Slashdot Mirror

Ok, maybe you were joking, but tenet was not the part of his post that was wrong/confusing, but it was wrong/confusing in yours:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/tenet
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/tenant

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

I'd say Atheism could potentially fit in with that fourth definition.

One thing I've wondered though, the people who keep repeating what you said, do you say it to simply differentiate those who believe in a God from those who do not, or are you trying to say that the First Amendment to the Constitution does not apply to Atheists? IE, the old "freedom of religion, not freedom from religion" argument.

Other than you proved you're less intelligent than President Bush. You do know that the word nuclear can be pronounced as "nuke-you-lar", don't you?

Moderates are definitionally people who have no principles.

What a load of crap. definition of moderate or another Moderates are "definitionally" people whose views and principles aren't extreme. That doesn't necessarily mean they have no principles. Now, some "moderate" politicians may fit your definition because they're trying to make the most people happy to get elected, but it's not at all impossible to be moderate and principled. Your argument is one promoted by the extremists who want to make themselves appear palatable when their positions aren't.

I think you're confusing folks who aren't on one end of the artificial and absurd left-right scale with people who are always equivocating on policy.

No, you are. And being one of the former, I take offense at being lumped in with the latter.

Nothing human is eternal

Eternal vigilance is an illusion

takes another bong hit ... Wow man, that's like, deep.

Seriously, you do realize that eternal also means

2 a: continued without intermission : perpetual b: seemingly endless

Not just "infinite".

The last sentence in TFS makes perfect sense if you use Merriam-Webster's second definition of immanent. That is to say, the usage is correct if what the author meant to say was that the discovery of flying pigs is still within the limits of possible experience.

It IS a word: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/irregardless

If it's good enough for M-W, it's good enough for me.

You capitalized grammar but not Nazi?!

It's correct, as it's often not capitalized.

"ZOMG I said liberal instead of labour."

The important thing here is that New Labour isn't at all like the traditional Labour Party, which had a largely socialist viewpoint (although they believed in socialism via democratic choice rather than it being forced on people). By contrast, New Labour was first elected with a manifesto several points to the right of the one that got Margaret Thatcher's government elected in 1979, and has been accused by the Conservatives (centre-right party that's also different from the way many Americans use the term) of "stealing" their policies and platform on more than one occasion, so they're a centre-right party, not one that's centre-left like old Labour used to be.

"So what. You guys still have a pretty fucked up kind of "liberals"."

British "liberals" appear to fit what a notably respected American dictionary defines the term as:

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

So they aren't the ones who are "fucked up"...

NB: I don't live in the UK, so the term "you guys" is inappropriate, because I'm not one of those guys at all.

Just say NEW.

What, as in "newspeak"? I think not. Orwell put the kibosh on that quite firmly.

As for complaining about the use of the Greek "neo" as a prefix, that horse left the barn at least two hundred years ago. See "neologism", coined in 1803.

non-sequesters? What does that have to do with the price of halibut?

I sure hope neither MS nor Apple come to seize and hold my computers.

Actually, you assume too much. I have moved unsourced material to the talk page, therefore it isn't actually removed entirely. If the material can be sourced, then people are free to put it back with the source - nothing should stop them. However, consider this: the definition of "trivia" is:

• matters or things that are very unimportant, inconsequential, or nonessential; trifles; trivialities.
• unimportant matters : trivial facts or details
• petty and unimportant things or details
• unimportant details or information
• a collection of insignificant or obscure items, details, or information

As you can see, I don't think the material that I am referring to actually relates to anything you talk about - clearly you don't think the material is unimportant, inconsequential, insignificant, obscure or petty! Therefore, I get annoyed when people feel that the information is not important, but should be in Wikipedia.

I should note that if information about a topic was cited from an external, reliable source, then I wouldn't have a problem with the material.

Actually, you assume too much. I have moved unsourced material to the talk page, therefore it isn't actually removed entirely. If the material can be sourced, then people are free to put it back with the source - nothing should stop them. However, consider this: the definition of "trivia" is:

• matters or things that are very unimportant, inconsequential, or nonessential; trifles; trivialities.
• unimportant matters : trivial facts or details
• petty and unimportant things or details
• unimportant details or information

As you can see, I don't think the material that I am referring to actually relates to anything you talk about - clearly you don't think the material is unimportant, inconsequential, insignificant, obscure or petty! Therefore, I get annoyed when people feel that the information is not important, but should be in Wikipedia.

I should note that if information about a topic was cited from an external, reliable source, then I wouldn't have a problem with the material.

American is perfectly fine as a way to refer to people from, ya know, America.

You are completely right on this one. By the way, from the Oxford Dictionary:

America (also the Americas)

a landmass in the western hemisphere that consists of the continents of North and South America joined by the Isthmus of Panama. The continent was originally inhabited by American Indians and Inuits. The northeast coastline of North America was visited by Norse seamen in the 8th or 9th century, but for the modern world the continent was first reached by Christopher Columbus in 1492.

- used as a name for the United States.

Merriam-Webster agrees.

Note that in both dictionaries America as the country is the last definition. Not surprisingly, the definitions of American follow suit in both dictionaries.

So yes, American is fine as a way to refer to people of America, the landmass that was formerly thought of as a continent. Oh, and also of the country that tried to hijack the term.

American is perfectly fine as a way to refer to people from, ya know, America.

You are completely right on this one. By the way, from the Oxford Dictionary:

America (also the Americas)

a landmass in the western hemisphere that consists of the continents of North and South America joined by the Isthmus of Panama. The continent was originally inhabited by American Indians and Inuits. The northeast coastline of North America was visited by Norse seamen in the 8th or 9th century, but for the modern world the continent was first reached by Christopher Columbus in 1492.

- used as a name for the United States.

Merriam-Webster agrees.

Note that in both dictionaries America as the country is the last definition. Not surprisingly, the definitions of American follow suit in both dictionaries.

So yes, American is fine as a way to refer to people of America, the landmass that was formerly thought of as a continent. Oh, and also of the country that tried to hijack the term.

Wow, you've got SEVERAL facts wrong there:

• Central America is not really a continent.
• Mexico is NOT part of the region known as Central America.
• Everyone in Mexico and all the way South to Chile and Argentina do consider themselves Americans (not sure about Canadians). They have separate demonyms for those born in the USA, (not all of them expletives), and use them consistently. In fact, some of them feel offended by the way the USA tries to hijack the terms America and American.
• From the New Oxford American (oh, the irony) Dictionary:

America (also the Americas)

a landmass in the western hemisphere that consists of the continents of North and South America joined by the Isthmus of Panama. The continent was originally inhabited by American Indians and Inuits. The northeast coastline of North America was visited by Norse seamen in the 8th or 9th century, but for the modern world the continent was first reached by Christopher Columbus in 1492.

- used as a name for the United States.

Note that America meaning the USA is the last definition. Merriam-Webster agrees with Oxford.

• Again, from NOA Dictionary:

American noun

1 a native or citizen of the United States.

- a native or inhabitant of any of the countries of North, South, or Central America.

2 the English language as it is used in the United States; American English.

Thus, using the term American when referring to the other people in the landmass also known as America is perfectly correct. Merriam-Webster actually places "citizen of the United States" as the third entry.

Intentionally using incorrect terminology in an attempt to lessen the prestige of a landmass by hijacking the name is INSULTING and a rather juvenile attempt at belittling the test of the inhabitants of that landmass. It makes you look petty, small, and stupid.

Furthermore, not even making the effort of consulting a dictionary (or even Wikipedia) before making evident the flaws in your education makes you look ignorant and pathetic.

Wow, you've got SEVERAL facts wrong there:

• Central America is not really a continent.
• Mexico is NOT part of the region known as Central America.
• Everyone in Mexico and all the way South to Chile and Argentina do consider themselves Americans (not sure about Canadians). They have separate demonyms for those born in the USA, (not all of them expletives), and use them consistently. In fact, some of them feel offended by the way the USA tries to hijack the terms America and American.
• From the New Oxford American (oh, the irony) Dictionary:

America (also the Americas)

a landmass in the western hemisphere that consists of the continents of North and South America joined by the Isthmus of Panama. The continent was originally inhabited by American Indians and Inuits. The northeast coastline of North America was visited by Norse seamen in the 8th or 9th century, but for the modern world the continent was first reached by Christopher Columbus in 1492.

- used as a name for the United States.

Note that America meaning the USA is the last definition. Merriam-Webster agrees with Oxford.

• Again, from NOA Dictionary:

American noun

1 a native or citizen of the United States.

- a native or inhabitant of any of the countries of North, South, or Central America.

2 the English language as it is used in the United States; American English.

Thus, using the term American when referring to the other people in the landmass also known as America is perfectly correct. Merriam-Webster actually places "citizen of the United States" as the third entry.

Intentionally using incorrect terminology in an attempt to lessen the prestige of a landmass by hijacking the name is INSULTING and a rather juvenile attempt at belittling the test of the inhabitants of that landmass. It makes you look petty, small, and stupid.

Furthermore, not even making the effort of consulting a dictionary (or even Wikipedia) before making evident the flaws in your education makes you look ignorant and pathetic.

"Transliteration" is not the same as "Translation".

Oh, and it's more like KOCMOHaBT.

"Transliteration" is not the same as "Translation".

Oh, and it's more like KOCMOHaBT.

Actually, your link goes to the proper spelling. If you try to look up nucular on merriam-webster it gives you http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nucular

Does not find anything, but suggests the proper spelling.

Yeah, but I'm waiting for that website to get a -1 Troll for adding words I don't use to its dictionary, thus legitimizing people who aren't just like me to make the world a place where I am not perceived as superior to them.

I often use language as a means to reaffirm my biases, and I am too good for people who express the concept of "salutations" in a different way than me. Should "wassup" find itself in the dictionary, how will we know who to look down for superficial reasons? I won't even touch upon the reasons for making the distinction in one's personal life, because if you don't share my personal bias you are an ignorant slob, and I'm better than you.

Note: Try reading the introduction to a dictionary, where they explain their methods and purpose. You'll find that they are not written to address the purpose you are trying to burden them with. So you are using the wrong tool for the job. If you need help, you can start here. Read especially the last section. (Their procedure is typical of a dictionary).

Even 'nucular' made it into Merriam-Webster...

Truthiness is a creation of Steven Colbert of the Colbert Report, and was Merriam-Webster's 2006 word of the year

Yeah, but I'm waiting for that website gets a -1 Troll for adding incorrect words to its dictionary, thus legitimizing the undereducated to bring the rest of society down with them.

I often use language to 'sort' people, and I do not socialize with the "wassup" crowd. Should "wassup" find itself in the dictionary, how will we sort the uneducated from the educated? I won't even touch upon the reasons for making the distinction in one's personal life, the educated among us should see them already.

Truthiness is a creation of Steven Colbert of the Colbert Report, and was Merriam-Webster's 2006 word of the year

Definition #3

Yay for more people talking sense. :) I agree that any talk of how valid science might be versus other possible explanations belongs in a philosophical context, possibly even as a matter for epistemology (nailing down how we know what we know).

However, you bring up belief within a scientific context, and I find myself thinking that this is exactly the problem:

The reason it makes sense to discuss the differences between scientific reasoning vs. creationist belief is that there is a significant, vocal population of people who earnestly believe that creationism is not only true, but just as valid in a scientific context as evolution.

(emphasis added)

This reveals a profound misunderstanding about what "science" is. Religion has its fundamentalists -- I say it's high time scientists go a similar route -- teach the fundamentals. Science is an extension of logically viewing the world. It is about observing, as objectively as possible, and then logically deriving the best possible explanation for the perceived phenomena. A very important part of this is posing a hypothesis -- a fancy word for supposing something about what you've observed -- and *testing* that in a logical manner to make sure it's the best possible fit. It is entirely about logic -- belief does not come into it.

Within this logical framework, there is *nothing* about creationism that fits.

1. Is it testable?
   Nope.
2. Is it logical?
   Nope.
3. Does it fit the observed phenomena of the known universe better than any other hypothesis?
   Nope.

Logically, quod erat demonstrandum, creationism is not scientific. Also, logically, it is therefore bollocks to teach it as science. Sure, it may be viewed as an alternative to the scientific view of the world, I certainly agree with Michael Reiss on that account. But then any other view at all also counts as an alternative...

Because hair color doesn't define a person's race.

In GP's hypothetical scenario, skin colour wouldn't either.

Someone SHOULDN'T HAVE TO change their race

They'd have to change their skin colour, not their race.

Ethnicity and race aren't the same things.

Race is one of the parameters which defines one's ethnicity.

Ethnicity
1: ethnic quality or affiliation

Ethnic
2a: of or relating to large groups of people classed according to common racial, national, tribal, religious, linguistic, or cultural origin or background

Because hair color doesn't define a person's race.

In GP's hypothetical scenario, skin colour wouldn't either.

Someone SHOULDN'T HAVE TO change their race

They'd have to change their skin colour, not their race.

Ethnicity and race aren't the same things.

Race is one of the parameters which defines one's ethnicity.

Ethnicity
1: ethnic quality or affiliation

Ethnic
2a: of or relating to large groups of people classed according to common racial, national, tribal, religious, linguistic, or cultural origin or background

Only people in marketing could come up with the term "guru" to mean "someone who can't help, and exists to market to you until you give in".

Actually, see definition 2b at http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/guru

"one who is an acknowledged leader or chief proponent"

These people are "chief proponents." This is actually using the word correctly.

1). The error here is another example of that in (2), but since the (2) deserves special attention, I'll treat it there only.

2) Oh the "proper meaning of 'dogma'"? Please see Merriam-Webster's online entry:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dogma
Even my printed modern edition, which is more complete than the online entry, makes no mention of "dogma" in the sense Crick used it, which was and is highly non-standard. Crick himself said freely that it was so:

I called this idea the central dogma, for two reasons, I suspect. I had already used the obvious word hypothesis in the sequence hypothesis, and in addition I wanted to suggest that this new assumption was more central and more powerful. ... As it turned out, the use of the word dogma caused almost more trouble than it was worth.... Many years later Jacques Monod pointed out to me that I did not appear to understand the correct use of the word dogma, which is a belief that cannot be doubted. I did apprehend this in a vague sort of way but since I thought that all religious beliefs were without foundation, I used the word the way I myself thought about it, not as most of the world does, and simply applied it to a grand hypothesis that, however plausible, had little direct experimental support.

and here:

My mind was, that a dogma was an idea for which there was no reasonable evidence. You see?! I just didn't know what dogma meant. And I could just as well have called it the 'Central Hypothesis,' or â" you know. Which is what I meant to say. Dogma was just a catch phrase.

Italics in original, bold emphasis mine. Reference:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_dogma_of_molecular_biology

This was discussed on Slashdot only about a month ago:
http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=634067&cid=24448871

Yes, I am aware of Crick's usage. To avoid confusion from aliasing, I *never* use the term "dogma" to describe the process of scientific inference. But once in a while a (false) pedant comes along and sanctimoniously lectures on the "proper" meaning of the term "dogma" when I use it in the sense everybody (including the pedant; thus his falseness) understands.

Regarding (1): You're equivocating. The article treats the concept of "superstition" in the popular sense, but generalizes it (to evolutionary scope, and not merely some "inference engine"; bacteria "infer" only in an evolutionary sense). This is just a re-statement of the evolutionary fitness of defensive ("conservative") behavior. The article describes exactly this. The article is quite explicit in its misapplication of this in the article; there's a great, hand-waving leap. The subject of belief is very broad and very deep; there are many "kinds" of belief, and they are well-defined in the literature and thanks to neuroscience, better-understood now than even a century ago. Claiming "science is simply a dogmatic form of superstition" is an intellectual foot-in-bucket, and I'll be charitable to Forstmeier and attribute this to poor journalism.

3) You say this:

Science works because its methods are applied more often than not on average across all scientists.

So you're saying that science works because it isn't superstitious (that its [non-superstitious, by definition] "methods are applied more often than not"). I already said exactly that:

Science only works because it isn't superstitious!

4) Philosophically speaking, relativism (that is, as opposed to realism) is untenable. That is why science has proceeded so fruitfully by adopting realism, and *precisely* why the experimental results testing Bell's inequality are so disconcerting:

I do not think that word means what you think it means.

But there is a WORLD of difference between belief based on scientific observations and critical thinking, and a belief based on blind faith.

I agree. Agnosticism fits this perfectly. Atheism is blind faith in the lack of existence of a god/higher power/etc. Agnosticism allows for the possibility of such a creature, but doesn't commit in the absence of supporting evidence.

No way can it be simple.

Think not?

simple:

4 a: lacking in knowledge or expertise <a simple amateur of the arts> b (1): stupid (2): mentally retarded c: not socially or culturally sophisticated : naive; also : credulous

A Russian equivalent of "ball" would be "shar" which means spheroid, or a football / tennis ball, and nothing else. Plural of this word is equally harmless. To get to the ball(2) that was assumed in your mistranslation you'd have to translate "egg".

In most cases, its a LACK of stronger regulation that is the problem! Many cities would love 2 cable companies and probably give them incentives!

Really? Like this case, where Verizon wanted to provide FiOS, but the city wouldn't let them? What an incentive!!

I don't think you understand the concept of an ISP franchise. In a nutshell, it's when a city says "Company X is giving us $XX million, in exchange for being the sole ISP in the city, provided they sell at least Y mbit/s with at least a certain level of availability." Yes, most governments are really that stupid.

How can you even get more strict than that?

The error I often see is that some think government is a form of corporation; it can not have any monopoly because it represents all citizens

Sigh. The error I see is that some don't know WTF they're talking about. From the dictionary:

Main Entry: monopoly
Pronunciation: \m-nä-p(-)l\
Function: noun
1 : exclusive ownership through legal privilege, command of supply, or concerted action
2 : exclusive possession or control
3 : a commodity controlled by one party
4 : one that has a monopoly

Any entity with exclusive control over something has a monopoly on that something. It doesn't matter if it's a government, private citizen, or giant mega-corporation. It has nothing to do with representation.

In my area the local governments created a NGO with a board appointed by the cities it serves and it manages the public lands in regard to communications use by private orgs. This board isn't great; however, it is generally the best thing we can do in our area. Problem is the cable and phone companies are too powerful for our 10 cities and nobody will MOVE IN to compete without massive government welfare (which the existing monopolies initially HAD.) Every legal fight is a loss for us and even if the 10 cities directly used their relatively "vast" funds it quite likely would still loose in the end (they just lobby the state when at risk.)

And you expect to regulate the problem away? What exactly do you plan on telling the ISPs? "Provide us internet service because our law, which doesn't apply to you because you don't do business here, says you have to?"

Instead of expecting somebody else to lose a bunch of money on the deal, why not get your group of ten cities to pay for the infrastructure and provide you with internet service?

No, the OP had it right, its just an "outbreak"... saying a sudden outbreak is redundant.

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

Main Entry:
outbreak
Function:
noun
Date:
1602

1 a: a sudden or violent increase in activity or currency
b: a sudden rise in the incidence of a disease
c: a sudden increase in numbers of a harmful organism and especially an insect within a particular area

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=define%3A+outbreak

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

etc, etc...

Heh. Uh huh.

No facts to refute, no pithy remarks, not even a thinly veiled insult?
This proves me a fanboy how? here's a dictionary link to the word fanboy. You've well and truly failed here good sir.

*Shrug* I'll give you credit, though, you're spot on with the bit about the poor comedian.

At least you managed the pithy remark here, I'll give you half a credit for that.

Nah, it's not about having a divergent opinion. It's about having an ignorant opinion. Actually... ignorant's not quite the wrong word. Group think? Hmmm I can't find the right word. But anyway, I've already gone over this in my previous post.

Thats because I used it, "divergent" it means differing from yours.

Hehe. In your previous line you said 'no' instead of 'know'.

You might also learn the difference between spelling and grammar.

In fact I'm going to stop here, this is a waste of my time and valuable cynic skills answering a fanboy who's best answers were "He. Un huh" and "Hehe" and which both set off my moron alarm and spell checker and of course completely attempts to avoid answering questions which could prove you wrong, but if you did this you might see some logic which would completely shatter your fanboy world. This whole thing started because you could not take a joke and blew out of control because you couldn't handle the fact that I didn't think your much vaunted JesusPhone 3G was the saviour of the universe. I've talked to plenty of apple users on this forum and others as well as in (shock horror) real life about the deficiencies of the iphone and why I don't see it as a suitable replacement for my phone (chief among them the SIM lock and lack of a 3G modem functionality, both points that you have conveniently and repeatedly ignored) and these people are quiet capable of saying "well I disagree with your divergent opinion but you are entitled to it", some have even made jokes or asked questions that have deserved answers but somehow I cant see you doing this as it would be totally against the Apple fanboy code, oh I wont bother reading any replies as I don't really want to give you any more material to troll over as I consider it an insult to decent material, I think I'll go help my mate buggerize around with Linux on his Macbook, sorry if I have shattered your little world but don't worry I'm sure the RDF will fix it in no time.

No, "rediculous" is clearly a derivative work of "ridiculous", and would violate the "no derivative works" clause of Webster's copyright:


Ridiculous by Webster's Dictionary is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License.

Prepare to be boarded.

I forgot to add this:

Unless you have a different definition of fascism than I do I'd dare say your assertation that Russia is more fascist than any other is a bit confusing when there are countries such as China, North Korea, Iran, etc that I'd see as far more fascist.

This is only a minor point, I actually thought you were joking, but there are many reasons to be unhappy with Russia and to be agressive in voicing our opinions but I don't think they've reached the point of being that bad yet... Give 'em a little while to recoup, they're getting there.

Anyhow, this is the definition I'm going with:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fascism

Again, I had assumed you were joking due to the nature of your content/context when you'd claimed they were the most fascist on the Earth or what not.

Seriously. I love to explain jokes.
Lloyds is a plc.
Go search for antropo and see what to offend means.
Now try to imagine an offended Plc.
And hand in your geek card.

Not according to Webster.

Censorship is typically understood to mean the redaction of inconvenient literature or media by the ruling government. Private companies and individuals are exempt from the term censorship.

Nope, censoring means "to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable". There's no reason to be sloppy with your language just to make your point.

I don't care what you do for a living, as long as you don't work for us. :-)

http://www.rucharacter.org/page/ea_glossary/
http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=average
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/average
http://www.bartleby.com/61/53/A0545300.html
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/average

Even the ones that don't explicitly mention mean, median, and mode say that an average typically typifies a list of numbers. It can also be mean, of course, and that's the common definition, but I'm amazed that a statistician does not know this. What school did you go to?

So you found two instances disproving the stated weaker (based on the word 'relatively') point, but which directly and strongly enforce the main point of my statement?

Debunk: to expose the sham or falseness of <debunk a legend>

And what if the wives felt they wanted to bring in an extra husband? i'd have less trouble with polygamy if it worked both ways.

Polygamy does work both ways, both men and women can have more than one spouse. It's polygyny, where a man can have more than one wife, and polyandry, where a woman can have more than one spouse, that might not go both ways. Polygamy itself, despite what the mass media keeps saying about the FDLS, allows both men and women to have multiple spouses.

why bother with marriage at all?

Because some want the piece of paper and or the ceremony.

Just live with whomever, breed with whomever and keep rituals and paperwork out of it.

Some do. However if you go through the first website you'll see they still do some. For instance what can be done about children, who has authority over them or who can take them to a doctor. Children are a big factor legally so paper work needs to be done for them. Actually it takes more work to get polygamy/polyamory relationships working smoothly than it does 1 man and 1 woman marriages.

Still, there is the matter of what do the unmarried men in such cultures do?

They can get married, polygamy allows women to have more than one spouse.

Falcon

Actually, it's not beneficial for large numbers of single men, who necessarily have no wife at all (for each man with two wives, there is one with none, since the sex ratio in humans is very close to 1:1). There is also some evidence that having large numbers of single men contributes to violence (this should come as no surprise). Hence, polygamy probably contributes to violence.

The problem you are describing in caused not by polygamy but by polygyny. Polygamy would actually help here. Please notice the differences in definition, in polygyny a man can have more than one wive whereas in polygamy a man and a woman can have more than one spouse. And to make it more confusing, in polyandry a woman has more than one husband.

Furthermore, while from a strictly materialistic point of view, polygamy is beneficial to women (since richer men tend to have more wives and can support them better on average), I don't think there's a lot of evidence that these women are "better off" from a liberal Western point of view. They are probably not going to be well educated or in the work force, for example.

Perhaps a look at Love unlimited: The polyamorists will disavow that.

Falcon

I met a gentleman who claimed to have 13 wife back home in Africa, in his version of polygamy, Number One Wife basically ruled the family with an iron fist. She decided which wife did which tasks and who got to visit the husbands quarters and when. Any wife that offended Number One was in for a world of misery. Overall Polygamy didn't sound like fun for anyone except Number One Wife; like in many cultures, what is displayed in public is different from what happens behind closed doors.

Sorry but that's not polygamy, what that is is polygyny. Polygamy is when a person, male or female, can have more than one spouse. When a man has more than one wife that's polygyny. And when a woman has more than one spouse that's polyandry.

I was concerned TFA would make the same mistake but it doesn't go that far, unlike the mass media coverage of that Mormon sect. And it links to another "New Scientist" article "Love unlimited: The polyamorists" where both men and women have more than one partner.

Falcon

I met a gentleman who claimed to have 13 wife back home in Africa, in his version of polygamy, Number One Wife basically ruled the family with an iron fist. She decided which wife did which tasks and who got to visit the husbands quarters and when. Any wife that offended Number One was in for a world of misery. Overall Polygamy didn't sound like fun for anyone except Number One Wife; like in many cultures, what is displayed in public is different from what happens behind closed doors.

Sorry but that's not polygamy, what that is is polygyny. Polygamy is when a person, male or female, can have more than one spouse. When a man has more than one wife that's polygyny. And when a woman has more than one spouse that's polyandry.

I was concerned TFA would make the same mistake but it doesn't go that far, unlike the mass media coverage of that Mormon sect. And it links to another "New Scientist" article "Love unlimited: The polyamorists" where both men and women have more than one partner.

Falcon

Ah yes, that's why small farmers can't compete. It doesn't have anything to do with economies of scale, no sir.

If economies of scale was all that mattered then large scale farms wouldn't need subsidies.

If they a get employment with a private company good for them. And with government out of medical and health care more jobs with private insurers will be created.

Again, the only way we'd end up with "more jobs" is if the system became less efficient as a result.

So what if private insurers didn't employ as many people as government run insurance, private is as you say more efficient. Employing more people to run insurance is just make work work, and taxpayers will have to pay those salaries. People complain about the expense of health care, employing less people, in insurance, reduces the cost. If you want to make more work then employ more medical people not more insurance people.

it's odd that you're championing a move toward inefficiency.

What's odd is that you first intimated private insurance would be more efficient, the only way we'd end up with "more jobs" is if the system became less efficient as a result, now you're saying the opposite. And no I don't champion inefficiency, I champion competition. and competition increases efficiency.

People already can do that. You know why they don't? Because HSAs are pointless unless you're either (1) healthy enough that you won't get sick before the account is full, or (2) wealthy enough that it doesn't matter.

But do they know that? I didn't find out until earlier this year when someone else posted about health saving accounts. I bet I can go out on the street and ask others if they know about them and many won't. But you are right in one thing, according to the Government Acconting Office, GAO, the average income of those who had HSAs in 2005 was $139,000 whereas the average for those without one was $57,000. But in the same report though it said lower income people are more wiling to gamble with their health. And as far as I'm concerned, you gamble you pay. You don't gamble then try to get out of it when you lose.

See, "bankrupt" means there's no money left to pay their obligations, but that's not going to happen any time soon

First, bankrupt means more than just not having enough money. It also means a person who is completely lacking in a particular desirable quality or attribute moral bankrupt[cy] or DISAPPROVING lacking in a particular quality, Onelook has more. Second I consider it morally bankrupt, see the first two definitions above, for anyone to be forced to work to pay for anyone they did not bring into the world themself, ie you are responsible to take care of all of the children you bring into the world but you have no responsibility to take care of anyone else.

As I don't want to keep going over this with you I'll just say one more thing then I'll end my part. You trust government more than business and I distrust business less than I do government. Government has caused more problems than any business, it has killed more people than any of them as well. And many of the problems business has made government allowed to happen.

Falcon