Slashdot Mirror

Alternate is not a synonym for alternative.

Unfortunately for you, it is.

Take your pick: Opaque, opaque, opaque, either way, his question is valid and the wikipedia entry on the subject matches not only all online and offline dictionary definitions but also textbook ones. And the answer that human hands are translucent is also valid. So give'm a break?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Name_of_Ukraine http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ukraine

Err, no, it's not.

You sure about that?

You fail it.

Mob: 1 : a large or disorderly crowd; especially : one bent on riotous or destructive action
2 : the lower classes of a community : masses, rabble
3 chiefly Australian : a flock, drove, or herd of animals
4 : a criminal set : gang; especially often capitalized : mafia 1
5 chiefly British : a group of people : crowd

Gang a (1) : a set of articles : outfit
(2) : a combination of similar implements or devices arranged for convenience to act together
b : group: as
(1) : a group of persons working together
(2) : a group of persons working to unlawful or antisocial ends; especially : a band of antisocial adolescents
2: a group of persons having informal and usually close social relations

Id say that "mob" and "gang" or used correctly, according to the dictionary, regardless of how you "usually" see it.

Mob: 1 : a large or disorderly crowd; especially : one bent on riotous or destructive action
2 : the lower classes of a community : masses, rabble
3 chiefly Australian : a flock, drove, or herd of animals
4 : a criminal set : gang; especially often capitalized : mafia 1
5 chiefly British : a group of people : crowd

Gang a (1) : a set of articles : outfit
(2) : a combination of similar implements or devices arranged for convenience to act together
b : group: as
(1) : a group of persons working together
(2) : a group of persons working to unlawful or antisocial ends; especially : a band of antisocial adolescents
2: a group of persons having informal and usually close social relations

Id say that "mob" and "gang" or used correctly, according to the dictionary, regardless of how you "usually" see it.

The word is 'wreak'. 'Reek' is something entirely different.

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

Oy. Not this again. Look. Theism consists of dogma, rules for behavior, and often enough, a strong and well solidified political agenda, for instance, as with Islam or the Christians that are constantly attempting to fiddle with the sayings on money, messing with the pledge of allegiance, praying in congress before making laws, seeing to it the rest of us can't buy beer on Sunday, etc. They do these things because they think this is the way to "bring" their religion, and its dogma and rules, to the rest of us. Speaking generally, theism is a belief in a god or gods, and it carries, in a very official and intentional manner, a great deal of imposed behavior and canned rules with it.

Atheism:
Definition of ATHEISM
1
archaic : ungodliness, wickedness
2
a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheism

Please don't add more to the definition than what it is. Atheism is a religious concept. The separation of church and state does away with religious interference in secular laws. The separation of all pressure and interest groups still does not occur even in secular societies because things such as financial resources can influence political decisions.

The Soviet state was ATHEIST according to the above definition. It had an ideology which was not followed properly as the Soviet State was not even truly Communist, it resembled a fascist state. In terms of ideologies, Sweden a secular state, can also be considered to be an ideologically run state where it is considered that democracy, socialism and a myriad of feminist laws (among others) dominate government ideology.

As for voting along secular lines, most religious people are more than capable of doing that. Perhaps some people cannot grasp this but it happens and it works. People even in atheist societies would vote according to subjective opinion. For example poorer, less educated people would want more social welfare while the rich would want more tax breaks and those with children would want a larger budget for education and so on. In every society there is a difference of opinion and people are egoistical and will vote according to what is better for than and not think of the good of the state. Remember the Soviet Union was conceptualized this way - it was meant to be an utopia of altruism, people were repeatedly told that Communism was just round the corner but it never came. True Communism would mean that all form of government would be abolished and a workers'/peasants' paradise would follow with each worker donating according to his abilities and receiving according to his needs. This never worked out, partly because without incentive people will give as little as possible and take as much as they can.

Every atheist accepts that there is no deity on blind faith and without further investigation.

Next please, this one has no idea what he is talking about.

Semantics hint: Every sentence starting with "every" or any other all-quantor is by definition false. You are always able to find an exception. Yes, this is an intentional paradox.

atheism is often far less harmful than some religious notions, but it is no more rational.

1rational
adj \rash-nl, ra-sh-nl\
Definition of RATIONAL
1
a : having reason or understanding b : relating to, based on, or agreeable to reason : reasonable
2
: involving only multiplication, division, addition, and subtraction and only a finite number of times
3
: relating to, consisting of, or being one or more rational numbers
-- rationally adverb
-- rationalness noun
(source: Merriam-Webster)

I must assume from context that you mean that 1st definition. I must also assume that you are referring to early 21st century atheism, not some ancient or fictional one. If my assumptions are correct, then you should maybe try to do a bit of research on the subject matter. Most of the current-day atheists are also strict rationalists. It is not an accident that most of the famous ones are scientists.

Stating "I know..." about a thing that is, by definition, unknowable, is irrational.

Only in a simplified universe that doesn't want to open itself to reason and insists that by fiat, some things are unknowable. Where do you even take it from that some things are "unknowable"? Oh yes, "by definition". Wait, isn't that exactly the kind of a priori reasoning that you are trying to put down?

21st century atheists do not usually state "I know there is no god". What they do state is that there is no evidence whatsoever, that all the claims made by believers either have been disproved or are easy to disprove, or are pure semantic trickery to avoid falsification. The end result, as Dawkins put it so nicely, is that there may be a chinese teapot in orbit around Saturn, and with current technology it is impossible to be absolutely certain that there isn't - but it is so unlikely that whoever makes the claim ought to provide the evidence, not the other way around.

Atheists differ from Agnostics in that an agnostic essentially assumes the chances are 50:50 while an atheist has come to the conclusion that the chances that there is a god even remotely resembling the description of any of the major religions is so ridiculously small that believing in a teapot orbiting Saturn is a better idea, because that's more likely.

Your definition (and/or a couple of the definitions Google finds) of religion is inadequate.

You are right. There are other uses of the word "religion" - Merriam-Webster gives examples like "hockey is a religion", and also gives a definition as: "a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith". But I would argue that in the context of discussing atheism, which is a lack of belief in supernatural beings, use of the word "religion" would be interpreted as a belief in supernatural beings. "Hockey is a religion" is perfectly valid, but would anyone seriously argue that hockey is a religion? The problem with that definition is that it leaves open "(Anything) is a religion"; "Carnivorism is a religion", "Speaking English is a religion", "Conservatism is a religion". Each of those represent a way of life that some people have strong beliefs about, but are we really going to accept "(Anything I think) is a religion"?

Buddhism and Confucianism come to mind, as do contemporary versions of Shintoism

If a person does not believe in supernatural beings, then they are an atheist. If followers of particular set of beliefs do not believe in supernatural beings, then they are an atheist. If some particular set of beliefs does not require a belief in the supernatural, then it is possible to be a follower of those beliefs and be an atheist. Having said that, it appears that Buddhism requires a belief in supernatural (though not immortal or omnipotent) Devas, it is debated whether Confucianism is a philosophy or religion (Wikipedia describes it as "quasi-religion", whatever that means). Shintoism requires a belief in Kami,which are supernatural beings, such as the sun goddess Amaterasu.

Yeah, very nice how anyone that bothers to follow your damn link sees how you cherry picked

Since when was picking the top two search results "cherry picking"?

any half-way decent widely available dictionary (like m-w or oed) accepts religion to encompass a very wide degree of beliefs

Yes, but these are not applicable in the context of discussing atheism. Merriam-Webster gives examples of the context that you are quoting:

"Hockey is a religion in Canada.

Politics are a religion to him.

Where I live, high school football is religion.

Food is religion in this house."

Merriam Webster also defines the modern use of atheism:

"a : a disbelief in the existence of deity
b : the doctrine that there is no deity"

So, modern use of the word "atheism" is in the context of "deity". Therefore comparisons with usage of the word "religion" in the context of "hockey is a religion" are invalid; religion is being used in a context that is many would say is "non-religious", because nobody would seriously classify hockey as a religion.

Yeah, very nice how anyone that bothers to follow your damn link sees how you cherry picked

Since when was picking the top two search results "cherry picking"?

any half-way decent widely available dictionary (like m-w or oed) accepts religion to encompass a very wide degree of beliefs

Yes, but these are not applicable in the context of discussing atheism. Merriam-Webster gives examples of the context that you are quoting:

"Hockey is a religion in Canada.

Politics are a religion to him.

Where I live, high school football is religion.

Food is religion in this house."

Merriam Webster also defines the modern use of atheism:

"a : a disbelief in the existence of deity
b : the doctrine that there is no deity"

So, modern use of the word "atheism" is in the context of "deity". Therefore comparisons with usage of the word "religion" in the context of "hockey is a religion" are invalid; religion is being used in a context that is many would say is "non-religious", because nobody would seriously classify hockey as a religion.

According to Merriam-Webster, "automotive" doesn't have to mean "car." It could be a truck engine or some other ground vehicle (military?) engine. My guess is that it IS from a car, though. You can readily get over 500 hp from a WRX engine.

Still, what gauls me the most about this sort of rampant trumpeting by the anti-vaccination folks is the incredible hubris it demonstrates.

Gaul (Latin: Gallia) is a historical name used in the context of Ancient Rome in references to the region of Western Europe approximating present day France, Luxembourg and Belgium, most of Switzerland, the western part of Northern Italy, as well as the parts of the Netherlands and Germany on the left bank of the Rhine.

gall:
1
        a : bile; especially bile obtained from an animal and used in the arts or medicine
        b : something bitter to endure
        c : bitterness of spirit, rancor

2: brazen boldness coupled with impudent assurance and insolence

I believe definition 1,b of gall is the word you were actually looking for.

Yes, if someone never joined sigma phi asshole, they can never claim they were in a fraternity. Of course, that doesn't mean they are better or worse at drinking than anyone else, just that they didn't have that association. Engineering is the same. Engineers in the US have hijacked the name such that they claim it has a "pure" meaning that's unrelated to what anyone else on the planet other than PEs think of it. But even if you take the word as they'd prefer you did, it still doesn't carry any meaning associated with the abilities or knowledge of those not holding the title, other than a social association that's missing. The word was around long before the professional organizations were. Yet if you ask them what the definition is, it's subset of the members of their professional organizations and no one else (with the possible exception of railroad engineers, but only because they had the term applied to that job before any of the professional organizations were created). That's obviously not what's covered in the dictionary definition, and in fact, not related to any entry I've seen in the dictionary. But that doesn't stop them from hijacking the term and claiming jurisdiction over it. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/engineer

"he" covers both a reference to a male and a reference to someone of unknown gender. There is no case missing, it's just ambiguous. If someone feels they absolutely must follow the pointless radical feminist agenda on this, use "she" instead for the same purpose. Apologizing every time you need an indeterminate gender is language pollution - that is what I was saying.

"he" covers both a reference to a male and a reference to someone of unknown gender. There is no case missing, it's just ambiguous. If someone feels they absolutely must follow the pointless radical feminist agenda on this, use "she" instead for the same purpose. Apologizing every time you need an indeterminate gender is language pollution - that is what I was saying.

"I could easily claim that while legal immigrants tend to "integrate" to a certain extent, they largely treat their ethnic heritage with pride and generally commingle with other foreign nationals, immigrants, and citizens of common ancestry."

I didn't say legal immigrants lose their identity and conform. I said:

"legal immigrants integrate into america and make it stronger with parts of their former culture"

A legal immigrant is an American. They raise their children as Americans. They want to be part of America if they didn't they wouldn't have gone through the hassle of respecting our rules about coming here. That doesn't mean they have to forget where they came from.

"if this were not the case, Little Tokyo, the many Chinatowns, Little Saigon, etc. would not exist"

I already pointed out nothing I said conflicted with these. But these aren't pockets of isolation. If you go to Chinatown people still know how to speak English. Those who can speak English won't refuse to speak it. It isn't about throwing away ones culture it is about having respect for the culture you are becoming a part of and the chinese (in general, though there are plenty of illegal chinese immigrants) came legally so their first act was not to slap our nation in the face. Even so, Chinatowns are a symptom of the effects of mass immigration and are part of why we have immigration quotas today.

"Conversely, I can dispute your claim that illegals isolate themselves from the rest of American society because (a) you didn't support that claim"

I wouldn't think it needs supported for an American? Large swaths of the southwest and Los Angeles are filled with people who came illegally or were raised by illegal aliens. People who consider themselves Mexicans and consider the land they occupy to rightfully belong to Mexico. They hate the government of Mexico but blame the US for keeping that government in power. They see themselves as fleeing poverty and not Mexico and they come here because it is where the wealth is but believe the wealth is here largely because the US intentionally keeps Mexico impoverished. For an example see some of the other responses to my post.

Another example is Miami aka Little Cuba. The city is filled people who are part of a mass illegal migration to the United States. That this aligned with our political stance at the time and was sanctioned AFTERWARD doesn't change the intent. Cubans do not hate America or feel it all belongs to them, they simply feel that South Florida belongs to them. Even second generation Cubans who speak perfect fluent English will refuse to speak it in many cases. Demanding someone assist them in Spanish, then resorting to hand gestures if that fails, and when that gets frustrating finally breaking down to use their perfect English. I can't tell you how many times I've seen this first hand in Miami.

"The arguments against hardline tactics such as hunting them (the GP presumably meant with vigilante groups in camouflage and hunting rifles) generally do not say anything about whether illegals broke the law because it's irrelevant to the objection."

No it is an intentional misdirection. The GP didn't say anything about hunting immigrants. As for the hardline tactics, the GP presumably was being http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/facetious

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

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

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

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

Troll harder, AC.

The term peers, as you are using it, is shorthand for "peers of the crown:" those who were elevated to a standing much closer to equality with the sovereign than the commoners. Peer means equal.

Trial by Jury goes back to ancient Greece and Rome and was codified in the Magna Carta.

Oh, I see I missed it.

Yes. It doesn't have to do with believing.

But tell me, if you believe something, without knowing for certaint, isn't that faith (2b)?

Definition of ATHEISM

a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity

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

So it's a doctrine that there is no deity. The USSR would be a perfect example of a country where it was doctrine that there was no deity.
That's it. No weaseling out about reason, reason is not part of this definition.

They made Communism their religion.

oh yeah? what deity was involved? hmmm?

"Religion" does not necessarily imply belief in or worship of a deity. It can mean "[A] cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith". This is fully consistent with its Latin root, which means "to bind again". Any beleif or practice that binds or connects us to something -- in a positive or negative sense -- can rightfully be called religious. Religion does not require deities or supernaturalism.

I don't know anyone that would seriously side with Star Wars being science fiction. I don't know anyone that would seriously side with Star Wars being science fiction. It has more in common with the Lord of the Rings than it does any sci-fi I've seen. Have some good films come out of the Star Wars universe? Sure, but that doesn't mean it's anymore than a fairy tale set in space. Couple that with the kiddy image of marketing and merchandise and it's hard to take Star Wars seriously as science fiction.

To the first, of course it's science fiction. That's a matter of fact. Of course, you can argue that it's crappy SF, that's a matter of opinion (as is the second bolded statement - which I agree with). Hell, I find it hard to take anything from the 80's too seriously :p.

Sure, but that doesn't mean it's anymore than a fairy tale set in space.

Yes. And "space opera" is a sub-genre of science fiction. I find it amusing that people try to re-classify things of which they don't approve out of the genres they like. Geez, just call it a bad example of SF and call it a day :p.

"He who can destroy a thing, controls that thing." --Paul Atreides, Dune

For instance, Dune is another series that's a little ambiguous in this respect. By the time I get to "God-emperor of Dune", I see it morphing from SF to Fantasy (and boring Fantasy at that), but I'll still give it the benefit of the doubt and classify it SF (despite the fact that it IS a wonderful example of space opera, while still being entertaining and insightful as all hell). Hell, look at the whole Qwisatz Haderach nonsense and tell me how that's any less woo-woo than the Force crap. Both fairy-tale like if you ask me (but spanking good stories what?).

In spite of the obvious ripoff this site is, (just like redtube, and all those other "tube" sites in the wake of YOUtube) it is worrysome that even a subset of your name can be allowed to be trademarked, or similar sounding things like the MikeRowSoft.com case.

Merriam-webster lists no meaning for the term. at all, with or without a space separating the words. Dictionary.com recognizes that the term is old, but obscures it an etymological note below two more *alternate* meanings, not giving proper honor to the original one. Imagine the same happening to the American "Yellow Pages?" What will we tell our grandchildren?

For years (decades?) before facebook.com, my university also published its face book to acquaint us with the other 500 freshmen coming in your year. I guess the only thing missing was using the term as its name.

I know you Brits hate us low-brow American colonials for having bastarded the language.

But, cut us some slack. We only did to the language the best that we poor rejects of your society could do with what we had. So is it really our fault that we Americaned the language?

I mean, what could you expect after you antagonied us into revolting? You forced our hand, we had no choice but to become denationed from Britain. You may think that I am being over-dramaed here, but I am not.

And now, here we are with the Americaned English, such as it is, anthologued by countless works, and forever atomed into individual words as listed American English dictionaries.

Maybe someone will invent a vaccine for this hostility over language. That way we'll all be immuned against it. I am sure the inventor of such a vaccine would be idoled. His name will be memoried by school children across the globe.

Did I get those right?

I know you Brits hate us low-brow American colonials for having bastarded the language.

But, cut us some slack. We only did to the language the best that we poor rejects of your society could do with what we had. So is it really our fault that we Americaned the language?

I mean, what could you expect after you antagonied us into revolting? You forced our hand, we had no choice but to become denationed from Britain. You may think that I am being over-dramaed here, but I am not.

And now, here we are with the Americaned English, such as it is, anthologued by countless works, and forever atomed into individual words as listed American English dictionaries.

Maybe someone will invent a vaccine for this hostility over language. That way we'll all be immuned against it. I am sure the inventor of such a vaccine would be idoled. His name will be memoried by school children across the globe.

Did I get those right?

I know you Brits hate us low-brow American colonials for having bastarded the language.

But, cut us some slack. We only did to the language the best that we poor rejects of your society could do with what we had. So is it really our fault that we Americaned the language?

I mean, what could you expect after you antagonied us into revolting? You forced our hand, we had no choice but to become denationed from Britain. You may think that I am being over-dramaed here, but I am not.

And now, here we are with the Americaned English, such as it is, anthologued by countless works, and forever atomed into individual words as listed American English dictionaries.

Maybe someone will invent a vaccine for this hostility over language. That way we'll all be immuned against it. I am sure the inventor of such a vaccine would be idoled. His name will be memoried by school children across the globe.

Did I get those right?

I know you Brits hate us low-brow American colonials for having bastarded the language.

But, cut us some slack. We only did to the language the best that we poor rejects of your society could do with what we had. So is it really our fault that we Americaned the language?

I mean, what could you expect after you antagonied us into revolting? You forced our hand, we had no choice but to become denationed from Britain. You may think that I am being over-dramaed here, but I am not.

And now, here we are with the Americaned English, such as it is, anthologued by countless works, and forever atomed into individual words as listed American English dictionaries.

Maybe someone will invent a vaccine for this hostility over language. That way we'll all be immuned against it. I am sure the inventor of such a vaccine would be idoled. His name will be memoried by school children across the globe.

Did I get those right?

I know you Brits hate us low-brow American colonials for having bastarded the language.

But, cut us some slack. We only did to the language the best that we poor rejects of your society could do with what we had. So is it really our fault that we Americaned the language?

I mean, what could you expect after you antagonied us into revolting? You forced our hand, we had no choice but to become denationed from Britain. You may think that I am being over-dramaed here, but I am not.

And now, here we are with the Americaned English, such as it is, anthologued by countless works, and forever atomed into individual words as listed American English dictionaries.

Maybe someone will invent a vaccine for this hostility over language. That way we'll all be immuned against it. I am sure the inventor of such a vaccine would be idoled. His name will be memoried by school children across the globe.

Did I get those right?

I know you Brits hate us low-brow American colonials for having bastarded the language.

But, cut us some slack. We only did to the language the best that we poor rejects of your society could do with what we had. So is it really our fault that we Americaned the language?

I mean, what could you expect after you antagonied us into revolting? You forced our hand, we had no choice but to become denationed from Britain. You may think that I am being over-dramaed here, but I am not.

And now, here we are with the Americaned English, such as it is, anthologued by countless works, and forever atomed into individual words as listed American English dictionaries.

Maybe someone will invent a vaccine for this hostility over language. That way we'll all be immuned against it. I am sure the inventor of such a vaccine would be idoled. His name will be memoried by school children across the globe.

Did I get those right?

I know you Brits hate us low-brow American colonials for having bastarded the language.

But, cut us some slack. We only did to the language the best that we poor rejects of your society could do with what we had. So is it really our fault that we Americaned the language?

I mean, what could you expect after you antagonied us into revolting? You forced our hand, we had no choice but to become denationed from Britain. You may think that I am being over-dramaed here, but I am not.

And now, here we are with the Americaned English, such as it is, anthologued by countless works, and forever atomed into individual words as listed American English dictionaries.

Maybe someone will invent a vaccine for this hostility over language. That way we'll all be immuned against it. I am sure the inventor of such a vaccine would be idoled. His name will be memoried by school children across the globe.

Did I get those right?

I know you Brits hate us low-brow American colonials for having bastarded the language.

But, cut us some slack. We only did to the language the best that we poor rejects of your society could do with what we had. So is it really our fault that we Americaned the language?

I mean, what could you expect after you antagonied us into revolting? You forced our hand, we had no choice but to become denationed from Britain. You may think that I am being over-dramaed here, but I am not.

And now, here we are with the Americaned English, such as it is, anthologued by countless works, and forever atomed into individual words as listed American English dictionaries.

Maybe someone will invent a vaccine for this hostility over language. That way we'll all be immuned against it. I am sure the inventor of such a vaccine would be idoled. His name will be memoried by school children across the globe.

Did I get those right?

I know you Brits hate us low-brow American colonials for having bastarded the language.

But, cut us some slack. We only did to the language the best that we poor rejects of your society could do with what we had. So is it really our fault that we Americaned the language?

I mean, what could you expect after you antagonied us into revolting? You forced our hand, we had no choice but to become denationed from Britain. You may think that I am being over-dramaed here, but I am not.

And now, here we are with the Americaned English, such as it is, anthologued by countless works, and forever atomed into individual words as listed American English dictionaries.

Maybe someone will invent a vaccine for this hostility over language. That way we'll all be immuned against it. I am sure the inventor of such a vaccine would be idoled. His name will be memoried by school children across the globe.

Did I get those right?

I know you Brits hate us low-brow American colonials for having bastarded the language.

But, cut us some slack. We only did to the language the best that we poor rejects of your society could do with what we had. So is it really our fault that we Americaned the language?

I mean, what could you expect after you antagonied us into revolting? You forced our hand, we had no choice but to become denationed from Britain. You may think that I am being over-dramaed here, but I am not.

And now, here we are with the Americaned English, such as it is, anthologued by countless works, and forever atomed into individual words as listed American English dictionaries.

Maybe someone will invent a vaccine for this hostility over language. That way we'll all be immuned against it. I am sure the inventor of such a vaccine would be idoled. His name will be memoried by school children across the globe.

Did I get those right?

I know you Brits hate us low-brow American colonials for having bastarded the language.

But, cut us some slack. We only did to the language the best that we poor rejects of your society could do with what we had. So is it really our fault that we Americaned the language?

I mean, what could you expect after you antagonied us into revolting? You forced our hand, we had no choice but to become denationed from Britain. You may think that I am being over-dramaed here, but I am not.

And now, here we are with the Americaned English, such as it is, anthologued by countless works, and forever atomed into individual words as listed American English dictionaries.

Maybe someone will invent a vaccine for this hostility over language. That way we'll all be immuned against it. I am sure the inventor of such a vaccine would be idoled. His name will be memoried by school children across the globe.

Did I get those right?

That's funny, Merriam-Webster says burglarized is a word that would be used correctly in the way it was by Kymermosst.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/burglarized

Maybe before correcting someone, you should take a second to find out if you actually know what you're talking about.

Of course it could be British humor, since burgled would be proper there and burglarized is American English. If intended as humour, it could have done with a bit more buildup.

Interesting: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_and_British_English_spelling_differences#-our.2C_-or

Whoosh. (I’m reasonably certain that “their” opinion at dictionary.com is based on more than one person’s input.)

Anyway, it means both: “their” is semantically plural, but in usage it is used to refer to an indefinite singular individual because no other English word serves the purpose.

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

usage They, their, them, themselves: English lacks a common-gender third person singular pronoun that can be used to refer to indefinite pronouns (as everyone, anyone, someone). Writers and speakers have supplied this lack by using the plural pronouns. The plural pronouns have also been put to use as pronouns of indefinite number to refer to singular nouns that stand for many persons. 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. This gives you the option of using the plural pronouns where you think they sound best, and of using the singular pronouns (as he, she, he or she, and their inflected forms) where you think they sound best.

It is ambiguous in some contexts and the complaint raised by deniable is a valid complaint. In most cases where it is ambiguous whether you mean a singular or plural form, I would say that it is more appropriate to use the pronoun “his” instead (as the last bit of that quotation suggests).

And I think you are missing the point too.

A hypothesis is little more then an educated guess based around assumptions that may not be well supported until it's been disproved. Someone can relate to evens or emotions and hypothesize something but that doesn't mean it's scientific as science doesn't own the word hypothesis.

What makes it scientific is applying the scientific principles of testing on it. If something in the hypothesis can't be tested, it can't be scientific.

Those who argue with appeals to emotion use words like "honest" to mean "abides by the principles I preach". That's not a reasonable definition.

On the contrary, according to both common usage and the the dictionary, it's quite a reasonable definition.

See sense 3:

Main Entry: 1American
Pronunciation: \-mer--kn, -mr-, -me-r-\
Function: noun
Date: 1568
1 : an American Indian of North America or South America
2 : a native or inhabitant of North America or South America
3 : a citizen of the United States
4 : american english

Sense 4 is a particularly scary development, however.

Doesn't count. You're quoting a USAian dictionary.

See sense 3:

Main Entry: 1American
Pronunciation: \-mer--kn, -mr-, -me-r-\
Function: noun
Date: 1568

1 : an American Indian of North America or South America
2 : a native or inhabitant of North America or South America
3 : a citizen of the United States
4 : american english

Sense 4 is a particularly scary development, however.

Number 2 is more interesting. 2 being higher on the list and must be more important.

See sense 3:

Main Entry: 1American
Pronunciation: \-mer--kn, -mr-, -me-r-\
Function: noun
Date: 1568
1 : an American Indian of North America or South America
2 : a native or inhabitant of North America or South America
3 : a citizen of the United States
4 : american english

Sense 4 is a particularly scary development, however.

The Iranian people have been disenfranchised by their own government. That same government then began summarily beating and executing dissenters. If that's not a dictatorship, I'm not sure what is.

From http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dictatorship: Main Entry: dictatorship Pronunciation: \dik-t-tr-ship, dik-\ Function: noun Date: 1542 1 : the office of dictator 2 : autocratic rule, control, or leadership 3 a : a form of government in which absolute power is concentrated in a dictator or a small clique b : a government organization or group in which absolute power is so concentrated c : a despotic state

"Of course, you're both playing semantics games. In a von Neumann machine, such as is every desktop computer, for example, the separation of data and program is superficial--it's just a psychologically-driven convention."

The term "semantic games" doesn't mean what you appear to believe it does. It is absurd to state that there is no difference between algorithms and data. To make this perfectly clear, it makes perfect sense to talk about self modifying code, but to speak of self-modifying data would be absurd. So in other words, while I agree with you that the OP was indeed playing a semantic game (and he lost, miserably) I was certainly doing no such thing.

And if you read the commerce clause the way I'm guessing you do, you have a ridiculously expansive definition of "commercial."

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

I see nothing in there about requiring profit motive. Stick to what I say, not what you think would be convenient for me to believe because that would be easier for you to disprove.

We'll just have to agree to disagree on that, and also other topics such as what planet we're on, what color the sky is, etc.

Rather than asserting that I'm wrong before you've even determined what my definition is, why didn't you just ask, rather than being an ass? Or give your own? Go ahead, how do you define the word "commercial"?

It says no law can be passed that abridges free speech, and puts no lower bound on what constitutes an abridgment.

Did you just argue that fraud should be legal because the 1st Amendment doesn't place any restrictions on speech?

That'd be death throes . /pedantic

Unfortunately, I have yet to find a dictionary wherein "literally" is described to mean "metaphorically."

There are notes explaining the usage problem of using "literally" as an intensity modifier, but this is not considered correct usage.

Here even explicitly rejects using "literally" as "metaphorically."

Languages need not be regular to be useful, but a minimum degree of rigor is necessary for them to function (and hence exist). Languages exist to facilitate communication, which they can't do [well or maybe even at all] if words also properly mean opposite things. Definitions may be loose, but not that loose, otherwise no one could understand anyone else.

In the end, it's possible, but unlikely. Thus, citation please.