Slashdot Mirror

Where I'm from, further can be used for distance:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/farther

Usage note
Although some usage guides insist that only farther should be used for physical distance (We walked farther than we planned), farther and further have been used interchangeably throughout much of their histories. However, only further is used in the adverbial sense "moreover" (Further, you hurt my feelings) and in the adjectival senses "more extended" (no further comment) and "additional" (Further bulletins came in).
The expression all the farther (or further) in place of as far as occurs chiefly in informal speech: This is all the farther the train goes.

See also: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/further

I agree that there is a difference between the two and that it is important (I simply thought he was getting hung up on it when there were more important distinctions being glossed over). Where I would disagree (as I did in my last comment) is in using the terms he did to describe "atheism", since he's slapping the atheism label on agnostic ideology, hence why I said he moved the goalposts. Both the agnostic and the atheist would agree that there is insufficient proof that gods exist (some theists would too, though obviously most would not). The agnostics would stop there and say that the insufficient proof means that we simply do not know, but, by definition, atheists go a step further.

To quote from that Merriam-Webster link:

Unlike agnosticism, which leaves open the question of whether there is a God, atheism is a positive denial.

Claiming a lack of belief in gods is fine, but atheism is more than just that, since they say that there are no gods. If they don't, then they are not atheists at all. They're simply agnostics who've mislabeled themselves. Most of the arguments against what I'm saying here are rooted in redefining atheism using agnostic ideas and then pointing out that the things I've said about atheism do not hold according to that redefinition. But that should already be obvious, since I've readily admitted that what I'm saying does not apply to agnostic ideology.

It seems you are assuming that in order for someone to be an atheist they believe they have enough evidence to disprove the existence of gods.

That's close to, but not quite, what I am saying. Replace "disprove" with "disbelieve" and you'd have what I was saying. I'm not suggesting that they believe there is sufficient evidence to disprove anything (after all, if they had proof it wouldn't require faith, which is what I'm claiming is at the core of their ideology), but I am saying that they believe there is a sufficient lack of evidence for them to disbelieve the existence of gods. A subtle distinction, but an important one, and your concluding question relates back to it:

Why are you assuming that the burden of proof is on the person without theistic beliefs?

I'm not. If someone claims that unobservable unicorns exist, my choices are to either believe them or disbelieve them, either of which will be based on faith, since we have no observational data from which we can prove or disprove anything. The rational person will choose to disbelieve, and there's nothing wrong with that, since we've learned that it makes sense to place the burden of proof on the person making the extraordinary claim, but we should also note that the inability of the person making the extraordinary claim to provide sufficient evidence does not, in and of itself, make them wrong. They could be correct, but simply incapable of proving it. It's this inability by either side to truly prove anything that is the basis for my claim that atheists (as defined above, i.e. people engaging in a positive denial of gods) have faith at the core of their ideology.

Once again, however, if we're redefining atheism in terms typically reserved for agnosticism, then none of this applies. Does that clear things up a bit?

This really intrigued me. I've never thought of atheism as a "religion" per se. It seemed silly to me, like calling someone who chooses to not watch sports a fan (see? silly!). But let's see what the dictionary thinks.

reÂliÂgion noun \ri-Ëli-jÉ(TM)n\
: the belief in a god or in a group of gods

: an organized system of beliefs, ceremonies, and rules used to worship a god or a group of gods

: an interest, a belief, or an activity that is very important to a person or group

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/religion

The third definition is certainly interesting. If Dawkins and these other scientists feel strongly enough about their atheism to write books and make movies and go on lecture tours then I would posit that this interest/activity is very important to them.

So yeah, maybe hardcore atheism IS a religion.

Just because you do things one way does not mean that everyone else must do so, nor does it justify ridicule.

Where does the OP say that this is for their main family photo albums? They mentioned archives, which according to Merriam-Webster means:

1 : a place in which public records or historical documents are preserved; also : the material preserved —often used in plural
2 : a repository or collection especially of information

You might have taken an entire roll of film, but only stuck 3 images in a photo album for display. The rest go into your archive.

Supposing that the OP is archiving every exposure, even those that didn't make it into the family photo album, both the raw image and an easy-to-read processed version of the raw file, and perhaps a metadata file as well, it's very simple to have reached the number of images cited. Add in video and reaching the disk space used is also quite feasible.

There is merit to this behavior. While an image might not be interesting in the time immediately following its capture, events may occur which cause it to be of interest in the future, and having it available in the archive is then beneficial.

3conÂverse
noun \ËkÃn-ËOEvÉ(TM)rs\
Definition of CONVERSE
: something reversed in order, relation, or action: as
a : a theorem formed by interchanging the hypothesis and conclusion of a given theorem
b : a proposition obtained by interchange of the subject and predicate of a given proposition
Origin of CONVERSE
Latin conversus, past participle of convertere
First Known Use: 1570

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/converse

Uh, I think you have that backwards.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/talent
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/skill

Uh, I think you have that backwards.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/talent
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/skill

Surveillance is what governments do. You're not "the anti-surveillance crowd", you're the "anti-photography crowd". And photography in public places is perfectly OK in our society, and that includes restaurants.

First, video is not the same as photography.

Second, surveillance is not limited to government action but means only "the act of carefully watching someone or something especially in order to prevent or detect a crime". Photography or video need not be done by the state to be surveillance.

Third, restaurants are not public places. In fact the blog to which you link acknowledges to authority of business managers to ban photography on the premises.

My life is a creative work: my choice of dress, my manner of movement, my speech, everything I do is a . Photographs or videos of me in any but the most incidental manner (i.e., I happen to be walking down the street and you capture me in a street scene) are derivatives of that work. I do not grant Google any license to make or distribute such derivative works.

As Steve Mann put it, surveillance is theft.

But all in all, I suspect law won't be willing to address this, and we apparently can't rely on people doing the right thing on their own. We need ubiquitous jammers. Just cheap laser pointers could be an effective means to deal with "glassholes".

I had to use urban dictionary to understand wtf a "photog" was:
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=photog

Slang for Photographer apparently. Although I've never heard or seen anyone use the term and apparently those writing the summary title thought they were being "hip".

You might have used the regular dictionary instead, and learned that the word "photog" has been in use for over a century. Congrats, you're one of today's Lucky 10,000!

Or you could have just used an actual dictionary and seen the word has been in use since at least 1906 and Google's Ngram viewer has it appearing much earlier. Getting angry at the world about the limitations of your vocabulary probably explains why your vocabulary is limited in the first place. I guess you don't care much for fancy book learnin' and just get angry when people use a word you've never heard before. I'm surprised you've moved past grunting and pointing.

Thankfully I live in Canada so this law won't effect all the people I know that rely on wood furnaces for heat and would likely have to invest $10,000+ if they ever had to switch away from wood as a fuel source.

Requirements for new devices do not affect existing installations. Not all of us Americans are so stupid that we can't see you spinning the truth

From Merriam Webster:

to make (something) available to all people : to make it possible for all people to understand (something)

Democratization is a common term that existed long before USA appropriated "democracy" as part of their call to arms, you brainwashed yank.

Why the American ones, as opposed to English? I'm Scottish, and my native language is English. In the English language dictionaries I've looked up, it says that "wrongly" can be a synonym of "incorrectly". How about the Cambridge University Press? Or the Oxford English Dictionary. Or Merriam-Webster

So stating the obvious is now the act of a "psychopath"? Is "psychopath" the new word for heretic?

No a psychopath can be capable of compassion, however they can also selectively chose where to apply compassionate decisions and this is how they learn to manipulate others. It is the smirk of contempt upon their face when delving out their manipulations that usually gives them away. Hitler was a master at disguising the human tendency to smirk in contempt, he like Charles Manson used the "glaring eyes of truth technique". A technique perfected by some manipulative religious zealots like Gregory Rasputin. Hell Hitler was known to practice the technique in a mirror for hours at a time.

As any experienced and trained criminal investigator will tell you, sociopaths and psychopaths always use rational dispassion and most consider themselves to be of greater intelligence than others. Investigators are trained to observe and watch for the dispassionate smirk as it is an indication of a lack of real compassion for their victims.

I was not the anon coward who said they actually saw into the eyes of a psychopath, on the contrary "loufoque" might just be an individual who rationalizes dispassion without taking actions. If he or she is just a seeker and does not jump to conclusions then like many skeptics might just be living in the purgatorial hell of nihilism. Which can be distorted into a rational justification for sociopathic behaviors.

Let's start using words of specific meaning as they were meant to be used, shall we?

Sometimes words have more than one meaning.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/attack

Attack:
1: to set upon or work against forcefully
2: to assail with unfriendly or bitter words
3: to begin to affect or to act on injuriously
4: to set to work on
5: to threaten (a piece in chess) with immediate capture

(emphasis mine)

Though I guess maybe they only used friendly and sweet words in the letter.

It seems you haven't heard of sarcasm.

Did you mean "citizenry"?

If google had never lied willingly then they can get the benefit of the dought . But Google has long past the benefit of the dought lying and getting caught and fined many time.

Are you suggesting Google is doughty, but unable to benefit from their "fearless resolution"?

You have a weird definition of flexible.

It flexes from a curve to flat.
That didn't days folding, or origami phone.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/flex

It is both. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/methodology

during the winter a dark morning would affect allot of people.

You get an allotment of people?

Hint: when your spell checker flagged "alot" and you went with its suggestion, you changed the meaning of your sentence. "Alot" is not a word and "allot" doesn't mean "a lot." I've seen that mistake a lot lately.

Too much internet, not enough edited books.

It's always easy to win an argument when you just make up your own definitions.

wean:
1: to accustom (as a young child or animal) to take food otherwise than by nursing
2: to detach from a source of dependence; also to free from a usually unwholesome habit or interest
3: to accustom to something from an early age

Obviously, it's the second meaning that's being used here, which does not necessitate any form of replacement. The distinction between weaning and cold-turkey in drug dependency isn't the presence or a substitute, but gradation. My wife was on some nasty anti-migraine medication that she had to be weaned off before she could fall pregnant. The weaning process involved gradually decreasing the dose of medication daily, until it fell below therepeutic levels, not by substituting another drug.

The UK's been a pathetic lapdog of the US since the 80s with Thatcher cow-towing to Reagan.

Why was she towing a cow? Couldn't it move by itself? (or did you mean kowtowing ;-) )?

According to Merriam-Webster it means "healthy and attractive with large breasts," and per American Heritage definition 1b "full-bosomed." So there's nothing wrong with using "buxom" to describe a woman like this.

A more appropriate analogy is to be a hypocrite for pushing a law requiring all known malaria to be destroyed, including the samples used for vaccine work.

That word: I do not think it means what you think it means. Merriam-Webster defines hypocrisy as follows:

the behavior of people who do things that they tell other people not to do : behavior that does not agree with what someone claims to believe or feel

According to that definition, I don't see anything hypocritical in your analogy. In fact the poisition you suggest is admirably consistent. Now if your hypothetical malaria researcher was keeping his or her own stash of the disease for purposes of later backmail and extortion, that would be hypocrisy. But unless you think I'm capable of keeping a breeding culture of legislation in a test tube somewhere, it's really, really difficult to see how your analogy is more appropriate in any way at all.

Of course, M-W also defines the word thusly:

a feigning to be what one is not or to believe what one does not; especially : the false assumption of an appearance of virtue or religion

But the only way I see that applying is if you're considering Free Software as a religion (which may be well be the case for rms, of course). But I still don't see how it applies to me, since I don't claim to subscribe to the religion in question.

Without copyright laws, anyone could compile open-source software into a closed-source product, with no restriction. Since the redistributor has default permission to do anything (thanks to the lack of copyright), the GPL never comes into play, so it can't require that the software stays open-source.

On the other hand, we gain the freedom to decompile closed source, patch it and redistribute it as we see fit, distribute abdandonware and orphan works without any legal impediment. Obviously, it requires an opposition to software patents as well, but I don't see any inconsistency in that.

And, of course, that's just considering the benefits for software.

This inextricable dependency is why it's silly to promote the GPL while arguing entirely against copyright.

Only if you assume that ability for force a small subset of all software writers to publish their source code is worth more than freeing the 70 years of culture from creeping privatisation. Otherwise, it seems like more than a fair trade.

You're wrong, AC is right.

a person whose physiological functioning is aided by or dependent upon a mechanical or electronic device.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/cyborg

a bionic human

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cyborg

having normal biological capability or performance enhanced by or as if by electronic or electromechanical devices

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bionic

You're wrong, AC is right.

a person whose physiological functioning is aided by or dependent upon a mechanical or electronic device.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/cyborg

a bionic human

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cyborg

having normal biological capability or performance enhanced by or as if by electronic or electromechanical devices

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bionic

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hackneyed

The actual test for atheism is "do you believe in God?" Any answer other than "Yes" is atheist. Every baby is born atheist, and taught God by their parents (by means of the virus). Someone who is agnostic (in the modern definition) is an atheist.

I mostly agree with your post, but not on this particular statement. Only the answer "No" is atheist. The answers "maybe", "I don't care", "depends on your definition of God", "I can't answer this" or "question does not compute" are not atheism. In contemporary English, "atheist" specifically refers to someone who believes there is no deity:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/agnostic
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism

Example: I consider myself agnostic. Do I believe in God? No. That makes me not-a-believer. Do I believe there's no God? No. That makes me not-an-atheist. Agnostic is a valid classification and distinct from both believer and atheist. Don't make this an "either you're with us or against us" thing; please allow for neutral parties to exist.

The actual test for atheism is "do you believe in God?" Any answer other than "Yes" is atheist. Every baby is born atheist, and taught God by their parents (by means of the virus). Someone who is agnostic (in the modern definition) is an atheist.

I mostly agree with your post, but not on this particular statement. Only the answer "No" is atheist. The answers "maybe", "I don't care", "depends on your definition of God", "I can't answer this" or "question does not compute" are not atheism. In contemporary English, "atheist" specifically refers to someone who believes there is no deity:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/agnostic
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism

Example: I consider myself agnostic. Do I believe in God? No. That makes me not-a-believer. Do I believe there's no God? No. That makes me not-an-atheist. Agnostic is a valid classification and distinct from both believer and atheist. Don't make this an "either you're with us or against us" thing; please allow for neutral parties to exist.

It's Quid pro quo and some of my female friends complain that they get pressured by cops, pulled over often, and angrily ticketed if they don't fellate the officer or agree to go on a date.

When being a grammar pedant, it's important to be correct. You are not. (keep scrolling, it's the second definition, a transitive verb).

Jeez. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/penultimate

So, basically, any machine that flies and is remotely operated is a drone nowadays? This 'drone' word is being way overused.

It does actually fit the definition:
1
: a stingless male bee (as of the honeybee) that has the role of mating with the queen and does not gather nectar or pollen
2
: one that lives on the labors of others : parasite
3
: an unmanned aircraft or ship guided by remote control

Source: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/drone

Ah, of course. The all-powerful Wikipedia link, used to refute all manner of falseitude here on Slashdot. You know, there's more than one definition. Here's an equally-valid link showing an alternate definition. Thanks for your pedantry, and thanks for serving to reinforce the Slashdot written-idiocy stereotype, dinfinity!

I read that post a couple of time, and really the only think I can think of is that you are either really stupid, or a troll.

The Bill is in CA, written and passed by Ca elected officials. Of course it only applies to California. No one is saying other wise.
The context is California, and it even says it in the bill.
  Froms the Bill:
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:

Why would you think they are trying to apply it anywhere else?

Let me help you:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/context

http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201320140SB568

Drone: an unmanned aircraft or ship guided by remote control

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/drone

So how long until I can use this technology to finally get my flaying car?

Hmm, kinky...

The word you're maybe looking for is trifecta.

That's nonsense, both from an economic point of view and from a political point of view. For example, Bill Gates is the richest man in America, and he isn't constraining my choices one bit through his wealth.

So... when did America become a "libertarian utopia"? Has Obama been executed already, or do you plan to merely exile him? Because I'm pretty sure I've heard a lot of libertarians whining about all the existing government regulations here on Slashdot.

Anyway, Bill Gates has definitely constrained your choices through his wealth. The Windows monopoly lasted for years, is the reason why other platforms still have a dearth of programs (especially games), and the situation only began to change when Microsoft began to lose power.

Libertarianism isn't about "idealism", it's about a pragmatic compromise between rights and liberties.

Which would make it an ideology.

What's on its last gasp are progressivism and the welfare state, for the simple reason that they don't work in practice and aren't sustainable.

Start ranting about the evils of popular democracy. You know you want to.

In other word, you visit a page using http, aka hyper text transport protocol, you got served some hypertext, AND YOU COMPLAIN???

Yes. Because too many links make the article hard to read and obscure the most relevant links.

Anyone who uses the word 'cyber' in a non-sarcastic manner should be ignored.

What's wrong with the word cyber? Do you have a better synonym?

I'll just leave this here in the delusion you'll actually fucking read it.

FREEDOM Mega Huge Internet Company Definition
1.the state of being free or at liberty rather than in confinement or under physical restraint. (Self Control)
2.exemption from external control, interference, regulation, etc. (Self Control)
3.the power to determine action without restraint. (Self Control)
4.political or national independence. (Macro Level Self Control)
5.personal liberty, as opposed to bondage or slavery: a slave who bought his freedom. (Self Control)

SELF CONTROL Mega Huge Internet Company Definition
1.control or restraint of oneself or one's actions, feelings, etc.

FREEDOM Encyclopedia Company Definition
1: the quality or state of being free: as
a : the absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action (Self Control)
b : liberation from slavery or restraint or from the power of another (Self Control)
c : the quality or state of being exempt or released usually from something oppressive (Self Control)
d : ease, facility (Self Control)
e : the quality of being frank, open, or outspoken
f : improper familiarity
g : boldness of conception or execution (Self Control)
h : unrestricted use (Self Control)
2
a : a political right
b : franchise, privilege

SELF CONTROL Encyclopedia Company Definition
restraint exercised over one's own impulses, emotions, or desires

FREEDOM Community Voted Definition
1. Something the American people just think they have.
2. Being able to make choices. Performing an action of your own choosing. Freedom will always be relative to the environment/situation which you inhabit.
3. Freedom is basically the right to be treated as an equal.
No-one has the right to exert any form of power over another, for any reason at all.
We all differ physically & intellectually; and circumstances do vary based both on merit and luck. We however diminish ourselves by using any of these 'advantages' to exert power.
Anyone who believes that they are better than another for whatever reason; is basically shallow and deluded.
If you do the right thing for the right reason and positively benefit the universe; you are far more likely to achieve happiness and essentially be at peace with yourself. Your conscience will always be there, it will always remember and it will hold you accountable. Do not delude yourself on this; the easy path often leads to great peril for your soul.
When you are doing something wrong, you are aware of it. You can lie to yourself (as many do), but what is the point? really that is just silly.
It is just as easy to make the right choice as is it to make the wrong one.
You have the freedom to disobey orders or rules (Refer norms).
You have the strength to do what needs to be done to try to benefit everything that exists.

Okay; I understand that things may already be in place; things are unfortunately not that simple. however, you can change your job, you can quit the military (hopefully), you can change how you act!!
It is possible to be in charge of a 100 people and not be an arsehole. If you are in charge of that many people you have the privilege of being able to increase the happiness of all of those souls. Sure, some of them wont appreciate it (Refer: Bogan) and there may be a price to pay, depending on the action that you take (remember: small steps still lead somewhere). But, it is still the right thing - its that simple.
Do you think you are something special? - prove it

"

I'll just leave this here in the delusion you'll actually fucking read it.

FREEDOM Mega Huge Internet Company Definition
1.the state of being free or at liberty rather than in confinement or under physical restraint. (Self Control)
2.exemption from external control, interference, regulation, etc. (Self Control)
3.the power to determine action without restraint. (Self Control)
4.political or national independence. (Macro Level Self Control)
5.personal liberty, as opposed to bondage or slavery: a slave who bought his freedom. (Self Control)

SELF CONTROL Mega Huge Internet Company Definition
1.control or restraint of oneself or one's actions, feelings, etc.

FREEDOM Encyclopedia Company Definition
1: the quality or state of being free: as
a : the absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action (Self Control)
b : liberation from slavery or restraint or from the power of another (Self Control)
c : the quality or state of being exempt or released usually from something oppressive (Self Control)
d : ease, facility (Self Control)
e : the quality of being frank, open, or outspoken
f : improper familiarity
g : boldness of conception or execution (Self Control)
h : unrestricted use (Self Control)
2
a : a political right
b : franchise, privilege

SELF CONTROL Encyclopedia Company Definition
restraint exercised over one's own impulses, emotions, or desires

FREEDOM Community Voted Definition
1. Something the American people just think they have.
2. Being able to make choices. Performing an action of your own choosing. Freedom will always be relative to the environment/situation which you inhabit.
3. Freedom is basically the right to be treated as an equal.
No-one has the right to exert any form of power over another, for any reason at all.
We all differ physically & intellectually; and circumstances do vary based both on merit and luck. We however diminish ourselves by using any of these 'advantages' to exert power.
Anyone who believes that they are better than another for whatever reason; is basically shallow and deluded.
If you do the right thing for the right reason and positively benefit the universe; you are far more likely to achieve happiness and essentially be at peace with yourself. Your conscience will always be there, it will always remember and it will hold you accountable. Do not delude yourself on this; the easy path often leads to great peril for your soul.
When you are doing something wrong, you are aware of it. You can lie to yourself (as many do), but what is the point? really that is just silly.
It is just as easy to make the right choice as is it to make the wrong one.
You have the freedom to disobey orders or rules (Refer norms).
You have the strength to do what needs to be done to try to benefit everything that exists.

Okay; I understand that things may already be in place; things are unfortunately not that simple. however, you can change your job, you can quit the military (hopefully), you can change how you act!!
It is possible to be in charge of a 100 people and not be an arsehole. If you are in charge of that many people you have the privilege of being able to increase the happiness of all of those souls. Sure, some of them wont appreciate it (Refer: Bogan) and there may be a price to pay, depending on the action that you take (remember: small steps still lead somewhere). But, it is still the right thing - its that simple.
Do you think you are something special? - prove it

"

Actually what you said applies to a rigid airship specifically. A dirigible is simply a lighter than air craft which can move independent of the wind and directly control its flight path (contrasted to a balloon). I.e., a synonym for "airship". Dirigible simply means "capable of being steered". A blimp is just as much of a dirigible as a rigid airship is. I realize popular usage of the word has become completely bogus.

I'm not sure this is sexist.

That's indicative of the whole problem here. Yes, this is exactly what sexism is: "behavior, conditions, or attitudes that foster stereotypes of social roles based on sex" (from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sexism)

Uh, you do know that chicks stare at tits, too, right?

Did you mean this word?

Yes, sometimes being one letter off makes a whole heap of difference.

Not that I would be inclined to use either one of them, since I have some idea what might (not) be good for me.

"Addiction is the continued use of a psychoactive drug, or the repetition of a behavior despite adverse consequences, or a neurological impairment leading to such behaviors.

Definition of ADAPTATION 1 : the act or process of adapting : the state of being adapted 2 : adjustment to environmental conditions: as a : adjustment of a sense organ to the intensity or quality of stimulation b : modification of an organism or its parts that makes it more fit for existence under the conditions of its environment

Merriam Webster

I guess everyone is left looking for a Goldilock's Solution while trying not to get eaten by bears.

It doesn't involve truthiness at all. (You didn't know it has been accepted into the common lexicon, did you?) I do, however know what point you were trying to make, I think. However, since synergy is not a new word it also has a definition which one can easily look up. That being said, bogus definitions (4) do sometimes make it into the common lexicon. However, there is no issue with that here, as there is no ambiguity in the common lexicon.

"Economic systems are not religions."

: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

From Merriam-Webster

Given the way many on Wall St approach Capitalism, it could be argued that they are very religious. Similar on the Communist side where actions are taken to the extreme and no other viewpoint is accepted. When one begins to worship an economic system, it gets more and more like religious Dogma, not free will.