Slashdot Mirror

foil noun

Definition of FOIL
1 : very thin sheet metal <aluminum foil>

Miriam Webster is not your friend, nor is Google nor Wikipedia. It's ignorant dogmatic people who so quickly resort to such a tactic. You wasted no time at all. I will not indulge your bar-fight mentality any further. Take it outside. I won't be joining you.

You don't get a legitimate right to take this holier-than-thou attitude when you provide no more proof of your counterclaims than I did my own

My apologies - I looked at your UID and assumed you knew how to use Google. I didn't realize you were still stuck with Ask Jeeves.

Unless you can irrefutably disprove my statements, calling me ignorant is just so much testosterone-fueled hot air

Well, I can, so I guess your statement doesn't apply?

I am aware of the cozy decades-long relationship between U.S. administrations and Saudi Arabia

*golf clap*

but the Bush family has had a profoundly deeper one than most.

You don't get a legitimate right to take this holier-than-thou attitude when you provide no more proof of your counterclaims than I did my own.

That isn't merely my contention.

Yeah, other ideologues say it, too. It must be true!

And there was not a genuine invasion of Iraq during the Clinton presidency;

Never said there was. Nice straw-man!

yes, there were air campaigns and strikes from afar, but no boots on the ground. That only happened during the two Bush presidencies. Not what I would call a "war".

Miriam Webster is your friend
war
noun, often attributive \wor\
Definition of WAR
1
a (1) : a state of usually open and declared armed hostile conflict between states or nations (2) : a period of such armed conflict (3) : state of war
b : the art or science of warfare
c (1) obsolete : weapons and equipment for war (2) archaic : soldiers armed and equipped for war
2
a : a state of hostility, conflict, or antagonism
b : a struggle or competition between opposing forces or for a particular end
c : variance, odds 3

I guess you'd like that changed? What shall the new definition be? How about:

war
noun, often attributive \wor\
Definition of WAR
1
a : armed conflict between states, except when it's a democrat president killing brown people from the air.
b: anything a republican does, including playing with puppies.

How does that sound?

Actually, if we're to be completely honest, I'd agree that we need to differentiate between different types of conflicts. However, if we're going to start redefining words, then Iraq and Afghanistan both stopped being wars around week 3 after the invasion and turned into police-actions / nation-building missions. As long as we continue calling them wars, you don't get to put a different label on what Clinton did.

But no, what I mean is the gung-ho 'we're US marines, lets do it, roarrr!!!' thing.

Here's a clue for you.

Not broadcasting an idea because you don't agree with it is not censorship

Yeah, I know, searching miriam-webster is really, REALLY hard, so here, I'll help you out:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/censor%5B2%5D

censor
verb
censoredcensoring\sen(t)-s-ri, sen(t)s-ri\
Definition of CENSOR
transitive verb
: to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable ; also : to suppress or delete as objectionable
See censor defined for English-language learners
Examples of CENSOR

      1. The station censored her speech before broadcasting it.
      2. His report was heavily censored.

First Known Use of CENSOR
1882

You're welcome.

I disagree with you! I believe that most people mean "arithmetic mean" when they say "average". It may simply be a product of local math education.

I would not normally cite a dictionary, but we are currently discussing how people use language, and dictionaries are one of the best resources on how language is actually used.

First, Google. Looking over the first several definitions, I see the mathematical definition of the arithmetic mean first, then several definitions that do not mention summing and dividing (i.e. the arithmetic mean). I even see several mentions of both the mode and the mean. Given that list of definitions, I would be forced to assume that most people use average to mean something other than the arithmetic mean.

The OED (I would provide a link, but it is behind an academic paywall---if you have access, just look up "average" in the Oxford English Dictionary) has many definitions for average, though the ones of greatest interest to the current discussion are

1. Estimated by average; i.e. by equally distributing the aggregate inequalities of a series among all the individuals of which the series is composed.
2. Equal to what would be the result of taking an average; medium, ordinary; of the usual or prevalent standard.

The first is definitely what you are talking about, while the second is my understanding of how people use the language.

The Merriam-Webster Dictionary also agrees---their first definition of average encompasses the mean, the mode, and the median; and definition 2b seems vague enough to encompass the idea that "average=the middle and half of values are below average."

And, just to be clear, my point is not that you are incorrect to say that "average equals the mean," only that this is a highly technical definition of the average, and that most people, when they say average, are not being nearly so precise. They may actually mean arithmetic mean, or they may mean the median, or they may just be referring to some fuzzy idea about "the middle."

In any case, it is not inappropriate to say that "half of all lawyers are below average," unless you have previously specified a more technical context for the conversation, by either stating that you are referring to the arithmetic mean, or by discussing the actual distribution of lawyer quality and noting that it is not normal. In other contexts, the original poster's phrasing was perfectly understandable, and perfectly in-line with the way that most people use the language (i.e. colloquial usage).

Truthful is orthogonal to propaganda.

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

2 : the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person
3 : ideas, facts, or allegations spread deliberately to further one's cause or to damage an opposing cause; also : a public action having such an effect

Note that it doesn't say that the propaganda is necessarily lies. Ideas, allegations, and rumors may be either true or false; information and facts specifically imply that they're true (though they may still not show the whole picture, or both sides of the coin).

Many propagandists in fact believe that what they are saying is the truth. And even if something *is* the truth, it doesn't mean it isn't also propaganda.

Try the dictionary next time.

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

Data leads a life of its own quite independent of datum, of which it was originally the plural. It occurs in two constructions: as a plural noun (like earnings), taking a plural verb and plural modifiers (as these, many, a few) but not cardinal numbers, and serving as a referent for plural pronouns (as they, them); and as an abstract mass noun (like information), taking a singular verb and singular modifiers (as this, much, little), and being referred to by a singular pronoun (it). Both constructions are standard.

Nice, a succinct answer to the data/datum "controversy" that seems to upset many nerds...

Try the dictionary next time.

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

Data leads a life of its own quite independent of datum, of which it was originally the plural. It occurs in two constructions: as a plural noun (like earnings), taking a plural verb and plural modifiers (as these, many, a few) but not cardinal numbers, and serving as a referent for plural pronouns (as they, them); and as an abstract mass noun (like information), taking a singular verb and singular modifiers (as this, much, little), and being referred to by a singular pronoun (it). Both constructions are standard.

When has Poole ever said that the cause of anonymity should stand above and beyond the law, or that supporting it necessarily demands that one put anonymity before even the law? Or anything remotely close that resembles "Anonymity > Rule of Law"?

This is a position that you've invented for me. I never stated anonymity was above, beyond, before, or greater than the law or rule of law. I'm using the fact that law enforcement getting information from 4chan as an example of anonymity not existing on his site.

You are misconstruing Poole's advocacy of anonymity with that for absolute anonymity that is above and before everything else. And then you call him a hypocrite for failing to conform to the position you've invented for him. Also known as the straw man fallacy.

Your insistence that anonymity must be placed above the law looks like an attempt to discredit anonymity as nothing more than a haven for criminality, hence you sound like a troll.

It appears we need to break out the Dictionary and define the word "anonymity":

anonymity noun
1: the quality or state of being anonymous
2: one that is anonymous

This leads us to define "anonymous":
anonymous adjective
1: of unknown authorship or origin
2: not named or identified
3: lacking individuality, distinction, or recognizably

Based on the definition, one is either anonymous or is not. Having the logs of 4chan provides the author's origin and is an identifiable characteristic, therefore the author is not anonymous. To entertain your arguments, anonymity can't exist when information is used to charge an individual with a crime and an individual that is anonymous can't be charged with a crime since no identifiable information exists as a result of the individual being anonymous. It would be inaccurate to say anonymity is greater/above the law or even the opposite. It would be more accurate to say that anonymity and being able to enforce the law can't exist at the same time; with one existing, the other can not exist. That is the basis of my original statements and question.

I would be interested to have a conversation with Poole on his statements. It would probably result in one of the following:
- Poole state that his definitions of anonymity and anonymous are different than the Merriam-Webster Dictionary
- Poole admit he's being a bit hypocritical within the definition of anonymity. Yes, 4chan is close to providing anonymity, but it doesn't provide it.
- Or the definitions for anonymity and anonymous need to be changed

When has Poole ever said that the cause of anonymity should stand above and beyond the law, or that supporting it necessarily demands that one put anonymity before even the law? Or anything remotely close that resembles "Anonymity > Rule of Law"?

This is a position that you've invented for me. I never stated anonymity was above, beyond, before, or greater than the law or rule of law. I'm using the fact that law enforcement getting information from 4chan as an example of anonymity not existing on his site.

You are misconstruing Poole's advocacy of anonymity with that for absolute anonymity that is above and before everything else. And then you call him a hypocrite for failing to conform to the position you've invented for him. Also known as the straw man fallacy.

Your insistence that anonymity must be placed above the law looks like an attempt to discredit anonymity as nothing more than a haven for criminality, hence you sound like a troll.

It appears we need to break out the Dictionary and define the word "anonymity":

anonymity noun
1: the quality or state of being anonymous
2: one that is anonymous

This leads us to define "anonymous":
anonymous adjective
1: of unknown authorship or origin
2: not named or identified
3: lacking individuality, distinction, or recognizably

Based on the definition, one is either anonymous or is not. Having the logs of 4chan provides the author's origin and is an identifiable characteristic, therefore the author is not anonymous. To entertain your arguments, anonymity can't exist when information is used to charge an individual with a crime and an individual that is anonymous can't be charged with a crime since no identifiable information exists as a result of the individual being anonymous. It would be inaccurate to say anonymity is greater/above the law or even the opposite. It would be more accurate to say that anonymity and being able to enforce the law can't exist at the same time; with one existing, the other can not exist. That is the basis of my original statements and question.

I would be interested to have a conversation with Poole on his statements. It would probably result in one of the following:
- Poole state that his definitions of anonymity and anonymous are different than the Merriam-Webster Dictionary
- Poole admit he's being a bit hypocritical within the definition of anonymity. Yes, 4chan is close to providing anonymity, but it doesn't provide it.
- Or the definitions for anonymity and anonymous need to be changed

It's disturbingly common how many intelligent but partisan people

It's not just those people, but likely a majority of the population

I could be wrong, but I don't think "partisan" was meant in the political sense. I think the word is being more generically used, as in a firm adherent to a party, faction, cause, or person; especially : one exhibiting blind, prejudiced, and unreasoning allegiance.

Sadly, you are probably right that the term refers to a majority of the population.

Also "proof read" is one word.

Those aren't crickets! That's a WMA file of recorded cricket sounds being streamed from Microsoft directly to my Zune!

No, no, the official terminology is squirting, as amply demonstrated by Ballmer's disturbing money quote:

I want to squirt you a picture of my kids. You want to squirt me back a video of your vacation. That's a software experience.

Frankly, a bit too soft for my preference. Methinks the Ballmer needs more roughage in his diet -- and perhaps some time familiarizing himself with the connotations of his word choices, the better to avoid any similar outbreaks of logorrhea (a.k.a. "runny brain") in future.

but [brains] are literally massively parallel

Ding ding ding ding... you've activated internet literary pedant! When comparing supercomputers and brains, the one that is literally massively anything is the one that is literally massive.

Off-topic, but Merriam-Webster defines literally as:

1. in a literal sense or manner : actually (took the remark literally) (was literally insane)
2. in effect : virtually (will literally turn the world upside down to combat cruelty or injustice — Norman Cousins)

So the secondary definition of literally is the exact opposite of the primary definition! Yay for modern English. I wonder if good ol' Norm had something to do with this.

"Social programs" are "socialist?" You obviously lack a dictionary.

I think it only fair to also present similar definitions for what a Republic is.

Personally, I feel that Republic is more accurate given the historical meaning of democracy, but that the meaning of "democracy" has changed since 1787 to basically include what the United States is now. The founders generally thought of direct democracy (think Athens) rather than today's broader definitions. Perhaps the most-encompassing term may be that the United States is a Constitutional Democratic Republic?

Definition of REPUBLIC (from Merriam Webster)
1 a (1) : a government having a chief of state who is not a monarch and who in modern times is usually a president
(2) : a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government
b (1) : a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law.

Or from Dictionary.com:
republic
/rpblk/ Show Spelled[ri-puhb-lik] Show IPA
–noun
1. a state in which the supreme power rests in the body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by representatives chosen directly or indirectly by them.
2. any body of persons viewed as a commonwealth.
3. a state in which the head of government is not a monarch or other hereditary head of state.

A satnav (which is what you mean, not GPS) safely gives you navigational information whilst driving. A map doesn't unless you have a passenger. You have to stop to safely use a paper map. And that's a problem on a motorway.

Satnav is just another way to say "GPS":

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

a navigational system using satellite signals to fix the location of a radio receiver on or above the earth's surface; also : the radio receiver so used

It's not brainwashing nor nonsense. From the same dictionaries you referenced:
Reference.com:
republic
/rpblk/ Show Spelled[ri-puhb-lik] Show IPA
–noun
1. a state in which the supreme power rests in the body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by representatives chosen directly or indirectly by them.
2. any body of persons viewed as a commonwealth.
3. a state in which the head of government is not a monarch or other hereditary head of state.

Or Miriam Webster
Definition of REPUBLIC
a (1) : a government having a chief of state who is not a monarch and who in modern times is usually a president (2) : a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government
b (1) : a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law (2) : a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government

I think we're actually considered a Constitutional Republic.

true democracy

Definition of DEMOCRACY
a : government by the people; especially : rule of the majority
b : a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections

We are a representative democracy which is true democracy.

Technically they're right. We are not a democracy, we are a republic. Their reasons for doing this may be wrong, but I agree with the overall outcome.

I know that they brainwashed you in school to believe that, but I would rather believe the New Oxford American Dictionary (emphasis mine):

democracy |dimäkrs|
noun ( pl. -cies)
a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives (...)

Or Merriam-Webster:

democracy noun \di-mä-kr-s\
plural democracies
Definition of DEMOCRACY
1
a : government by the people; especially : rule of the majority
b : a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections (...)

Or other popular but authoritative sources of information on the definition of words:

democracy
[dih-mok-ruh-see] Show IPA
–noun, plural -cies.
1.
government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system. (...)

(Sorry for cross-posting this, but this nonsense has to stop).

We're going to ignore the fact that this is more accurate, as a democracy is where everyone makes every decision, which is impractical on any large scale, while a republic is where we elect people to make decisions for us.

I know that they brainwashed you in school to believe that, but I would rather believe the New Oxford American Dictionary (emphasis mine):

democracy |dimäkrs|
noun ( pl. -cies)
a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives (...)

Or Merriam Webster:

democracy noun \di-mä-kr-s\
plural democracies
Definition of DEMOCRACY
1
a : government by the people; especially : rule of the majority
b : a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections (...)

Or other popular but authoritative sources of information on the definition of words:

democracy
[dih-mok-ruh-see] Show IPA
–noun, plural -cies.
1.
government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system. (...)

Regardless of that, it must be noted that the article makes no mention of Utah making the decision because "democracy" suggests a relation to the "Democratic" party.

Maybe you're joking, but you're referring to choice 4, number 2 of http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/mold and the person you're responding to is referring to 2.2.

See Merriam Webster: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/overtook

From here

Irregardless originated in dialectal American speech in the early 20th century. Its fairly widespread use in speech called it to the attention of usage commentators as early as 1927. The most frequently repeated remark about it is that “there is no such word.” There is such a word, however. It is still used primarily in speech, although it can be found from time to time in edited prose. Its reputation has not risen over the years, and it is still a long way from general acceptance. Use regardless instead.

If it is widely used it IS a word despite all the grammar nazis trying to continually claim otherwise.

So, maybe you just missed the diamond in the rough.

That phrase doesn't mean what you think:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/diamond+in+the+rough

The "rough" part refers to an uncut/unpolished diamond.

the goverment bank with its billion dollars is getting a terrible rate of return on its investment.

Governments currently get terrible rates of return on their slush-fund deposits with the commercial banks:

... the investments of government entities can be found in official annual reports (CAFRs), which must be filed with the federal government by local, county and state governments. These annual reports show that virtually every U.S. city, county, and state has vast amounts of money stashed away in surplus funds. ...

I got a chance to ask [about the slush funds] in April [2010], when I was invited to speak at a conference of Government Finance Officers in Missouri. The friendly public servants at the conference explained that maintaining large âoerainy dayâ funds is simply how local governments must operate. Unlike private businesses, which have bank credit lines they can draw on if they miscalculate their expenses, local governments are required by law to balance their budgets; and if they come up short, public services and government payrolls may be frozen until the voters get around to approving a new bond issue. This has actually happened, bringing local government to a standstill. In emergencies, government officials can try to borrow short-term through âoecertificates of participationâ or tax participation loans, but the interest rates are prohibitively high; and in todayâ(TM)s tight credit market, finding willing lenders is difficult.

To avoid those unpredictable contingencies, municipal governments will keep a cushion of from 20% to 75% more than their budgets actually require. This money is invested, but not necessarily lucratively. One finance officer, for example, said that her city had just bid out $2 million as a 30-day certificate of deposit (CD) to two large banks at a meager annual interest of 0.11%. It was a nice spread for the banks, which could leverage the money into loans at 6% or so; but it was a pretty sparse deal for the city.

-The Mysterious CAFRS: How Stagnant Pools of Government Money Could Help Save the Economy (emphasis added)

Or is there something i'm missing, like the bank can print its own money?

That's what banks do, you know. They take money in on deposit, and loan it out the same day. Their books say "Bazar has $20k on deposit with us, nido owes us $18,000 (paid back over 4+ years). Hopefully Bazar doesn't want all his money back tomorrow, 'cause we'd have to go borrow it from the inter-bank market or the Federal Reserve if he did..."

Meanwhile, I've taken my $18,000 loan and purchased a sweet-ass 20-year-old NSX on the used car market. The recipient of the funds goes and deposits that money at his bank, which promptly makes a new loan for $16,200.

If the states owned banks, they'd profit from the shell game too. The plutocracy wouldn't be happy, of course, but they can go fuck themselves.

I don't know what dictionary you have, but here's what the Concise Oxford says:

I said I checked multiple and that many mentioned a free market. Quoting one that doesn't doesn't invalidate the overall point. References:

American Heritage: "An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market."

Merriam-Webster: "an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market"

Not that you should be learning about economic or political systems from dictionaries.

Oh please. If you want some basic definitions, they are fine.

Your local library should have an entire section on these subjects.

You enjoy going to the library. I'll use whatever references are online. Speaking of which, here's a quote from a classic version of the Encyclopaedia Britannica: "Thus capitalism is essentially based on freedom - the freedom of the subscriber in risking his money, and the freedom of the consumer in giving or withholding his custom and the profit that it makes possible."

Competition is the key idea, not whether or not a company is free to sell their goods.

This is just bizarre. How can you have unfettered competition if a company isn't allowed to freely sell their goods?

You can have free market capitalism, but you can still have capitalism without a free market---capitalism tells us that private owners control the means of production, but doesn't tell us how they get their products to consumers.

Technically you can, in a very strict definition of capitalism, but in common usage, and also based on the theory of capitalism, and the common sense of what it means to own something, it is closely associated with being able to sell your goods in a free market. The references I found didn't associate them by accident.

Hey, idiot, if you are going to slam others, at least get it right.

It is nonissue and retard.

But considering that you are so stupid as to get wrong 2/3 of your words that you write, then it does not speak well of you.

Language nit: the word you want is ordnance.

Good, because that would be very difficult to manage, what with the root oscillating between two servers.

Oh, did you mean ALTERNATIVE? Note that the words are not synonyms.

alternate:

4. Constituting an alternative [took the alternate route home]

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

Sorry, please try again.

1) you are incorrect. "Atheism" literally means "No god", or 'against god'. Not "Against religion". To fit your argument with this CORRECT (look it up in the dictionary if you feel I am wrong) definition of atheism, it would read "you can't 'not believe in a god' blindly", which is patently false. You certainly can. FAIL. It is quite possible for a person to be literally faced with an all-powerful god, right in front of them, and still chose disbelief. People did this in the early 1900s with germs, upgrading it to a divinity is is a trivial mental exercise.

2) "Agnosticism" literally means "Without knowledge". It means that I profess a lack of knowledge about any god, which is perfectly consistent with my statement above. Further, it implies that it is impossible "To know" a god, which is further consistent with what I said above. It has absolutely nothing to do with religious apologism, as you claim. Double fail.

3) Making up definitions to suit your world view is pretentious and conceited; It proclaims your decision for purposeful ignorance in the face of correction. It is a classic example of a "Moving the goal post" type logical fallacy, much like a "no true scottsman". You purposefully moved the goalpost (regarding what "Atheism" actually means) so that the argument would seem invalid.Triple fail.

  You are correct in at least part of your rather barbed retort though; I cannot prove that you are not god, however, conversely, you cannot prove that you ARE. That does NOT make me have to bow down and worship you though. It just means I shouldnt fault somebody for falling for such a ploy and actually doing it. People have worshiped humans as if they were gods for centuries. I am not one of those people, so your commandment for me to die in a fire will fall on deaf ears. So sorry.

In short, your argument sounds like the siren of a waaaambulance. Try again, this time dont make shit up, K?

1) you are incorrect. "Atheism" literally means "No god", or 'against god'. Not "Against religion". To fit your argument with this CORRECT (look it up in the dictionary if you feel I am wrong) definition of atheism, it would read "you can't 'not believe in a god' blindly", which is patently false. You certainly can. FAIL. It is quite possible for a person to be literally faced with an all-powerful god, right in front of them, and still chose disbelief. People did this in the early 1900s with germs, upgrading it to a divinity is is a trivial mental exercise.

2) "Agnosticism" literally means "Without knowledge". It means that I profess a lack of knowledge about any god, which is perfectly consistent with my statement above. Further, it implies that it is impossible "To know" a god, which is further consistent with what I said above. It has absolutely nothing to do with religious apologism, as you claim. Double fail.

3) Making up definitions to suit your world view is pretentious and conceited; It proclaims your decision for purposeful ignorance in the face of correction. It is a classic example of a "Moving the goal post" type logical fallacy, much like a "no true scottsman". You purposefully moved the goalpost (regarding what "Atheism" actually means) so that the argument would seem invalid.Triple fail.

  You are correct in at least part of your rather barbed retort though; I cannot prove that you are not god, however, conversely, you cannot prove that you ARE. That does NOT make me have to bow down and worship you though. It just means I shouldnt fault somebody for falling for such a ploy and actually doing it. People have worshiped humans as if they were gods for centuries. I am not one of those people, so your commandment for me to die in a fire will fall on deaf ears. So sorry.

In short, your argument sounds like the siren of a waaaambulance. Try again, this time dont make shit up, K?

I think you may be missing the point of the grandparent post. This is the sound you just heard.

From Merriam-Webster dictionary:

mine [verb]

Definition of MINE

to place hidden explosive devices in or under (the troops hurriedly mined the field before relinquishing it to the enemy)

Synonyms booby-trap

Related Words blow up, bomb; ambush, snare, trap; attack

Laws determine precisely what is lawful or unlawful. Not right or wrong indeed. You might more properly have said: Taxation is legalized taking, no more, no less. Then we'd be in agreement. Murder is exactly unlawful killing,
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/murder
definition (1!) is:
: the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought

And of course the natural 'right' to own property is quite heavily debated. By what authority do you derive the right to deny someone else a piece of food. What rule decides what is yours, what is mine? What if I decide differently than you? Your 'ownership' in property cannot be established without an authority, or rules, necessitating government, necessitating taxes.

Ironically, your preference for the term "customer," which emphasizes the individual as a purchaser of goods and services, has more to do with being a "wallet with legs" than does the term "consumer," which refers primarily to the use of said goods and services.

Customer
One that purchases a commodity or service

Consumer
One that utilizes economic goods

Ironically, your preference for the term "customer," which emphasizes the individual as a purchaser of goods and services, has more to do with being a "wallet with legs" than does the term "consumer," which refers primarily to the use of said goods and services.

Customer
One that purchases a commodity or service

Consumer
One that utilizes economic goods

You know, that's a terrible argument. You're saying it's wrong, but you're not giving any supporting evidence. I'm assuming that you know both Green and Latin to make such a statement. The good old "I'm smarter than you, so I'm right" doesn't cut it, especially when your audience may be as smart or smarter than you.

    If virii is wrong, at least give us the translation of what virii means. In Latin, virii seems to translate to "The men of...". In Greek, it doesn't translate to anything.

    So how correct or incorrect is virii? Well, if you consider "the men of..." would seem to convey the same idea of the biblical Legion demon (my name is legion, for we are many.). If a virus is one attacker (attack vector, or soldier), many could be conveyed as a legion. That would imply many men of. We are always very comfortable anthropomorphizing inanimate objects, would it be wrong to consider multiple virus to be the men of, or the army of, or the legion of? It would seem appropriate to follow that with the name of their creator. Virii haxor? Dear god, I hope I don't give an uber-leet script kiddie any ideas. Ok kids, be good, stay in school, m'kay?

    I guess the most important thing we should remember is that language is what we've made of it. There are people who want to be linguistic purists. What are you being pure about? You've picked an arbitrary point in history, and have romanticized so much, you too believe there is to never be progress. I won't argue against the idea that many modern linguistic trends are wrong, but words adopted into common use, regardless of how badly they are spelled, or how awful they may be, they become words. Search on Google for "new words in [year]" (replace year with a number), and you'll find all kinds of interesting words that you probably believed existed "forever".

    New words in 1806 2006.

    I'm very happy that "cougar" and "tramp-stamp" became official words in 2010. Now I don't have to say "A lovely older woman with sexual interests a younger men, who has a tattoo on her lower back". "Cougar with a tramp stamp" not only has a nice ring to it, but it sounds real dirty. :)

    So... It doesn't matter if you think you know Latin, Greek, or English. If everyone else says it's right, and the use is continued, in time they will be right. I'd be willing to bet the majority of what we say now (including this message) would have been impossible to decipher based on linguistic standards even a few hundred years ago. Don't even consider looking back more than about 450 years, "Modern English" didn't even exist.

You know, that's a terrible argument. You're saying it's wrong, but you're not giving any supporting evidence. I'm assuming that you know both Green and Latin to make such a statement. The good old "I'm smarter than you, so I'm right" doesn't cut it, especially when your audience may be as smart or smarter than you.

    If virii is wrong, at least give us the translation of what virii means. In Latin, virii seems to translate to "The men of...". In Greek, it doesn't translate to anything.

    So how correct or incorrect is virii? Well, if you consider "the men of..." would seem to convey the same idea of the biblical Legion demon (my name is legion, for we are many.). If a virus is one attacker (attack vector, or soldier), many could be conveyed as a legion. That would imply many men of. We are always very comfortable anthropomorphizing inanimate objects, would it be wrong to consider multiple virus to be the men of, or the army of, or the legion of? It would seem appropriate to follow that with the name of their creator. Virii haxor? Dear god, I hope I don't give an uber-leet script kiddie any ideas. Ok kids, be good, stay in school, m'kay?

    I guess the most important thing we should remember is that language is what we've made of it. There are people who want to be linguistic purists. What are you being pure about? You've picked an arbitrary point in history, and have romanticized so much, you too believe there is to never be progress. I won't argue against the idea that many modern linguistic trends are wrong, but words adopted into common use, regardless of how badly they are spelled, or how awful they may be, they become words. Search on Google for "new words in [year]" (replace year with a number), and you'll find all kinds of interesting words that you probably believed existed "forever".

    New words in 1806 2006.

    I'm very happy that "cougar" and "tramp-stamp" became official words in 2010. Now I don't have to say "A lovely older woman with sexual interests a younger men, who has a tattoo on her lower back". "Cougar with a tramp stamp" not only has a nice ring to it, but it sounds real dirty. :)

    So... It doesn't matter if you think you know Latin, Greek, or English. If everyone else says it's right, and the use is continued, in time they will be right. I'd be willing to bet the majority of what we say now (including this message) would have been impossible to decipher based on linguistic standards even a few hundred years ago. Don't even consider looking back more than about 450 years, "Modern English" didn't even exist.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/break?show=1&t=1295568604

break (noun)

Definition of BREAK

1 a : an act or action of breaking

  b : the opening shot in a game of pool or billiards

2 a : a condition produced by or as if by breaking : gap <a break in the clouds>

  b : a gap in an otherwise continuous electric circuit
...

10 a : a rupture in previously agreeable relations <a break between the two countries>

  b : an abrupt split or difference with something previously adhered to or followed <a sharp break with tradition>
...

customer information in the filial on the cayman islands disappeared...

Why, that son of a...

Similarly, the DMCA talks about the requirement of "effective protection". Can it really be called "effective" when it's broken? I'd call that ineffective, and therefore not covered.

Good thing you're not a lawyer. The DMCA uses the word "effective" only in terms of dates. However, it uses the words "effectively controls" repeatedly throughout.

Here's what effectively means, according to Merriam-Webster:

effectively:

1 : in effect : virtually <by withholding further funds they effectively killed the project>

And in case that wasn't absolutely clear:
effect:

-- in effect
        : in substance : virtually <the ... committee agreed to what was in effect a reduction in the hourly wage -- Current Biography>

Similarly, the DMCA talks about the requirement of "effective protection". Can it really be called "effective" when it's broken? I'd call that ineffective, and therefore not covered.

Good thing you're not a lawyer. The DMCA uses the word "effective" only in terms of dates. However, it uses the words "effectively controls" repeatedly throughout.

Here's what effectively means, according to Merriam-Webster:

effectively:

1 : in effect : virtually <by withholding further funds they effectively killed the project>

And in case that wasn't absolutely clear:
effect:

-- in effect
        : in substance : virtually <the ... committee agreed to what was in effect a reduction in the hourly wage -- Current Biography>

I think you might want to look at the definition of exaggerating: take a look here for a start http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/exaggerating. As to commodore64_love twisting facts, well you should look well at the volume of his posts and discern wether or not he does in fact routinely twist facts. Also you might want to consider the history of the issue. I suggest reading the trial of socratese http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/socrates/socrates.HTM .

I've always taken it to mean: gear[1].

* Where's my climbing gear (kit)?! Oi!
* You going to sell all that old computer shit/stuff/gear (kit) on Ebay?
* My dad went fishing at 3 this morning, at 8 this morning he sheepishly came back to pick up his fishing gear (kit).
* I'm jonesing where's my gear (kit)?
* Reverse gear (kit) is left and up! Don't you know how to drive a manual gear (kit) shift? [NAH! =]

Then again kit is gear.[2] My Mum says I tell porkies.

[1] http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gear , 2.
[2] http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gear , 4. "dialect chiefly British : absurd talk : nonsense "

I've always taken it to mean: gear[1].

* Where's my climbing gear (kit)?! Oi!
* You going to sell all that old computer shit/stuff/gear (kit) on Ebay?
* My dad went fishing at 3 this morning, at 8 this morning he sheepishly came back to pick up his fishing gear (kit).
* I'm jonesing where's my gear (kit)?
* Reverse gear (kit) is left and up! Don't you know how to drive a manual gear (kit) shift? [NAH! =]

Then again kit is gear.[2] My Mum says I tell porkies.

[1] http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gear , 2.
[2] http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gear , 4. "dialect chiefly British : absurd talk : nonsense "

The original poster stated his beliefs as fact, and I called him on it.

faith 3: something that is believed especially with strong conviction;

There's still plenty of room for interpretation in quantum physics.

you might want to look up "disenfranchised" in a dictionary.

Another wikipedoa victim, I take it. Read and learn.

how, exactly is your unix type OSes better than the mac OS?

No-one said "better". What was said was that Free as in Freedom can hekp keep you off the upgrade treadmill.

--
DUH!

Look, there is NO GOD

Prove it. You can no more prove your assertation that there is no God than I can prove the fact that he's revealed himself to me.

Well let me ask you this, if everything that ever lived is dead, and everything alive is going to die, where does the sacred part come in? I'm having trouble with that. Because even with the stuff we preach about the sanctity of life, we don't practice it. Look at what we kill. Mosquitos and flies, because they're pests! Lions and tigers, because it's fun! Chickens and pigs, because we're hungry. Pheasants and quail, because it's fun, and we're hungry. And people! We kill people, because they're pests... and it's fun!

Bhuddists would argue with that. I was chewed out really good by a Bhuddist once in Thailand, for swatting a fly. The Bhuddists worship life (I may be mistaken, but I think the Hindus do as well). Killing any animal is taboo to them (although there was plenty of meat-eating, which kind of confused me about the place).

Eat a stake tonight

Do that and you're be dead before morning, unless the stake (3a : something that is staked for gain or loss b : the prize in a contest c : an interest or share in an undertaking or enterprise) is a steak.

See, the problem is "we". There is no we, everyone has different beliefs.