Slashdot Mirror

http://www.onelook.com/?w=learnt&ls=b&sourceid=Mozilla-search

Is that so?

Aeon: one of a class of powers or beings conceived as emanating from the Supreme Being and performing various functions in the operations of the universe.

I see that you like dictionary.com as a reference. I prefer Merriam-Webster:

aeonnoun \-n, -än\
1: an immeasurably or indefinitely long period of time : age
2 a usually eon : a very large division of geologic time usually longer than an era
    b : a unit of geologic time equal to one billion years

Matches definition 2 and World English Dictionary entry from dictionary.com.

I'm a sucker for archaic spellings and exaggeration, what can I say?

Thanks for cluing me in to an alternate definition. I am not up on my gnostic terminology, so I thought it an odd editorial choice to put that definition first. Several other dictionaries do the same, though, so I guess it's time to update my vocabulary =)

here's 50 of them.

http://www.onelook.com/?w=slave&ls=a

find me one that even comes close to "letting the cops remember where your car was".

fucktard.

Gotta love slashdot. It's much easier to be derisive and speak in generalities instead of citing any relevant evidence and constructing a cogent argument.

I cited no less evidence than you.

Being published isn't necessary for software to qualify as prior art; its use need merely be public.

What the fuck do you think it means to publish something?

http://www.onelook.com/?w=publish

verb: prepare and issue for public distribution or sale

When you're writing software, especially before open source became so popular, the average developer doesn't go out of their way to publicize their methods.

Moreover, if you truly did come up with the patented idea first, feel free to claim your rights, that's a benefit of being in America.

Maybe some people actually want to get work done and not act like a parasite for patenting every stupid little invention they come up with.

It really seems like a substantial number of slashdot posters suffer from extreme hindsight bias.

No, the problem is that far too many patents about being handed out like candy, and most of them are for obvious implementations of combinations of technology. Tell a smart developer the problem to be solved, and chances are they could come up with the solution that resembles the patent. When you go look at the patent, it's full of a bunch of mumbo jumbo to describe obvious ideas.

There's other ways "Christian" has been used. Thomas Jefferson was a Deist who took the Christian Bible and cut out the sections dealing with miracles and the supernatural to create the Jefferson Bible. Jefferson believed Jesus was a great teacher, just not the "Son of God". Those who believe that have been considered Christians by some, though not all. Still another way was with Christian agnosticism.

Falcon

Why is polygamy wrong here yet accepted in a rather large part of the world?

Where is polygamy, polygamy and not polygyny, accepted?

We almost had a huge hole in the US, known as Utah, due to this issue over 100 years ago.

Mormons practice polygyny NOT polygamy.

Falcon

Why is polygamy wrong here yet accepted in a rather large part of the world?

Where is polygamy, polygamy and not polygyny, accepted?

We almost had a huge hole in the US, known as Utah, due to this issue over 100 years ago.

Mormons practice polygyny NOT polygamy.

Falcon

I've never understood the use of this phrase. For me "porn" only applies if there's sex (either with a partner or self).

So you get to define "porn"? At least one dictionary defines porn as "creative activity (writing or pictures or films etc.) of no literary or artistic value other than to stimulate sexual desire". That was from Macmillan, Macmillan also defines soft porn, as "movies, magazines, photographs, etc. that show sexual images but not sexual acts".

Falcon

Polygamy has never been legal in any state that I know of. What you are thinking of is not polygamy it is polygyny. In polygamy both males and females can have more than one spouse, what Mormons used to practice, some of it's off-shoots still do, and Muslims practice is polygyny, a man can have more than one wife but a female can only have one husband. And the reverse of that, where women can have more than one spouse is polyandry.

Falcon

Polygamy has never been legal in any state that I know of. What you are thinking of is not polygamy it is polygyny. In polygamy both males and females can have more than one spouse, what Mormons used to practice, some of it's off-shoots still do, and Muslims practice is polygyny, a man can have more than one wife but a female can only have one husband. And the reverse of that, where women can have more than one spouse is polyandry.

Falcon

Typo buddy. occultation http://onelook.com/?w=occultation&last=oscultation&loc=spell1

No. They're just making information available. The voters will still be not be informed.

Yes, to inform is "to officially tell someone something, or to give them information about something".

Ignorance is based around ignoring facts, not being unable to access them.

Now you partially understand it. People are being informed but it's up to them as to what they do with it, whether that be ignore it or to make a more informed decision.

Falcon

You're making the assumption that people have actually read the information. From what I've heard on TV, radio, Internet, at the office, etc, people haven't looked at the information. They're all in the middle of the government/pundit/media circle jerk.

They're still ignorant of the actual information.

No. They're just making information available. The voters will still be not be informed.

Yes, to inform is "to officially tell someone something, or to give them information about something".

Ignorance is based around ignoring facts, not being unable to access them.

Now you partially understand it. People are being informed but it's up to them as to what they do with it, whether that be ignore it or to make a more informed decision.

Falcon

I asked what was making the U.S. cellular market fail and you claimed a government granted monopoly was the cause.

So, either you have no idea what a monopoly is or you are, in fact, claiming that there is only one cell provider.

It's you who has no idea what a monopoly is. Let's correct that now.

1. something that only one person or group of people has
2. What Does Monopoly Mean?
   A situation in which a single company or group owns all or nearly all of the market for a given type of product or service. By definition, monopoly is characterized by an absence of competition, which often results in high prices and inferior products.
3. Legal Dictionary
   1 : exclusive control of a particular market that is marked by the power to control prices and exclude competition and that esp. is developed willfully rather than as the result of superior products or skill —see also ANTITRUST Sherman Antitrust Act in the IMPORTANT LAWS section
4. Monopoly
   Market situation where one producer (or a group of producers acting in concert) controls supply of a good or service, and where the entry of new producers is prevented or highly restricted.

A monopoly does not necessarily mean only one entity controlling a market. For instance though MS Windows and MS Office both have dominate but not exclusive monopolies of Operating Systems and Office suites, MS is a monopoly. Let's also make it clear, being a monopoly is not necessarily bad or illegal, how the monopoly is used determines that. For instance MS forcing OEM computer manufacturers not to sell PCs with operating systems other than MS OSes such as BeOS and Linux, and not allowing them to install Netscape as the browser or WordPerfect or other office suites instead of MS Office is what was illegal.

Meanwhile, power companies have nothing to do with the discussion at hand.

You asked about monopolies and power companies are monopolies.

I'm thinking you're trolling so I'm not going to reply again.

Falcon

I can't think of any way that campaign contribution != bribe.

You then need to learn the definition of "bribe". That definition is "to give money or presents to someone so that they will help you by doing something dishonest or illegal".

Falcon

How does this NOT have our government written all over it? By your very definition you seem to give weight to his argument.

No, they're not drowned out by law.

If a law says how much a person can spend on a campaign their rights are being violated. How difficult is that to understand?

Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Abridge: verb
to produce a shorter form of a book, play etc by making cuts in the original

Limiting speech is abridging that speech.

Falcon

"Supporting what you like and opposing what you don't like" describes many systems of government. Democracy requires that votes be weighted equally (discarding for a moment the issue of unequal representation of populations via e.g. electoral colleges). What you're describing is plutocracy.

You can disagree with me all you want, all I ask is for you to think and use reasoning, and not to make things up. Nowhere did I say I supported a plutocracy. I dare you to point how where I advocated government be run by a group of the rich and not democratically.

If you can't then I have nothing else to say.

falcon

That is exactly what democracy is, people supporting what they like and opposing what they don't like.

If you really believe that is not democracy I don't know what your definition of democracy is.

Falcon

I can't think of any way that campaign contribution != bribe.

You then need to learn the definition of "bribe". That definition is "to give money or presents to someone so that they will help you by doing something dishonest or illegal".

Falcon

http://www.onelook.com/?w=virii

That page is just a collection of links. The target references say it is either "proscribed", "nonstandard", or slang, or that the term can't be found. This link is not proof of dictionary acceptance of the term.

The correct Latin plural would probably be virera.

I believe you mean virora. Yes, this is one proposed likely candidate. Like corpus corpora or genus genera. Another candidate is virs ("veer ooz", as opposed to "veer oose" for virus), like manus mans (meaning hand hands). [Some of these characters might not be displayed in your browser.] I have not seen "virera" before, however.

The implication of the "would probably be" part of your sentence is important. We don't have any record of actual plural use of the Latin word virus, so we just don't know what the proper Latin pluralization is. Indeed, also, as you point out, it is a mass noun like "water" or "furniture", which means you would say "much virus" rather than "many virora" or "many virs".

we use it for "microphage"

Viruses are not microphages. That's something else.

Dictionaries are descriptive, not prescriptive.

Not all dictionaries are descriptive only. Dictionaries can also be prescriptive. Sophisticated dictionaries often include usage notes which relate the opinions of usage panels, and as such are prescriptive, or are, at the very least, advisory.

I would recommend folks not use 'viri' or 'virii' in any non-joke context.

I feel it is important to keep in mind that English is pretty fucked up and that humanity suffers "heat loss" because of English's inefficiency. (Not to belittle the problem here -- inefficiency can be more than mere annoyance or inconvenience. Inefficiency can manifest as harmful misunderstandings or needless conflict.) Part of what makes English bad in this way is irregularity. Imagine trying to learn a new language and having to memorize "good / better / best" instead of just learning "good" and knowing the comparative ("gooder") and the superlative ("goodest"). Sounds like not a big deal, but that's only one example, and you're spending time and effort learning this needless irregularity. Irregularity wastes time and makes communication slower and more problematic.

I have a friend who says she "paints with words like an impressionist". This is lovely for many things, but I would rather a person not do this for relating a recipe for baking, or the schedule for an event, or directions to a venue, or how somebody was badly injured in an accident or a fight. Getting ideas shared clearly between people is hard enough as it is. I would recommend erring on the side of precision in communication. One problem with painting with words like an impressionist, or "[resorting] to poetry", can be that a person may opt for or default to the more comfortable and less precise mode of communication because it's easy, and they may never train to be able to be more precise. Paint with words if you feel it's for the best for the situation at hand, but don't neglect to learn to use pencils and rulers, and to apply them when it's better to.

Be grammatically correct when you can. It helps.

Now, computer viruses are not Roman inventions. Or Greek. (That's something else.)

If we think of "virus" as coming from Latin rather than being a proper Latin term, then we can think of it as an English term, a new English word, in the shape of some old language's word. Virus means something different to us than what it did to Romans. We don't think virus means "poison" but instead "a computer program". And in English we use virus as a count noun, not a mass noun: Your network has many viruses, it does not have much virus. You might want to avoid pluralizing that old Latin word and

Try here:

http://www.onelook.com/?w=virii

In the future, you might want to doublecheck before posting a link to a website that disproves your argument.

Just because people understand what it's supposed to mean, doesn't make it a valid word, you pretencious dold!

Dictionaries aren't prescriptive, neither is your opinion. Nor that of any other individual, for that matter.

If enough people use the word, it will appear in dictionaires. Most people don't use it and consider it incorrect, therefore it won't.

Try here:

http://www.onelook.com/?w=virii

People keep using it and understanding it. In English. Which is made of words from several other languages, many misused to varying degrees relative to their foreign etymologies.

Dictionaries are descriptive, not prescriptive. They can tell you what a word you saw means, based on its previously observed contexts, but they can't tell you whether it's right or wrong. If they try, they are wrong.

The correct Latin plural would probably be virera. But we don't speak Latin any more. We only use it for religious sloganeering and high-falutin' biological codices.

That's if it's at all possible to pluralize it even in Latin. It's nearest synonym in English is "slime" or "pus", or the noun sense of "ooze", but we use it for "microphage", giving it countability. Like "water" or "blue" have no true plural in English, we nonetheless have invented "waters" and "blues" to describe situations where the singular form does not encompase the plurality of the context. Our choice of suffix in pluralization when inventing new words is entirely unbounded by any rules, as English has almost none given the many ancient systems it supports innately. So we resort to poetry, and choose one that sounds good.

I'll go with "virii" over "viruses" in almost every situation.

Oh, and I'm not a "pretentious dolt." I'm genuinely superior to you, intellectually.

Actually, principal is also a legitimate spelling. In fact, I found principal in 82 online dictionaries, and principle in only 49. http://onelook.com/?w=principal&ls=a http://onelook.com/?w=principle&ls=a Oaf.

Actually, principal is also a legitimate spelling. In fact, I found principal in 82 online dictionaries, and principle in only 49. http://onelook.com/?w=principal&ls=a http://onelook.com/?w=principle&ls=a Oaf.

physically handed out by genuinely bemused Nobel laureates

Is bemused the right word here? It isn't synonymous with "amused". (Sorry for the pedantry, but I am the penultimate prescriptivist.)

Does that make me the ultimate prescriptivist? Follow your own link or try this one: http://www.google.com/dictionary?q=bemuse&langpair=en|en

physically handed out by genuinely bemused Nobel laureates

Is bemused the right word here? It isn't synonymous with "amused". (Sorry for the pedantry, but I am the penultimate prescriptivist.)

A really efficient mixed system would be a socialist political system

How wrong can a person be? Socialism is an economic system of state ownership of industry and the political system advocating such an economic system.

Privatization of common goods such as water and health care is a recipe for disaster.

Partially wrong, yes water is a common good but health care and medicine are not. They may be good for the public but they are not common goods. As for privatized medicine being a disaster? HAHA! Take one example, LASIK Surgery. About 10 years ago, in 1999 when this surgery started, LASIK surgery on 1 eye cost about $10,000 but today a good surgeon will perform it for $2000. Prices of $1000 or less can be found too, but I wouldn't trust one without some good and credible references first.

What you have in the US is not a mixed system, it is a corrupted capitalist system.

No, what we have in the US is a mixed system, it's corrupted but it's also mixed. I know, I'm in that system. Because I was disabled in an accident I now collect Social Security Income, a government insurance program. When I worked I had no choice but to pay into Social Security, employers deduct it then give the government the money. Because I am disabled my health insurance is Medicare, another government insurance program. And like Social Security I had no choice but to pay into it, like SS employers deduct money from employees' pay and gives it to the government. Even now I pay into Medicare, again the government deducts some of my SSI as a premium for Medicare.

And don't try to tell me that that is not socialized medicine. If it were capitalist then it would be in private hands.

Now for when I had the accident which caused my disability. At the tyme I was a college student and I was riding my bike after class when I was hit by someone who should not have been driving. After the accident I was medivaced by helicopter to the hospital. After I came out of the coma I was in I was transferred to a rehab house, I survived a TBI, Traumatic Brain Injury. There I went through several weeks of therapy before I was allowed to move into my mother's house. While living with her I went through more therapy. Altogether my medical bills came to more than $120,000. As a student and not working I didn't have insurance and I was not wealthy, but I got all that medical care anyway.

So even those who can not afford medical care still get it in the US. Either government pays or the costs are passed on to those who can afford it or to insurance. Most Americans aren't willing to have someone die just because the person can't pay for medical care. For proof look at 2 examples, St. Jude Children's Research Hospital, started in 1962 by the actor and comedian Danny Thomas. Thinking "no child should die in the dawn of life" he started the hospital which treats children from around the world without asking parents to pay. Then the Ancient Arabic Order of the Nobles of the Mystic Shrine, Shriners for short, operates the Shriners Hos

A really efficient mixed system would be a socialist political system

How wrong can a person be? Socialism is an economic system of state ownership of industry and the political system advocating such an economic system.

Privatization of common goods such as water and health care is a recipe for disaster.

Partially wrong, yes water is a common good but health care and medicine are not. They may be good for the public but they are not common goods. As for privatized medicine being a disaster? HAHA! Take one example, LASIK Surgery. About 10 years ago, in 1999 when this surgery started, LASIK surgery on 1 eye cost about $10,000 but today a good surgeon will perform it for $2000. Prices of $1000 or less can be found too, but I wouldn't trust one without some good and credible references first.

What you have in the US is not a mixed system, it is a corrupted capitalist system.

No, what we have in the US is a mixed system, it's corrupted but it's also mixed. I know, I'm in that system. Because I was disabled in an accident I now collect Social Security Income, a government insurance program. When I worked I had no choice but to pay into Social Security, employers deduct it then give the government the money. Because I am disabled my health insurance is Medicare, another government insurance program. And like Social Security I had no choice but to pay into it, like SS employers deduct money from employees' pay and gives it to the government. Even now I pay into Medicare, again the government deducts some of my SSI as a premium for Medicare.

And don't try to tell me that that is not socialized medicine. If it were capitalist then it would be in private hands.

Now for when I had the accident which caused my disability. At the tyme I was a college student and I was riding my bike after class when I was hit by someone who should not have been driving. After the accident I was medivaced by helicopter to the hospital. After I came out of the coma I was in I was transferred to a rehab house, I survived a TBI, Traumatic Brain Injury. There I went through several weeks of therapy before I was allowed to move into my mother's house. While living with her I went through more therapy. Altogether my medical bills came to more than $120,000. As a student and not working I didn't have insurance and I was not wealthy, but I got all that medical care anyway.

So even those who can not afford medical care still get it in the US. Either government pays or the costs are passed on to those who can afford it or to insurance. Most Americans aren't willing to have someone die just because the person can't pay for medical care. For proof look at 2 examples, St. Jude Children's Research Hospital, started in 1962 by the actor and comedian Danny Thomas. Thinking "no child should die in the dawn of life" he started the hospital which treats children from around the world without asking parents to pay. Then the Ancient Arabic Order of the Nobles of the Mystic Shrine, Shriners for short, operates the Shriners Hos

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.

This part that you quoted:

"Other upgrades followed (past tense, already happened)... video surveillance cameras in high-crime areas"

Not quite. Followed "come after in time, as a result ("A terrible tsunami followed the earthquake")". Another use as a verb is "to bring something about at a later time than". The cameras came after in tyme.

Falcon

No. You are now creating several straw man arguments. I did not say that Democrats can use it but Republicans cannot

Going up the thread this is where you say "I've watched it. But if you think it's 'fighting corruption' now, you should look into what the minority Republicans do to filibuster. They just notify Reid (the Senate Majority Leader) that they will filibuster, and Reid accepts that they will. Or they use any of the many points in the legislative path to refuse "unanimous consent" to some rule erected to create that option, and derail the process." As if only Democrats can use filibusters. You do not explicitly state it, it is implicit (implied though not directly expressed;).

Falcon

Yes, there is a difference and no China is not socialist. As a theory socialism advocates state ownership of industry and as an economic system the state owns the capital. China however allows and advocates individuals owning their own business. And it's not just in China the government allows private businesses, Cuba does as well, it is experimenting with private ownership of small businesses. The economic system in USSR on the other hand was communism which banned the private ownership of property. Everything was collectively owned, er that's how it was supposed to be, but it wasn't really. And like China and Cuba technically the US has a mixed economy, the new health insurance reform bill Obama signed underscoring that.

Falcon

Yes, there is a difference and no China is not socialist. As a theory socialism advocates state ownership of industry and as an economic system the state owns the capital. China however allows and advocates individuals owning their own business. And it's not just in China the government allows private businesses, Cuba does as well, it is experimenting with private ownership of small businesses. The economic system in USSR on the other hand was communism which banned the private ownership of property. Everything was collectively owned, er that's how it was supposed to be, but it wasn't really. And like China and Cuba technically the US has a mixed economy, the new health insurance reform bill Obama signed underscoring that.

Falcon

OneLook just gave me six hits for "greengrocer's apostrophe" but only two for "greengrocers' apostrophe".

OneLook just gave me six hits for "greengrocer's apostrophe" but only two for "greengrocers' apostrophe".

That's Jewish though Christians say it too. However they add you can only multiply when granted a church license called marriage. Muslims along with some Christian sects also allow males to have more than one spouse, but females can only have one. Which is called polygyny not polygamy. Now if they allowed females to have more than one spouse as well as males then it would be polygamy.

Falcon

That's Jewish though Christians say it too. However they add you can only multiply when granted a church license called marriage. Muslims along with some Christian sects also allow males to have more than one spouse, but females can only have one. Which is called polygyny not polygamy. Now if they allowed females to have more than one spouse as well as males then it would be polygamy.

Falcon

One might question whether you read the sources you cited, as opposed to simply linking terms you heard a convincing speaker use one day.

Fortunately that's not true. In high school history we learned about Manifest Destiny.

Manifest destiny has little to do with Christians spreading the word across the world. While the idea existed that it was ordained by the Christian God, Manifest Destiny was the idea that Americans were charged with expanding capitalism, democracy, and even the American government to all of North and Latin America.

You left out "the idea that 'uncivilized' peoples could be improved by exposure to the Christian, democratic values of the United States." Or Native Americans and Christianity:
"White Attitudes. Among whites there were two common religiously based attitudes toward Native Americans. One was expressed in the notion of Manifest Destiny, the idea that white Christians had a God-given mission to expand their civilization and its ideals of liberty and democracy across the entire North American continent. From this point of view Indians who occupied valuable lands could be removed or even exterminated with few moral qualms. A second point of view held that the Indians did not have to be seen as a hindrance to white progress. Rather, they were simply ignorant heathens who could become part of American society if they were allowed to benefit from the civilizing instruction of whites. The first step toward civilization was believed to be conversion to Christianity. Although earlier missionaries to the Indians had produced few converts and much antagonism, the revivals of the early nineteenth century brought new impetus to the missionary movement. Most Protestant denominations as well as the Roman Catholic Church sent men and women to Indian tribes across the country, where they preached, distributed Bibles, and established schools."

"Christian Talibans" is a lovely buzz word... but wholly inappropriate as Taliban is neither an adjective

adjective: "noun: the word class that qualifies nouns.
verb: add a modifier to a constituent.
"Taliban" modifies "Christian".

t is instead a proper noun describing a terroristic dictatorship that was formerly the ruling body of Iraq and had strong control over Afghanistan and is currently engaging in guerrilla and terrorist assaults to prevent the peoples of those regions from asserting their own power.

And Christian Talibans such as those I already linked to would do the same thing. The difference is the religion, and the sect of the religion. Seeing as how either you can't be bothered to see that Dominionists and other Reconstructionists would do the same thing, that "civil government should be controlled by Christians alone and conducted according to Biblical law", I am left thinking you're trolling. All that's changed is the religion and the holy book.

And if you don't think stoning, which is what they plan, isn't terrorism then I don't want to live in your world. Even associates of the Rev. Jerry Falwell said theologian Rousas John (R.J.) Rushdoony positions on stoning were scary.
"In a world run by Rushdoony followers, sots would escape capital punishment--which would make them happy exceptions indeed. Those who would face execution include not only gays but a very long list of others: blasphemers, heretics, apostate Christians, people who cursed or struck their parents, females guilty of "unchastity before marriage," "incorrigible" juvenile delinquents, adulterers, and (probably) telephone psychics. And that's to say nothing of murderers and those guilty of raping married women or

One might question whether you read the sources you cited, as opposed to simply linking terms you heard a convincing speaker use one day.

Fortunately that's not true. In high school history we learned about Manifest Destiny.

Manifest destiny has little to do with Christians spreading the word across the world. While the idea existed that it was ordained by the Christian God, Manifest Destiny was the idea that Americans were charged with expanding capitalism, democracy, and even the American government to all of North and Latin America.

You left out "the idea that 'uncivilized' peoples could be improved by exposure to the Christian, democratic values of the United States." Or Native Americans and Christianity:
"White Attitudes. Among whites there were two common religiously based attitudes toward Native Americans. One was expressed in the notion of Manifest Destiny, the idea that white Christians had a God-given mission to expand their civilization and its ideals of liberty and democracy across the entire North American continent. From this point of view Indians who occupied valuable lands could be removed or even exterminated with few moral qualms. A second point of view held that the Indians did not have to be seen as a hindrance to white progress. Rather, they were simply ignorant heathens who could become part of American society if they were allowed to benefit from the civilizing instruction of whites. The first step toward civilization was believed to be conversion to Christianity. Although earlier missionaries to the Indians had produced few converts and much antagonism, the revivals of the early nineteenth century brought new impetus to the missionary movement. Most Protestant denominations as well as the Roman Catholic Church sent men and women to Indian tribes across the country, where they preached, distributed Bibles, and established schools."

"Christian Talibans" is a lovely buzz word... but wholly inappropriate as Taliban is neither an adjective

adjective: "noun: the word class that qualifies nouns.
verb: add a modifier to a constituent.
"Taliban" modifies "Christian".

t is instead a proper noun describing a terroristic dictatorship that was formerly the ruling body of Iraq and had strong control over Afghanistan and is currently engaging in guerrilla and terrorist assaults to prevent the peoples of those regions from asserting their own power.

And Christian Talibans such as those I already linked to would do the same thing. The difference is the religion, and the sect of the religion. Seeing as how either you can't be bothered to see that Dominionists and other Reconstructionists would do the same thing, that "civil government should be controlled by Christians alone and conducted according to Biblical law", I am left thinking you're trolling. All that's changed is the religion and the holy book.

And if you don't think stoning, which is what they plan, isn't terrorism then I don't want to live in your world. Even associates of the Rev. Jerry Falwell said theologian Rousas John (R.J.) Rushdoony positions on stoning were scary.
"In a world run by Rushdoony followers, sots would escape capital punishment--which would make them happy exceptions indeed. Those who would face execution include not only gays but a very long list of others: blasphemers, heretics, apostate Christians, people who cursed or struck their parents, females guilty of "unchastity before marriage," "incorrigible" juvenile delinquents, adulterers, and (probably) telephone psychics. And that's to say nothing of murderers and those guilty of raping married women or

Yes I do, and like Thomas Jefferson I am a Liberal. I believe in liberty and small government.

In the US that's "classic liberalism"

"Classical" has to used to modify "liberal" because the word "liberal" is used incorrectly in the US today. As the wiki article I linked to says "The phrase classical liberalism is used in standard academic sources to mean early liberalism". That is why I frequently correct people and provide a link to the proper meaning of "liberal" when it is used falsely, as it was in the post I replied to.

If you're going to use a word be sure to learn the definition first. I also do that, correct people, when they use other words incorrectly. Such as "hacker", a hacker is an explorer who follows the hacker ethic. Now the definition linked to is about computer hackers whereas I use "explorer" because other things such as electronics can be hacked as well. Reporters and other writers used to be called hacks as well. And polygamy is when males and females have more than one spouse. What the Mormons practiced, and some sects still practice is not polygamy, it is polygyny, "having more than one wife at a time".

And when I use a word incorrectly I appreciate others correcting me. I am not afraid to admit when I'm wrong.

Falcon

Yes I do, and like Thomas Jefferson I am a Liberal. I believe in liberty and small government.

In the US that's "classic liberalism"

"Classical" has to used to modify "liberal" because the word "liberal" is used incorrectly in the US today. As the wiki article I linked to says "The phrase classical liberalism is used in standard academic sources to mean early liberalism". That is why I frequently correct people and provide a link to the proper meaning of "liberal" when it is used falsely, as it was in the post I replied to.

If you're going to use a word be sure to learn the definition first. I also do that, correct people, when they use other words incorrectly. Such as "hacker", a hacker is an explorer who follows the hacker ethic. Now the definition linked to is about computer hackers whereas I use "explorer" because other things such as electronics can be hacked as well. Reporters and other writers used to be called hacks as well. And polygamy is when males and females have more than one spouse. What the Mormons practiced, and some sects still practice is not polygamy, it is polygyny, "having more than one wife at a time".

And when I use a word incorrectly I appreciate others correcting me. I am not afraid to admit when I'm wrong.

Falcon

I've used onelook.com for a while, which is another aggregator that (for now) seems to have more links than Google Dictionary does.

But Google Dictionary isn't just an aggregator, they provide their own pronunciations for some words (a really important feature IMHO), and a list of synonyms for some words.

I actually hope that onelook links to Google Dictionary, as strange as an aggregator-linking-to-aggregator might be.

My guess is that Google has been working on computational linguistics for such a long time (stemming has been important for search for a while, and Google lately has started throwing in synonyms to the search results) that it's natural for Google to start exposing some of their internal dataset to the world more directly.

Democratic People's Republic of Korea ... and they've abandoned democracy, a republic, and their people ...

No, North Korea is still a republic, there is no monarchy in North Korea.

Falcon

Courts also ruled that tomatoes are a fruit, my point is courts can be really stupid.

Tomatoes are fruits. Tomatoes themselves contain the seeds for reproduction, therefore they are fruits.

Falcon

The main thing I hate about liberalism is that it assumes we are all stupid up front.

You hate the wrong thing about liberalism. It does not assume people are stupid, it assumes they are intelligent enough to make their own decisions.

Falcon

You want to claim the origins of liberalism for the American Libertarians

I want to make no such claim, I am stating what liberalism used to mean before others distorted the meaning. Back when the Founding Fathers used it there was no qualification to liberal or liberalism. To them liberalism meant liberty and small government. You are making the claim as to w2aht it means not me. Only now you're using "Lockean Liberalism". I dare you to find any qualifications to "liberal" such as "Classical" or "Lockean" used by Jefferson, Madison, or any of the other Founding Fathers. Heck, even Onelook defines liberalism as "an economic theory advocating free competition and a self-regulating market and the gold standard". Looking at the first three links to online definitions, American Heritage Dictionary, Encarta® World English Dictionary, and Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary also define it that way.

Falcon

I included the part I found offensive, your "they are such a tiny percent of the population that it is essentially irrelevant."

It has been said that they don't fit the mold of pure male or pure female.So, someone who has a penis but has 2 X Chromosomes is not a male, and someone who has a vagina even if they have a Y Chromosome is male?

You didn't answer either to either question, is someone who has a penis a male? And is someone who has a vagina, and gives birth to a living baby, a female? Are you dodging them?

I never said that. I said that anyone with a documented gender abmormality that could cause confusion (like being XY with and giving birth, or XX with a penis) should be excluded from gender-based competition.

You never said that either, you said the Olympic Committee was right in it's decision. I even included that part, "So I would think the Olympic ruling is sane. A Y-chromosome defines male. The organs the chromosome are supposed to trigger to be made do not." I then pointed out that most people do not use your definitions of male and female.

What they are or are not isn't for you to decide.

Yet you are doing exactly that, you are deciding what they are and are not. My aim is not to decide what people are and are not, though I never did say it I fully support each individual's ability to decide for themselves what they are though I'd personally get rid of gender classifications. Actually I support research into ways to allow a person to, if they decide to, how they can become pregnant and carry a baby to birth or impregnate someone else and sire a baby. I have no problem with one person becoming pregnant and giving birth at the same tyme they fertilize another person's egg making them pregnant.

The dictionary has nothing to do with fairness or the perception thereof. This isn't about classifying them.

You define what things are and classifies them yet when I point out you're wrong, as I did providing a link to the definition of "male" and female (oops the link didn't work the first tyme you indicate I shouldn't do that.

In most cases, hermaphodites are sterile

I don't know the ratio of those intersexuals who are fertile to those who are sterile, however some can have babies:

• "How do doctors and parents decide sex assignment in babies born with ambiguous genitals?"
  "A variety of factors go into this decision. Important goals in deciding sex assignment include preserving fertility where possible"
• "Is it possible for an intersex person to sire or bear children?"
• "There are dozens of named medical conditions that may lead to intersex anatomy. Fertility is variable."

And, oddly enough, from the definition you posted, an infertile person, regardless of reason, is neither male nor female.

male "noun: a person who belongs to the sex that cannot have babies".

Falcon

I included the part I found offensive, your "they are such a tiny percent of the population that it is essentially irrelevant."

It has been said that they don't fit the mold of pure male or pure female.So, someone who has a penis but has 2 X Chromosomes is not a male, and someone who has a vagina even if they have a Y Chromosome is male?

You didn't answer either to either question, is someone who has a penis a male? And is someone who has a vagina, and gives birth to a living baby, a female? Are you dodging them?

I never said that. I said that anyone with a documented gender abmormality that could cause confusion (like being XY with and giving birth, or XX with a penis) should be excluded from gender-based competition.

You never said that either, you said the Olympic Committee was right in it's decision. I even included that part, "So I would think the Olympic ruling is sane. A Y-chromosome defines male. The organs the chromosome are supposed to trigger to be made do not." I then pointed out that most people do not use your definitions of male and female.

What they are or are not isn't for you to decide.

Yet you are doing exactly that, you are deciding what they are and are not. My aim is not to decide what people are and are not, though I never did say it I fully support each individual's ability to decide for themselves what they are though I'd personally get rid of gender classifications. Actually I support research into ways to allow a person to, if they decide to, how they can become pregnant and carry a baby to birth or impregnate someone else and sire a baby. I have no problem with one person becoming pregnant and giving birth at the same tyme they fertilize another person's egg making them pregnant.

The dictionary has nothing to do with fairness or the perception thereof. This isn't about classifying them.

You define what things are and classifies them yet when I point out you're wrong, as I did providing a link to the definition of "male" and female (oops the link didn't work the first tyme you indicate I shouldn't do that.

In most cases, hermaphodites are sterile

I don't know the ratio of those intersexuals who are fertile to those who are sterile, however some can have babies:

• "How do doctors and parents decide sex assignment in babies born with ambiguous genitals?"
  "A variety of factors go into this decision. Important goals in deciding sex assignment include preserving fertility where possible"
• "Is it possible for an intersex person to sire or bear children?"
• "There are dozens of named medical conditions that may lead to intersex anatomy. Fertility is variable."

And, oddly enough, from the definition you posted, an infertile person, regardless of reason, is neither male nor female.

male "noun: a person who belongs to the sex that cannot have babies".

Falcon

There are essentially two because there are an overwhelming number of XX or XY and the others are all medically classified as one or the other for gender. If you count them as "other" (whether a single other or a spectra), they are such a tiny percent of the population that it is essentially irrelevant.

It doesn't matter how many there are they still exist.

That should be "Y" rather than "X" right?

You're right, it was a Y, Thing is is only men have Y Chromosomes, which she had, yet she also was pregnant and delivered a baby, which only women can do.

So I would think the Olympic ruling is sane. A Y-chromosome defines male. The organs the chromosome are supposed to trigger to be made do not.

So, someone who has a penis but has 2 X Chromosomes is not a male, and someone who has a vagina even if they have a Y Chromosome is male? I bet you that most people would disagree with you. They'd say if the person has a penis he is a male and if she has a vagina she is a female. Even dictionary definitions of males they a male "belongs to the sex that cannot have babies", " an animal that produces gametes (spermatozoa) that can fertilize female gametes (ova)", "for or composed of men or boys". Female>/a> on the other hand is defined as "an animal that produces gametes (ova) that can be fertilized by male gametes (spermatozoa)", "a person who belongs to the sex that can have babies", and "being the sex (of plant or animal) that produces fertilizable gametes (ova) from which offspring develop".

Falcon