Slashdot Mirror

Actually, while the Middle English root of disgruntle was negative, Meriam-Webster's gives the positive meaning that a hacker would sensibly expect. Evidently, the back-construction dates back to 1926 and now predominates. "Curiouser and curiouser."

Actually, while the Middle English root of disgruntle was negative, Meriam-Webster's gives the positive meaning that a hacker would sensibly expect. Evidently, the back-construction dates back to 1926 and now predominates. "Curiouser and curiouser."

You're splitting hairs that not even Gonzales split. Look at his own words: "It simply says the right shall not be suspended except in cases of rebellion or invasion."

Do you actually think it's not a right, or are you just playing devil's advocate?

Note also the definition of privilege:

a right or immunity granted as a peculiar benefit, advantage, or favor

So, if we're going to get all technical, this is a right that was granted (as opposed to an inalienable right, perhaps). Therefore, Gonzales is wrong when he says "The Constitution doesn't say every individual in the United States or citizen is hereby granted or assured the right of habeas corpus." No matter how you slice it, he's wrong - unless you're going to start arguing about what the definition of "is" is. (As in, technically, it doesn't say that, but it sure as hell implied that when it said the right/privilege could not be suspended. What do you think they meant, if not that the right/privilege was there in the first place?)

Since the time of Cicero the exception proves the rule has been a fundamental legal concept: http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/wftwarch.pl?041906

Merriam-Webster would appear to concur with me that the word "communism" can mean a "totalitarian system of government in which a single authoritarian party controls state-owned means of production". So there's no need to burn the dictionaries. Or is the Merriam-Webster dictionary not valid? Is it just a hippy tract written by a bunch of liberal wackos who have committed the heinous crime of making their dictionary relevant to real-world usage?

Incidentally, I do use these words regularly. You may not be able to reconcile a large vocabulary with not being a pedantic jackass, but I can. "Immutable" is a particularly interesting one because I picked it up in my computer science classes, where it comes up quite regularly. Funny how no one here in Canada so much as blinks when people are audacious enough to use multisyllabic words.

I particularly like the comment about having "unleaded" -- as if I should be ashamed of working while I get my degree. How does it feel to know that all your education can't buy you one single ounce of respect?

Hey, it turns out that wikipedia has several relevant articles. Enlightenment may yet be within your grasp. Of course, I'd love to see so much as a single reference contradicting me; before now, I've never even heard of anyone trying to suggest that words were eternally fixed and immutable (okay, this time I'm just using that word to annoy you... maybe I'll use the words "transient" or "declarative" and ruin your entire week! Programming terminology rocks).

Language change, in general.

Semantic change, in particular.

This is such a good illustration of the fluidity of language that it demands inclusion.

I think these make a very good case. Naturally, being a pedantic jackass, your initial response will be to cast dispersions at the validity of wikipedia, but you'll note that the article about semantic change make reference to -- among other things -- The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Language. So much for burning dictionaries...

Actually, of all the disparaging terms I used ignorant was the most correct. I'll admit I was in full rant mode, I'm just tired of seeing senseless MS bashing, there are enough problems with Windows without making stuff up. I have this thing about intellectual honesty, if you're going to do a write-up about the "sins" of Vista at least spend enough time with it to figure out what is real an what is a lack of knowledge.
ignorance: the state or fact of being ignorant : lack of knowledge, education, or awareness

Just about what I'm claiming.

It's incredulous, but the poster used the word right:

Sense [incredible] was revived in the 20th century after a couple of centuries of disuse. Although it is a sense with good literary precedent--among others Shakespeare used it--many people think it is a result of confusion with incredible, which is still the usual word in this sense.

Indeed! Lobbying does have a definition, in case anyone was interested:

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/lobbying

Arg! Ruled by idiots!

Might want to change this Wikipedia article then.

It seems to indicate that the general usage "prime number" implies Natural numbers, while different branches of math have an expanded definition.

Of course, the absolute, no-nonsense, definitive source (Merriam-Webster) says +/-, so who am I to argue?

Personally, I'm drawn to the mathforum.com link from my first post. Allowing negative primes would break some long-standing assumptions about primes, so don't allow them.

The good folks at M-W.com http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/lobbyist have this to say about lobbyists:

intransitive verb : to conduct activities aimed at influencing public officials and especially members of a legislative body on legislation
transitive verb
1 : to promote (as a project) or secure the passage of (as legislation) by influencing public officials
2 : to attempt to influence or sway (as a public official) toward a desired action

Shouldn't this then mean that when a blogger has 500 or more public officials as readers?

If a blogger is being paid by a lobby group, it simply makes them a shill, and has no more influence on lawmakers than actual public opinion might. This is, after all, how public opinion is formed, by listening to our peers, the news, and other sources and making up our own minds.

Should political magazines be required to register as lobbyists? Would a preacher/priest/etc. be required to register as a lobbyist if he mentions politics from the pulpit and the church has more than 500 members? This would cause tons of problems for certain demographic groups in the US.

Why indeed...

Having a conscience means one is examine the situation rationally and respond to change.

Having a conscience allows for the possibility...

Without a conscience, there is no examination, no action, and no possibility for change. (Emphasis mine.)

As you have said, in your case there is no action, which is my whole point. Your conscience is evidently serving no purpose.

There is a technical term for someone who has no conscience. You know what it is, right?

There's a technical term for a decidedly non-technical description? If "psychopath" is the word you intend me to read from your mind, the definition is slightly more complex and rather inapplicable on the basis that some churchgoers drive SUVs.

And yes, I am willing to take a stand: it is immoral to seek shelter behind self-serving beliefs which remove our conscience.

I never expressed disagreement with that.

No doubt you will again ignore the point and simply proceed ad hominem once more. Label me what you will; my point stands on its own.

Please attribute to me a little more intelligence than that. I was not attempting to argue against your "point". I agree with your point that, as I interpret it, some people use religion to justify hypocrisy. I would disagree if you implied that the majority of religious people in general are guilty of this, but I think you stopped short of saying that. What I did take issue with is your implication that your "conscience" gives you any measure of superiority, because failing, by your own admission, to act on it results in no practical difference. Your own position is not without a measure of hypocrisy. I'm not using this as an ad hominem attack in a wider argument; it is valid logic in the context of your professed beliefs.

And you can stop patronizingly linking to definitions. I'm not stupid.

1. to take the property of another wrongfully and especially as a habitual or regular practice
2. to come or go secretly, unobtrusively, gradually, or unexpectedly
3. to steal or attempt to steal a base
   
   

1. a : to take or appropriate without right or leave and with intent to keep or make use of wrongfully b : to take away by force or unjust means c : to take surreptitiously or without permission d : to appropriate to oneself or beyond one's proper share : make oneself the focus of
2. a : to move, convey, or introduce secretly : SMUGGLE b : to accomplish in a concealed or unobserved manner
3. a : to seize, gain, or win by trickery, skill, or daring b of a base runner : to reach (a base) safely solely by running and usually catching the opposing team off guard

1. the act of stealing; the wrongful taking and carrying away of the personal goods or property of another; larceny.
2. an instance of this.
3. Archaic. something stolen.

Obviously the post is meant to be ironic, however it's about a serious topic.

But while not getting the point, you in fact highlighted the exact point I was making. Now that's ironic!

Yes, I have a conscience about global warming. My post was about how religious belief has taken away the conscience of some folks.

Conscience makes all the difference in the world.

Obviously the post is meant to be ironic, however it's about a serious topic.

But while not getting the point, you in fact highlighted the exact point I was making. Now that's ironic!

Yes, I have a conscience about global warming. My post was about how religious belief has taken away the conscience of some folks.

Conscience makes all the difference in the world.

People like to throw around the term censorship, but it's really only censorship if the government is involved.

People like to throw around the term censorship, but it's really only censorship if the government is involved.

bitty rant?

My words mean exactly what I fucking intend them to mean, nothing more, nothing less.

I don't see anything wrong with this.
One of the definitions for synthesis (from Merriam-Webster, 1c): the combining of often diverse conceptions into a coherent whole

You might want to review "they" (Merriam-Webster), particularly the section "The use of they, their, them, and themselves as pronouns of indefinite gender and indefinite number is well established in speech and writing, even in literary and formal contexts." indefinite number can refer to one just as easily as any other number.

Jim

It requires a material sacrifice.

Used in chess, you might be right, although even in chess it requires only the risk of a material loss, since a gambit can be declined.

Outside of chess its use is metaphorical and the dictionary definition includes:

2 a (1) : a remark intended to start a conversation or make a telling point
(2) : TOPIC b : a calculated move : STRATAGEM

Gambit comes from Spanish (gambito) or Italian (gambetto), where it means the act of tripping someone.

There are other words in English from chess terminology that mean something slightly different, e.g. stalemate, checkmate, and endgame. For some reason, zugzwang hasn't made the transition.

It raises the question of whether any other game has supplied English with as many words, or at least, as many words that have lost their original connection to the game. The fact chess terms have so many counterparts in life may be a reflection of the extent that chess resembles life.

How ironic that this story appeared today.

Just last night, I was considering submitting a Ask Slashdot question on how other users deal with otherwise trustworthy sites that serve obtrusive popup/under ads. For example Merriam Webster's dictionary pages http://www.m-w.com/ which I was directed to following a link in a ./ post. But I figured....popups? So 2001. Why bother the friendly folks with such a ancient topic?

For those thinking I don't know how to manage my unwanted ad exposure, keep in mind I am running Firefox 2.0 with Pop-up blocking; typically a solid solution. The MW website, however, delivered 2 ads that broke past FF's utility. It left me with my old tactic: A good-old-fashioned "You just lost a customer" email. I have a text template to make the process quicker, so here's last nights email to the House of Definitions:

To Whom it may concern:

Please be advised that I will no longer be visiting your website nor advising it to my children or students. I visited your website today and was confronted with not one, but 2 popup ads on the definitions result page. One led me directly to http://www.vonage.com/startsavingnow/ and the other was a kmart ad served by tribalfusion. Bear in mind that I use the Mozilla Firefox browser with Popup blocking active, and your website contains malicious code that defeats the pop-up window feature.

The computer I use and the programs that I run belong to me, not to you. I have no issues with your Privacy Policy, and your cookie policy. I simply request that you communicate with your third-party providers to prevent them from displaying code on your website that hijacks your customer's browser in this manner. While you are not responsible for the advertising content in said ads, you are reponsible for the user experience when visiting your site. At the present, it is not an enjoyable experience for someone who does not wish to be deluged in advertising. In addition, by continuing to host code which overrides a core browser component makes your site a possible vector for virus/malware transmission, should either your server or the servers of one of your advertisers ever be compromised.

I realize that advertising income supports your website, and more importantly your bottom line. The days when your core business was selling hardback dictionaries are over, and business models change.

However, upon the visit to your page, I am confronted with 8 total ads; the two popup/popunder ads mentioned previously, one for Hostgator, 2 Google ads for a Scooby-Doo DVD, one large graphical ad for Qwest, and two tolerable text links to your affiliate partners. All I wanted was a definition...not a great deal on DSL service!

As before, I will no longer be visiting or recommending your website or your products. There are other sources for the information you provide. In order for me to return, simple changes in your advertising strategy are requested, including the removal of popup/popunder advertising.

Sincerely,
Terry Hall

We shall see what kind of response I get. The message has worked in the past with some smaller sites, including my local bank's website. Why they needed pop-ups for revenue, I'll never know.

You need to look up the definition. Or at least watch the FV that I linked to.

Colbert says:

That brings us to tonight's word: Truthiness. Now, I'm sure that some of the word police, the "wordinistas" over at Websters are going to say, "Hey, that's not a word." Well, anybody who knows me knows that I'm no fan of dictionaries or reference books. They're elitist.

The fact that the "wordinistas" over at Websters have made "Truthiness" their 2006 Word of the Year is about as ironic as it gets.

Even if you don't watch the FV that I linked to, my own submission says:

In spite of Colbert's ironic dismissal of dictionaries and other reference books, will Colbert's coined word actually be added to those books?

sigh I hate explaining basic things such as what irony is, but since you didn't get it, allow me to direct you to one of those noisome reference books, Webster's online dictionary. Please pay particular notice to definition 3a: "incongruity between the actual result of a sequence of events and the normal or expected result."

It is possible (i.e. the "actual result of a sequence of events" is) that Colbert's word "truthiness" may eventually end up in one or more dictionaries. Colbert's satire (do I have to explain what that is, too?) dismisses books such as dictionaries precisely because they don't include words like "truthiness" (i.e. "the normal or expected result").

Feel free to point out exactly why you don't think that's ironic. Surely you don't think that conspicuous sarcasm is the only type of irony that exists?

If anyone who actually has a brain wants to mod the parent down and undo to the work of your unfortunate Slashdot peers who had mod points but no clue, it would probably be worthwhile. Meanwhile, I find your comment a little ironic as well. And in case you missed that, too, it's because you're using a definition of irony that must obviously be derived from "truthiness" (i.e. the actual result) instead of the real definition of the word (i.e. the expected result) in your comment. Are you starting to understand?

"Users" is plural, so "their" would be the proper pronoun. And yes, there is an apostrophe in the possessive form of one.

Instead it induces a panic response. There is a difference. I'm not saying waterboarding is right, only that it isn't torture.

Torture, (n) 1 a : anguish of body or mind

That word you keep abusing, I do not think it means what you would like it to mean.

You know, you're absolutely right! Gravity is only a theory, therefore we shouldn't regard it as a fact! Germ theory of disease is only a theory, so we shouldn't regard it as fact either! Same with atomic theory!

Yeah, that flies about as far as a Thanksgiving turkey...

And, uh, yeah. Where in here does it say that science cannot comment on origins?

The inability to accurately measure and encode a signal is not the same as a mathematical algorithm designed to deliberately discard data to improve compression. "Lossy" applies only to the later.

Also note that this has absolutely nothing to do with analog vs. digital. It is impossible to avoid losing information when copying an analogy signal regardless of whether you are copying it to an analogy or a digital representation.

You also make want to look up the meaning of the word "loose" because while you can lose information, it's pretty hard to "loose" it.

In Gracenote's defense, grace note is a musical term and doesn't actually have anything to do with the actual word grace.

http://m-w.com/dictionary/ensure

If the subtle differences in these almost interchangeable words are correctly explained at Merriam Webster online, then the title is correct.

Hmm - dictionary.com says 'Origin unknown'. Merriam-Webster says 'Probably from Welsh'. I'm not sure you can unequivocally label this an ethnic slur - at worst, it was one in the distant past.

> It would seem to me that this falls absolutely under the Interstate Commerce Clause

That's the problem: "it would seem to me" does not mean that it is. Anything and everything under the sun seems to fall under interstate commerce because commerce, in a common definition, can mean nearly anything and everything. An important critical question to ask yourself is,"What isn't 'commerce'?" If your set of things which aren't commerce is pretty darn small that is a certain sign that your definition is too broad since it's obvious that the founding fathers did not mean for their government to be able to regulate anything and everything. That's precisely what we fought the Revolutionary War to get away from--an overbearing British government. Why on earth would they go ahead and recreate the same thing?

It does not fall under the Interstate Commerce backdoor/trojan horse. The Ninth Amendment specifically prohibits the gratuitous overinterpretation (aka "enumeration") of Constitutional powers to mean things that they weren't meant to mean. If one could conduct a critical analysis of "interstate commerce" in the late 1700s they would find that it probably referred to specific types or sets of commerce--likely those which required a federal stamp or federal business license.

When you say "interstate commerce", the average citizen will think of anything which is moving between states--absolutely anything. That doesn't make it the proper legal definition. The federal level politicians, and their business bedfellows, have been exploiting this popular ignorance for years. A detailed, well-documented, and well annotated analysis of the "interstate commerce" rootkit, and how it has been used to decimate the Consitution, is found here.

Sorry, I don't find Wikipedia to be an authoritative source of definitions.

nation
n.
      1. A relatively large group of people organized under a single, usually independent government; a country.
      2. The territory occupied by such a group of people: All across the nation, people are voting their representatives out.

nation
1. a large body of people, associated with a particular territory, that is sufficiently conscious of its unity to seek or to possess a government peculiarly its own: The president spoke to the nation about the new tax.

Main Entry: nation
Function: noun
1 a (1) : NATIONALITY 5a (2) : a politically organized nationality (3) : a non-Jewish nationality b : a community of people composed of one or more nationalities and possessing a more or less defined territory and government c : a territorial division containing a body of people of one or more nationalities and usually characterized by relatively large size and independent status

I don't need to defend this position extensively, it is a done deal in the atheist community. I'm just letting you, and others who are similarly confused, know what the actual situation is. You can check it out -- actually do some research -- and learn something, or you can continue on in ignorance. Your call.

The wiki article has been closed because it is filled with misinformation? How about some dictionary definitions then:

• Merriam-Webster:atheist; one who believes that there is no deity.
• Cambridge International Dictionary of English: atheist; someone who believes that God or gods do not exist. Compare agnostic: someone who does not know, or believes that it is impossible to know, whether a god exists: Although he was raised a Catholic, he was an agnostic for most of his adult life.
• American Heritage: atheist; One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.

That was but three definitions I provided that use the root or stem "believe" in the definition of "atheist", here's a list of definitions from 16 other dictionaries. Now where's your research? No, you don't need to provide it, but if you want to correct or convince me I am wrong then I need to see it.

Ok, Luddite, feel free to use the word neologism.

prequel
One entry found for prequel.
Main Entry: prequel
Pronunciation: 'prE-kw&l
Function: noun
Etymology: pre- + -quel (as in sequel)
: a work (as a novel or a play) whose story precedes that of an earlier work

As for karma whoring, why would I bother? My karma is already good.

I think you missed my vision for the future. Your post is about the gradual evolution of the current energy economy, my post was about a sudden and drastic revolution in scientific understanding. It's happened before (see my link to the outline of Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, or the book's wikipedia page), it is foolish to think that it won't happen again.

"Cold Fusion" is only a scientific revolution away. I don't know that "fusion" is the right term - perhaps electro-chemistry, in a transmutation-of-the-elements sorta way, would be more accurate.

Energy won't be "free", of course, but close enough so that it would be effectively so. The neighborhood power plant could split water to generate its own hydrogen (if hydrogen will indeed be necessary) - no need for "fuel" (natural gas, coal, petroleum, etc) as we know it today. Eventually the technology will be simplified to the point that anyone with a machine shop could build their own "Mr. Cold Fusion".

You are the first of a couple people who spoke of extortion. So, you get the reply. From m-w.com:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but suing MySpace really means suing News Corp, their parent company. While I think the settlement issues with people are definitely suspect of extortion, when Universal is threatening to sue someone big and powerful like MySpace-News-Corp (which ought to at least have the backing of News Corp, even if it doesn't have a hefty sum of cash laying around to throw at legal expenses), the grounds of intimidation or power are moot, and they clearly aren't being forced to give money. They could go to court. If MySpace chooses to settle out of court because they think they will lose on legal grounds, it isn't extortion (though they might pass because it's not worth the money/effort, in which case, they are settling out of laziness or lack of principles). While I think the *IAA is a first class asshole and I'd rather see it disbanded than survive, there are legitimate copyright violations happening that their members have the right to collect damages for. Not every suit they pursue is a travesty.

But I could be wrong. MySpace might actually be the little guy and they are being extorted. That said, I still question their practices of setting up agreements with all these "major players" (e.g. Microsoft with the Zune). It smells akin to Microsoft's recent deals with Novell.

Various Native and indigenous people live in South America.

If you really want to get picky, "native" and "indigenous" people live in South America, North America, Europe, Asia, Africa and Australia. Those words just mean: having originated in and being produced, growing, living, or occurring naturally in a particular region or environment

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/arrogance

"an attitude of superiority manifested in an overbearing manner or in presumptuous claims or assumptions"

In other dictionaries it is defined as "overbearing pride".

Pride is a good thing to have. Arrogance is a negative - an excess of pride.

-Jeff

sorry, gonna trust Merram Webster more than some self-proclaimed arrogant prick...

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary

"It doesn't specifically state that theft is not piracy..."

"Not sure what your point is there."

My point is that you asked for the impossible, a dictionary definition which states that theft does not equal piracy. Dictionaries DO NOT define what words DO NOT mean, they define what words DO mean.

"OK, take this: http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/theft"

"the felonious taking and removing of personal property with intent to deprive the rightful owner of it"

"Yes, this fits. What is stolen are the owners rights to control his work. It is not argued that the work itself is stolen, but the owner has lost his ability to control distribution when his content is pirated.

Where does it say that? You just MADE THAT UP!! Nice work! :D The Dictionary doesn't say anything about STEALING RIGHTS, you made it up!

"an unlawful taking (as by embezzlement or burglary) of property"

That certainly fits. Property is not always physical. A great example is intellectual property which is, conveniently, being discussed here.

Once again you made that up. No where does it mention COPYING, PIRACY, WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT. You... Make... It... Up... As... You... Go... Along...

Of course, only one definition need apply. The definition you provided is perfectly acceptable.

Yes, quite acceptable and NO mention of Piracy or Copying meaning Theft. And yet you manage to read in several extra unpublished paragraphs to add your own meaning. And you wonder why /.ers argue with you?!

"It doesn't specifically state that theft is not piracy..."

Not sure what your point is there.

OK, take this: http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/theft

"the felonious taking and removing of personal property with intent to deprive the rightful owner of it"

Yes, this fits. What is stolen are the owners rights to control his work. It is not argued that the work itself is stolen, but the owner has lost his ability to control distribution when his content is pirated.

"an unlawful taking (as by embezzlement or burglary) of property"

That certainly fits. Property is not always physical. A great example is intellectual property which is, conveniently, being discussed here.

Of course, only one definition need apply. The definition you provided is perfectly acceptable.

It doesn't specifically state that theft is not piracy, but lets be honest, dictionaries DO NOT define WHAT DOES NOT MEAN what, they define what DOES mean what. Read http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/theft Main Entry: theft Pronunciation: 'theft Function: noun Etymology: Middle English thiefthe, from Old English thIefth; akin to Old English thEof thief 1 a : the act of stealing; specifically : the felonious taking and removing of personal property with intent to deprive the rightful owner of it b : an unlawful taking (as by embezzlement or burglary) of property 2 obsolete : something stolen 3 : a stolen base in baseball Where in that definition does it say that Piracy == Theft ?

If you look at the population over the entire globe (SHOCK: OMG! there are people OUTSIDE the USA???? OMG! OMG!) police are in fact universally feared and hated

Huh. So, here we are at a web site hosted in the US, run by a business inside the US, primarily used by visitors in the US, talking about a news event that occurred inside the US.

For someone that so despises the US, you sure are spending a lot of time here using a US resource and talking to and about US citizens and events. But that doesn't really matter. What matters is that you're still using the word "universal," while at the same time not including the United States in your universe. Police are not, as a group or as individuals, "universally" hated in this country. And I imagine that if you took an honest poll (could you be that honest?), you'd find that people in, say, Switzerland, or Denmark, or Australia, or Japan, or Scotland, or Canada, or countless other spots will also tell you that they do not "universally" hate their own citizens who choose to work as police officers.

If you wonder why so many Americans don't seem to care that a small, but very loud, cross section of people aroud the world "despise" us, it's because much of that loathing (as you've so perfectly just demonstrated) is driven by utter BS. Either out of total ignorance (I doubt you're actually that stupid), or out of a condescending hope that the people listening to you are so uninformed that they'll actually by your line of crap (much more likely, and more embarassing for you, actually).

your IQ is about 85

Yes, now I see the worldly, mature, adult perspective that shows your superior intellect. It's really impressive, I must say. A monument to reason and polished debating skills.

go back to kissing your buddies asses so you can get that next promotion based on your ass-kissing and not your abilities

Such breathtaking insight! Obviously a well informed, unique perspective on my career and what I do for a living. Other than the fact that you don't know what the hell you're talking about, it sure does make your point, doesn't it? You want people to think your perspective on things is... well, what do you want? Near as I can tell, based on what you're saying, you want people to think that:

1) You are about 12 years old.
2) You think that even though you hate the US, we should still provide you with free entertainment.
3) You cannot seem to get a job you actually like, and assume that people who say things you don't like (about completely unrelated things!) must also be the people who you imagine get better jobs than you because they are actually able to communicate in a lucid way with people who do things like decide who to hire.

Your small whiney source is pitiful.

Well, it's a little hard to say what you really mean with that sentence, but let's assume that you mean my comment was pitiful in some way. Let's call that my fault - I wasn't clear enough on what I was trying to say. It's the brain of the person I was responding to that was the small, whiny source of the noise to which I responded. You seem to think I was referring to the country in which that small, whiny brain was sitting while typing away at a computer connected over the internet (an American invention - how you must despise us for that, too!) to a web server here in the US. I don't care what country that person's sitting in - but I do feel some obligation to point out that the word "universal" actually means something. Perhaps your 140 IQ is the kind that doesn't make you feel any obligation to actually pick up a dictionary, so I'll save you some trouble. Here . Careful, though, it's an evil American web site! Surely not to be trusted with the dissemination of things like word definitions... but then, you don't actually care what words mean anyway, do you? Because y

Well, that's a little silly. If you look at http://m-w.com/dictionary/engine you see that an engine is just some thing that produces something else. (An automotive engine produces torque, but that's just a special case.) And http://m-w.com/dictionary/engineers tells us that an engineer is one who (among other things) designs or builds engines.

Well, that's a little silly. If you look at http://m-w.com/dictionary/engine you see that an engine is just some thing that produces something else. (An automotive engine produces torque, but that's just a special case.) And http://m-w.com/dictionary/engineers tells us that an engineer is one who (among other things) designs or builds engines.