so we expect right about 50% of people to have an IQ less than the mean.

Although the other half of me thinks that if you go out and talk to some people on the street, you'll probably conclude that the majority of people are far dumber than average.

https://www.dictionary.com/bro...

I'm not a big fan of the term 'unlimited' either, but now that everyone understands what it probably means, it really doesn't matter much.

Just because you've broken and acknowledged that there are five lights doesn't mean everyone has. Some, hopefully many, of us know how to count. If the a-holes can't deliver unlimited -- not limited; unrestricted; unconfined; boundless; infinite; vast; without any qualification or exception; unconditional -- they shouldn't advertise unlimited.

They have a added vulgar and/or pejorative meaning. Same thing that makes "the n-word" offensive and "black" not.

Keyword here is added meaning. That is no problem as long as we do not treat that as if it was the only meaning.

They have a added vulgar and/or pejorative meaning. Same thing that makes "the n-word" offensive and "black" not.

Keyword here is added meaning. That is no problem as long as we do not treat that as if it was the only meaning.

"It explicitly means vagina."

No, neither explicitly nor exclusively. Only in vulgar slang. It has other, perfectly cromulent, meanings.

They have a added vulgar and/or pejorative meaning. Same thing that makes "the n-word" offensive and "black" not.

They have a added vulgar and/or pejorative meaning. Same thing that makes "the n-word" offensive and "black" not.

The Royal Society was founded 28 November 1660 - "in Newton's day" as a previous poster stated. The previous poster was talking specifically about the Royal Society, and not the foundations of the scientific method.

" And the term "scientist" wasn't around for a couple centuries after that?"

Which part of the above sentence from the original post is confusing you?

Haruchai , None of it confused me. lgw posted that the Royal Society was founded in Newton's day, to which you cited the foundations of the scientific method being significantly before Newton was born. I was simply pointing out that you didn't address Igw's point. Please read the thread again. As for the origin of the word scientist in English, dictionary.com places its origins between 1825 and 1835 - again within Igw's claim that the term scientist wasn't around for a couple centuries after Newton's days.

Secured
Verb: to get hold or possession of; procure; obtain:
"Musk's private funding was secured about as well as a model 3 bumper."

... So you've gone from myopic to full retard?

Daring move in your quest to make a bigger ass of yourself with every post.

Definition:
https://www.dictionary.com/bro...

"
  Ophthalmology. pertaining to or having myopia; nearsighted.
unable or unwilling to act prudently; shortsighted.
lacking tolerance or understanding; narrow-minded.
"

In any case, you're officially the python's black knight. I know I know... Only a flesh wound.

*coconut claps off into the sunset*

> bully pulpit

Before anyone else gets their panties in a knot, that's a horrible coining by Theodore Roosevelt. I doubt most people know the difference between:

* bully, the adjective; which means "fine; excellent; very good."
* bully, the noun; which means "a blustering, quarrelsome, overbearing person"

How about some truth in advertising?

Any service that is subject to data caps, throttling, etc. should not be called "unlimited".

Unlimited: not limited; unrestricted; unconfined. https://www.dictionary.com/bro...

My home internet is a paltry 20Mb DSL, but it is full speed 24x7. That's what I call "unlimited".

> It is not possible to read this and honestly believe it to say that it wall take over a hundred years to build it.

In other news, Politifact says that Trump is not actually an Oompa Loompa. To the non-ideologically blinded, this is easy to understand.

https://www.dictionary.com/bro...

Ah yes, I meant that Peter Harzheim is not a member of the DLRG like in the post before that. Small typo forgetting that one 'not', sorry. No reason for name calling.

Bottom line: So far the only link that can be made between the DLRG and that statement is through that article from The Guardian. It is a bit of a stretch to say that the DLRG links (the growing number of) child drownings in Germany to obsession with cellphones under those circumstances.
You know what an appropriate expression for these methods is? -- Putting a spin on it.
https://idioms.thefreedictiona...
https://www.dictionary.com/bro...
https://www.dict.cc/englisch-d...

https://www.dictionary.com/bro...

Yes, it fucking does.

1545–55; < Latin specis appearance, form, sort, kind, equivalent to spec(ere) to look, regard + -is abstract noun suffix

late 14c. as a classification in logic, from Latin species "a particular sort, kind, or type" (opposed to genus), originally "a sight, look, view, appearance,"

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.

Nope, it's your ignorance. From the dictionary:

"an auxiliary verb expressing incapacity, inability, withholding permission, etc; can not"

See that bit there about "withholding permission?" And also that bit there where it says "etc" which means that there are other meanings in that same category?

The word does not exclusively mean "it isn't possible," despite your fervent wishes.

I never claimed that words lost their old meanings. To be clear, they've mostly gained new ones which have displaced their old meanings in regular use. Languages evolve, both grammatically and in word meaning. Most words start as either slang or loan words. Further, you're confusing vocabulary (symbols chosen for ideas) with language (the use of symbols to represent thought). Symbols get re-purposed.

We have new words for new things, but we also have old words for new things. Which type of mouse you reference is determined contextually. Further, to "know" someone indeed was used in isolation. It came from the notion of carnal knowledge, but had an alternate contextual meaning. See definition 7 at http://www.dictionary.com/brow.... Also listed as such in older printed dictionaries.

Look up Old English. It's mostly unrecognizable (though fascinating). Alternatively, you can refer to https://ideas.ted.com/20-words.... But note I work with a professional linguist. As she so elegantly pointed out, "If languages never changed, we'd only have one in all the world."

America is a continent, not a country. You must mean USian.

America
Noun.
1. United States.
2. North America.
3. South America.
4. Also called the Americas. North and South America, considered together.

Its interesting that you criticize my literacy whilst yourself using a word at the center of your argument that you do not know the definition of in the first place.

Collusion... read the definition:
http://www.dictionary.com/brow...

"Law. a secret understanding between two or more persons to gain something illegally, to defraud another of his or her rights, or to appear as adversaries though in agreement"

You said:
""that collusion right there. he had contacts with agents of the russian government and lied to the fbi about it.""

Now, look at the definition and look at what you said.

Collusion would require some sort of illegal intent. The only illegality was in making false statements to the FBI. But that is merely as already patiently explained to you a false statement... and a false statement is not itself collusion. Collusion would require some sort of conspiratorial effort to obtain something that is itself illegal.

Having a contact in the Russian government is not illegal. Assuming for a moment that Trump wins his election to be president which... as we do not live in the past we know he did... it is prudent for a head of state to have such contacts. Every president from the first to the last has had agents that make contact with agents of other governments. That is not illegal.

Talking to Russians is not illegal. It would have to be for you to have a case and since that isn't the case you have no case.

In the future, you may avoid looking like an ass if you avoid insulting people that are better educated and more intelligent than yourself. I know I know... this statement offends you. But you have no right to be offended. You criticized my grasp of the English language whilst proving that your own grasp is quite poor... and in the same post.

This is merely you mindlessly parroting tribalistic political hyperbole from the dying Clinton political machine.

Trump is Hitler
Trump is worse than Hitler
Trump is a traitor
Blah blah blah... its just sputtering REEEEEing from you people at this point. You've made it very clear that you have no integrity, have lost control over yourselves, and will literally stoop to anything to clutch on to power.

And to make all of that all the sadder, YOU personally have nothing to gain from their webs of corruption and nepotism. You're fighting for an aristocrasy that sees people like you as cannon fodder. You're basically a Neo-Peasant. Ignorant, confused, conditioned to charge mindlessly at whatever banner or crest your lords and ladies tell you to.

You're pathetic. You can be more than you are. Be an individual. Have an idea of your own. Don't just be their peon.