Slashdot Mirror

Racism is prejudice on the basis of skin colour. It has no end goal. It is an individual bias and prejudice.

Unless you're using the new, so-called "post-modernist" definition which is "privilege + power" which would mean that you subscribe to the belief that there is an institutional system of oppression that exists to benefit white people at the expense of all others. If that is the case then

1) I reject the definition on the grounds that the normal, every-day usage of the word "racism" is as I first defined it and

2) I find the accusation that there is an institution that promotes whiteness and the expense of blackness on the grounds that the USA recently elected a black person to the highest possible position in public office. We have irrefutable proof that there is nothing baked into the institution that would prevent a person of colour from achieving the highest possible level of success within the very system being accused of oppressing people of colour. Such conspiracy theories belong right next to the likes of Alex Jones, 9/11 truthers and Lizard people nutjobs.

There's little need to debate the meaning of words nowadays. We have long-established, centralized dictionaries which all can instantaneously access via the Internet:

1) Definition of "incompetent": Not having or showing the necessary skills to do something successfully.

2) Definition of "wrong": Not correct or true; incorrect.

There's little need to debate the meaning of words nowadays. We have long-established, centralized dictionaries which all can instantaneously access via the Internet:

1) Definition of "incompetent": Not having or showing the necessary skills to do something successfully.

2) Definition of "wrong": Not correct or true; incorrect.

TL;DR

A definition of atheist is:

A person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.

Thus, an atheist is often just someone who, having seen no credible evidence of the existence of a god and seen many examples of conflicting claims of gods that lack credibility, has no rational basis to believe there are gods and therefore doesn't assume that gods exist. It is not necessary to travel to the ends of the universe and examine every subatomic particle in the universe to rationally be an atheist.

Theists can offer no credible evidence in recorded history that gods exist and they can't even agree among themselves what gods exist. Yet, they generally claim vehemently that "their" particular gods exist and are the origin of our existence. This is a remarkable conclusion resulting from a lack of critical thinking. Rationally, few atheists are likely to spend much of their energy considering trying to help prove or accept something that "believers" have, time and time again, generation after generation, failed to provide one shred of evidence of.

It is quite possible that some, perhaps many, humans have evolved to have a strong tendency to believe in something akin to a "religion" replete with gods. In an unenlightened time where science as we know it today didn't exist and there was no way of passing information reliably from person to person and generation to generation, a "religion" trait may have helped societies survive better as it could help give a structure to society and enforce (via the fear of retribution by "big daddy in the sky") some moral codes. We have moved beyond this time, but it will take some time for evolution catch up due to humans' low reproduction rate and the tendency of modern society to interfere with natural selection.

Religion is something like a placebo, as long as one is ignorant of reality it can make some more comfortable but has little value once one figures out they are just getting a sugar pill.

Microsoft marketing and sales staff pronounce it like "Azshar", which sounds completely retarded.

The correct way is impossible to find on youtube amongst all the American robovoice pronunciation and MS marketing videos, elongates the u and the e, similar to the French pronunciation. The word came into English from French and Latin.

You cannot believe when you know. They are mutually exclusive.

Based on whose definition? Yours?

belief
NOUN
1An acceptance that something exists or is true, especially one without proof.
1.1 Something one accepts as true or real; a firmly held opinion.
1.2 A religious conviction.
2 Trust, faith, or confidence in (someone or something)

If I drop my pen, I know it's going to fall. I believe in gravity. The pen falling is evidence of gravity. Knowing something and believing something aren't at all exclusive. You believe everything you know.

What does that mean? its not English, so you can't blame the spelling corrector, and bulky my be true, but is not relevant here.

It's just an adjectival form of balk. Perfectly normal English. A balky horse is one that refuses to jump over fences as its rider intends. A balky application is one not doing what its user or designer intends.

How about the Oxford English Dictionary? It's not a community college, but I'm told that they know a thing or two about political science.

There is no singular "they",

Poor troll is poor.

This is an example of what is often referred to as ‘singular they’.

The grammatical subject—every employee—is singular, as is the verb is expected, but the following pronoun, their, is plural. Hence the name. It happens when they, them, their, and themselves refer back to subjects that are grammatically singular:

Is it grammatically correct?

Despite objections, there is a trend to use ‘singular they’. In fact, it is historically long established. It goes back at least to the 16th century, and writers such as Shakespeare, Sidney, Byron, and Ruskin used it:

https://en.oxforddictionaries....

But I'm sure you know more than the Oxford English Dictionary, right?

And if you don't trust Merriam Webster we can even go to the OED:

1.1 Belonging to or associated with a person of unspecified sex.
‘she heard someone blow their nose loudly’

Fail much?

Merriam-Webster can suck it. Oxford gets it better.

Nazi
NOUN plural nazis

1) historical A member of the National Socialist German Workers' Party.
1.1) derogatory A person with extreme racist or authoritarian views.
1.2) A person who seeks to impose their views on others in a very autocratic or inflexible way.

And "initialism" is what people say when they can't remember the word "acronym".

And attempting to correct someone with misinformation is what people do when they are uneducated morons.

initialism

No it doesn't

"Petroleum" is a misnomer. Petra is Greek for rock. Oleum is Latin for oil.

If you squeeze rocks, you get... pulverized rocks. If you press the pulverized rocks, you get... dust. If you wring out the dust, you get... compressed dust, and with enough pressure, rocks (again). You never get oil from rocks. The "rock oil" is actually decomposed plant and animal oils trapped between the rocks. Thus "petroleum" is the wrong name for it, and "petrol" is the wrong name.

"Gasoline" was a brand name like "Kleenex". (Source) Brits probably hate it because it's the legally disputed brand name of an Irish ripoff of a British businessman's product.

One would think they prefer to be known collectively as octopi.

WRONG

Usage

The standard plural in English of octopus is octopuses. However, the word octopus comes from Greek and the Greek plural form octopodes is still occasionally used. The plural form octopi, formed according to rules for some Latin plurals, is incorrect

Would you prefer the Oxford English Dictionary then?

public ADJECTIVE

1 Of or concerning the people as a whole.
‘public concern’
‘public affairs’

1.1 Open to or shared by all the people of an area or country.
‘a public library’

1.2 Of or involved in the affairs of the community, especially in government or entertainment.
‘he was forced to withdraw from public life’
‘a public figure’

2Done, perceived, or existing in open view.
‘he wanted a public apology in the Wall Street Journal’
‘we should talk somewhere less public’

3Of or provided by the state rather than an independent, commercial company.
‘public spending’
‘public services’

4British Of, for, or acting for a university.
‘public examination results’

Public and private are antonyms.

Or if you want specifically the term "public parking", your countrymen seem to disagree (just some quick Googling)

Maybe it's a London thing to use "public" to mean "not public"?

You can find anyword in an OED, dude.

https://en.oxforddictionaries.... of squick
Cause (someone) to feel intense disgust

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki...
Seemingly phonaesthetic, formed of squ- as in squirm and -ick as in ick. Originated in the Usenet newsgroup alt.sex.bondage; popularized primarily in the newsgroup alt.tasteless.

Do i need to post the definition of "resistant" for you?

You of course could have just done so instead of coyly asking, but I'll do you one better -- let's take a look at definitions of the much more germane "water-resistant": Resisting though not entirely preventing the penetration of water; Able to resist the penetration of water to some degree but not entirely. You get the picture.

This is not complicated. Either "sweat resistant" means something different than "sweat-proof" or they mean the same thing. You sound like you want them to mean the same thing (even though it's crystal-clear they don't), but you're not forthright enough just to say that.

If you have something new to say, please do and I'm happy to discuss, but otherwise I'm done putting the rattle back up on the high chair for this one.

Extradition is intended to prevent someone committing a crime while in a country's jurisdiction and then running away to a foreign country to escape answering for it.

That's exactly what happened here, except the order of the crime and fleeing are reversed. He committed the crimes remotely - he "fled" first, then (allegedly) committed the crimes.

There's a concept in common law states called standing. The crime was (remotely) committed in the U.S. The injured party is in the U.S. The (purported) criminal is in the UK. The injured party has no standing (right to sue) in the UK. Consequently, the correct venue to hold the trial is in the U.S. This is exactly the type of situation extradition treaties were set up to address.

If what he did was legal in the UK, then it'd be a different story. And I'd completely understand if the UK refused to extradite for that reason. Likewise if the UK felt there was insufficient evidence against him, then I'd understand if they denied the extradition request (c.f. New Zealand and Kim Dotcom). But if he'd be subject to trial in the UK if he had committed these acts against a UK citizen or UK government, then there's really no reason not to honor the U.S.' extradition request. I suppose the UK could grant the U.S. government standing and the broad right to sue UK citizens in UK courts for violating UK law outside the UK against U.S. citizens and interests. But I think UK citizens would prefer extradition to that.

"I've learned that it's a chiefly British term meaning 'having effeminate gaiety and flamboyance'.

And you'd be wrong [ https://en.oxforddictionaries.... :

ebullient, adjective

1 Cheerful and full of energy. ‘she sounded ebullient and happy’

2 archaic (of liquid or matter) boiling or agitated as if boiling. ‘misted and ebullient seas’

Instead when you use a word like "guys", you get blocked. I'm just stupified by the bullying behavior of Mozilla's employees: https://mzl.la/2gu5521

Lol, that thread is freaking great. A contributor asked about the status on a two year old feature request and makes the mistake of using "guys" when referring to a collective group and get three responses about his use of "gendered language" and his responses marked as abusive and off-topic. And the icing on the cake is that guys is considered non-gendered by both Mirriam-Webster and Oxforddictionaries. As for the feature request itself, still in an unknown status. Honestly if that is how they react to every perceived slight, I can see why Firefox is struggling.

It probably has something to do with somebody translating from British English to American English. Incorrectly. https://en.oxforddictionaries....

Should have kept reading: "1.2 An event or fact that has unfortunate consequences." https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/us/disaster

My views are correct according to the Oxford English Dictionary and many others, and are also consistent with the way that the words are commonly used, both by civilians and by doctors, at least in the United States (and, I suspect, elsewhere). Language changes, and old definitions become wrong. It happens.

FYI, dermatological treatment is still considered "in vivo". So no, ignoring the sloppiness of my use of the word "consumed", my definition is not wrong in any meaningful sense, nor is my example; if you put pure chlorine bleach on your skin, you'll get severe chemical burns. Chlorine bleach cannot be used in vivo in any form. Hence, it is not medicine, hence it is not an antibiotic, but it is still antibacterial.

In short, you're wrong, period. This isn't a grey area. You are objectively wrong about the commonly accepted meaning of these words.

In 2015, the OED made an emoji their word of the year. It has no English pronunciation and it cannot be written using the English alphabet. While it's admirable for the dictionary to stay current, it should also be a priority for an English dictionary to only include English words. And yes, I'm still overly upset about that.

In what way is that not terrorism?

Okay, let’s pull that thread and see how far down the rabbit hole it takes us.

You claim that hate crimes "are intended to cause fear in certain groups." Okay, I could potentially see how that could be true. Instilling fear is not the primary motivation for a hate crime, which is defined as "A crime, typically one involving violence, that is motivated by prejudice on the basis of race, religion, sexual orientation, or other grounds," but I can see where you’re coming from on that.

Then what is terrorism? Well, terrorism is "The unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims." Hmm, something doesn’t sound right. Yes, there is the word "violence" in both definitions, but now terrorism must have a political component. Okay, what is political?

Well, political means "Relating to the government or public affairs of a country" or "Relating to the ideas or strategies of a particular party or group in politics." Well, that was somewhat helpful, but now we need to go further down the rabbit hole.

Politics are "The activities associated with the governance of a country or area, especially the debate between parties having power" or "The activities of governments concerning the political relations between states." Huh. That doesn’t sound a lot like hate crimes to me.

So let me make sure that I understand your argument. People are afraid during hate crimes. People are afraid during acts of terrorism. Therefore, hate crimes and terrorism are the same thing. Sorry, that is not logical.

What you’ve instead illustrated is the new modern penchant for redefining words, ideas, and concepts to fit into a new ideological narrative. To be sure, this is something O’Brien would be proud of, as changing definitions is a great way to keep people you don’t like on their toes. But to sum up, no, hate crimes are not terrorism and should not be equated as such. Words have meaning, they have accepted definitions. Changing those definitions to meet an ideological goal (as the article author has done) is intellectually disingenuous.

In what way is that not terrorism?

Okay, let’s pull that thread and see how far down the rabbit hole it takes us.

You claim that hate crimes "are intended to cause fear in certain groups." Okay, I could potentially see how that could be true. Instilling fear is not the primary motivation for a hate crime, which is defined as "A crime, typically one involving violence, that is motivated by prejudice on the basis of race, religion, sexual orientation, or other grounds," but I can see where you’re coming from on that.

Then what is terrorism? Well, terrorism is "The unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims." Hmm, something doesn’t sound right. Yes, there is the word "violence" in both definitions, but now terrorism must have a political component. Okay, what is political?

Well, political means "Relating to the government or public affairs of a country" or "Relating to the ideas or strategies of a particular party or group in politics." Well, that was somewhat helpful, but now we need to go further down the rabbit hole.

Politics are "The activities associated with the governance of a country or area, especially the debate between parties having power" or "The activities of governments concerning the political relations between states." Huh. That doesn’t sound a lot like hate crimes to me.

So let me make sure that I understand your argument. People are afraid during hate crimes. People are afraid during acts of terrorism. Therefore, hate crimes and terrorism are the same thing. Sorry, that is not logical.

What you’ve instead illustrated is the new modern penchant for redefining words, ideas, and concepts to fit into a new ideological narrative. To be sure, this is something O’Brien would be proud of, as changing definitions is a great way to keep people you don’t like on their toes. But to sum up, no, hate crimes are not terrorism and should not be equated as such. Words have meaning, they have accepted definitions. Changing those definitions to meet an ideological goal (as the article author has done) is intellectually disingenuous.

In what way is that not terrorism?

Okay, let’s pull that thread and see how far down the rabbit hole it takes us.

You claim that hate crimes "are intended to cause fear in certain groups." Okay, I could potentially see how that could be true. Instilling fear is not the primary motivation for a hate crime, which is defined as "A crime, typically one involving violence, that is motivated by prejudice on the basis of race, religion, sexual orientation, or other grounds," but I can see where you’re coming from on that.

Then what is terrorism? Well, terrorism is "The unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims." Hmm, something doesn’t sound right. Yes, there is the word "violence" in both definitions, but now terrorism must have a political component. Okay, what is political?

Well, political means "Relating to the government or public affairs of a country" or "Relating to the ideas or strategies of a particular party or group in politics." Well, that was somewhat helpful, but now we need to go further down the rabbit hole.

Politics are "The activities associated with the governance of a country or area, especially the debate between parties having power" or "The activities of governments concerning the political relations between states." Huh. That doesn’t sound a lot like hate crimes to me.

So let me make sure that I understand your argument. People are afraid during hate crimes. People are afraid during acts of terrorism. Therefore, hate crimes and terrorism are the same thing. Sorry, that is not logical.

What you’ve instead illustrated is the new modern penchant for redefining words, ideas, and concepts to fit into a new ideological narrative. To be sure, this is something O’Brien would be proud of, as changing definitions is a great way to keep people you don’t like on their toes. But to sum up, no, hate crimes are not terrorism and should not be equated as such. Words have meaning, they have accepted definitions. Changing those definitions to meet an ideological goal (as the article author has done) is intellectually disingenuous.

In what way is that not terrorism?

Okay, let’s pull that thread and see how far down the rabbit hole it takes us.

You claim that hate crimes "are intended to cause fear in certain groups." Okay, I could potentially see how that could be true. Instilling fear is not the primary motivation for a hate crime, which is defined as "A crime, typically one involving violence, that is motivated by prejudice on the basis of race, religion, sexual orientation, or other grounds," but I can see where you’re coming from on that.

Then what is terrorism? Well, terrorism is "The unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims." Hmm, something doesn’t sound right. Yes, there is the word "violence" in both definitions, but now terrorism must have a political component. Okay, what is political?

Well, political means "Relating to the government or public affairs of a country" or "Relating to the ideas or strategies of a particular party or group in politics." Well, that was somewhat helpful, but now we need to go further down the rabbit hole.

Politics are "The activities associated with the governance of a country or area, especially the debate between parties having power" or "The activities of governments concerning the political relations between states." Huh. That doesn’t sound a lot like hate crimes to me.

So let me make sure that I understand your argument. People are afraid during hate crimes. People are afraid during acts of terrorism. Therefore, hate crimes and terrorism are the same thing. Sorry, that is not logical.

What you’ve instead illustrated is the new modern penchant for redefining words, ideas, and concepts to fit into a new ideological narrative. To be sure, this is something O’Brien would be proud of, as changing definitions is a great way to keep people you don’t like on their toes. But to sum up, no, hate crimes are not terrorism and should not be equated as such. Words have meaning, they have accepted definitions. Changing those definitions to meet an ideological goal (as the article author has done) is intellectually disingenuous.

He spelled centre a non-English way

centre

If you had gone to school you might not be illiterate.

hey slow down... he was speaking of "simplified english"

He spelled centre a non-English way

centre

If you had gone to school you might not be illiterate.

"The hoi polloi" is like saying "the La Brea tar pits" or "The big Rio Grande river".

Merriam Webster: "Even though hoi itself means "the", in English we almost always say "the hoi polloi". Or Oxford Dictionaries: "This knowledge has led some traditionalists to insist that hoi polloi should not be used in English with the, since that would be to state the word the twice. Such arguments miss the point: once established in English, expressions such as hoi polloi are treated as a fixed unit and are subject to the rules and conventions of English." Or even the venerable OED itself: "In English use normally preceded by the def. article even though hoi means ‘the’."

It's interesting that you saw a paragraph about intellectual elites finding things by which they can look down upon others, and your response is to post something that makes you appear intellectual and discriminating, but has no basis in reality.

The word usually refers to visible light

Yes, that's exactly my point. And any sampling of dictionary definitions will confirm this.

• Encyclopedia Britannica: "electromagnetic radiation that can be detected by the human eye"
• Merriam Webster: "something that makes vision possible", "the sensation aroused by stimulation of the visual receptors", "specifically : such radiation that is visible to the human eye"
• Oxford: "The natural agent that stimulates sight and makes things visible."
• Cambridge: "the brightness that comes from the sun, fire, etc. and from electrical devices, and that allows things to be seen"

I would suggest this ubiquity constitutes a standard definition, at least in terms of commonly accepted usage.

In physics, the term light sometimes refers to electromagnetic radiation of any wavelength

And that's why I called your post an oversimplification, instead of incorrect. It is more accurate to say light and radio are both forms of EM radiation, than simply to state radio == light.

Look, the definition is similar across multiple different sources. You can't say the free market is unrealistic by claiming that perfect competition doesn't exist (which that article seems to be attacking -- that's not the free market). All you need for a free market is voluntary exchange without government interference. That is: as long as the government stays out, you have a free market. Of course, the existence of government means that you will only approximate a free market (as it will necessarily distort the market), but we can't expect things to be perfect.

From the Oxford English Dictionary

VERB

[WITH OBJECT]

1 Kill, destroy, or remove a large proportion of. ‘the inhabitants of the country had been decimated’

1.1 Drastically reduce the strength or effectiveness of (something) ‘public transport has been decimated’

2 (historical) Kill one in every ten of (a group of people, originally a mutinous Roman legion) as a punishment for the whole group. ‘the man who is to determine whether it be necessary to decimate a large body of mutineers’

Usage

Historically, the meaning of the word decimate is ‘kill one in every ten of (a group of people)’. This sense has been more or less totally superseded by the later, more general sense ‘kill, destroy, or remove a large proportion of’, as in the virus has decimated the population. Some traditionalists argue that this is incorrect, but it is clear that it is now part of standard English

Origin

Late Middle English: from Latin decimat- ‘taken as a tenth’, from the verb decimare, from decimus ‘tenth’. In Middle English the term decimation denoted the levying of a tithe, and later the tax imposed by Cromwell on the Royalists (1655).

Nope. Both are fine. The insistence on fewer in that caseis one of those prescriptive grammar rules that has stuck around because of grammar pedants.

Here's oxford dictionaries blog to clarify

> I use ethnicity for the most part just because of the silly destruction of the term race.

The term "race" isn't being destroyed. It isn't even changing. All that's changed is that you are running into the limits of your grade-school understanding of the world. Time to grow up. Biology has always been a small and completely arbitrary part of race. For example, it wasn't until just a little over 100 years ago that the Irish and Italians were considered "white." You know that phrase "Tall, dark and handsome?" - That was never about black men, it was about europeans. People who were not white then but are now.

Here's Ben Franklin expounding on the concept of whiteness as commonly understand at the time:

That the Number of purely white People in the World is proportionably very small. All Africa is black or tawny. Asia chiefly tawny. America (exclusive of the new Comers) wholly so. And in Europe, the Spaniards, Italians, French, Russians and Swedes, are generally of what we call a swarthy Complexion; as are the Germans also, the Saxons only excepted, who with the English, make the principal Body of White People on the Face of the Earth.

Furthermore, the one group of people who consistently think race is not genetic? Actual geneticists.
For example, Dr Craig Venter, you might have heard of him, he created the Human Genome Project.
Venter had this to say 16 years ago:

''Race is a social concept, not a scientific one''

FYI, "ethnicity" and "race" - they are basically the same thing.

ethnicity
noun
        The fact or state of belonging to a social group that has a common national or cultural tradition.

Or, as some people spell the word, a kludge.

Also known as literate people.

So, some random site decided to grab the URL of "oxford dictionaries", I assume to mislead people into thinking that this is the Oxford English Dictionary

Don't slashdotters know about the Jargon File anymore? (here or here or here.) It's sad how classic hacker history is so quickly forgotten.

http://www.catb.org/jargon/htm... : kludge

  1. /kluhj/ n. Incorrect (though regrettably common) spelling of kluge (US). These two words have been confused in American usage since the early 1960s, and widely confounded in Great Britain since the end of World War II.

In English, the soft "g" is pronounced as if it has a "d" in front of it. Kluge rhymes with huge. Kludge, on the other hand, would rhyme with sludge or judge.

Or, as some people spell the word, a kludge.

Also known as literate people.

Only the poorly educated say 'learnt' in the US (it's 'learned') here, but using a 't' for past tense is a legitimate British grammar construct. I've seen terms like this in respected British publications. More here.

I'm sorry, but you are wrong.

Con:
Persuade (someone) to do or believe something by lying to them.
A confidence trick ... is an attempt to defraud a person or group after first gaining their confidence, used in the classical sense of trust.

I don't see where he lied, so I think the word is misapplied. The second definition comes a little bit closer, but casinos are very much aware that gamblers are adversaries, not allies.

OK, if YOU want to play semantics and make the wall part of the "plant", then you must describe the event and the design for the event appropriately. In this case, the event is a massive tsunami breaching the wall. The design basis of the plant did not consider a massive tsunami breach of the wall a credible event. The "reactor building and associated structures" were not properly designed to handle this event. The entire "plant" was sited in place where this event could happen.

The massive tsunami didn't breach the wall, it overtopped it. Words have meaning.

And since the designers didn't consider overtopping the seawall to be a credible event, then by your logic, why should they design for it?

Had the entire plant properly considered the event, and designed for it using common nuclear safety practices, they would have hardened the "reactor and associated structures", flood proofed, raised generators and fuel supplies, added contingency fuel supplies to extend emergency diesel run time to account for lack of accessibility, added sealed doors in other locations and procedural requirements to keep flood doors closed, and a ton of other things. Then THAT would have resulted in certainly of not only nuclear safety but also generally saving the asset from tremendous remediation costs. That would have been quite acceptable.

And that's something that we can do now that we know that overtopping is a problem. That's the difference between learning from experience and merely deciding never to do something at a location because something preventable happened there.

OK, if YOU want to play semantics and make the wall part of the "plant", then you must describe the event and the design for the event appropriately. In this case, the event is a massive tsunami breaching the wall. The design basis of the plant did not consider a massive tsunami breach of the wall a credible event. The "reactor building and associated structures" were not properly designed to handle this event. The entire "plant" was sited in place where this event could happen.

The massive tsunami didn't breach the wall, it overtopped it. Words have meaning.

And since the designers didn't consider overtopping the seawall to be a credible event, then by your logic, why should they design for it?

Had the entire plant properly considered the event, and designed for it using common nuclear safety practices, they would have hardened the "reactor and associated structures", flood proofed, raised generators and fuel supplies, added contingency fuel supplies to extend emergency diesel run time to account for lack of accessibility, added sealed doors in other locations and procedural requirements to keep flood doors closed, and a ton of other things. Then THAT would have resulted in certainly of not only nuclear safety but also generally saving the asset from tremendous remediation costs. That would have been quite acceptable.

And that's something that we can do now that we know that overtopping is a problem. That's the difference between learning from experience and merely deciding never to do something at a location because something preventable happened there.

https://en.oxforddictionaries....

Item 4, nygger.

Aparently you dont know the definition of theory or claim.
https://en.oxforddictionaries....
https://en.oxforddictionaries....

A theory is a set of ideas that the author is not sure of. When prof arrives, it becomes a Law. A claim is when ppl anounce a theory to the world as if it was a law but with no prof.
Ppl researching EMdrive do not claim it to be 100% as they say it. They are just saying "lets study it and test how far it goes".
On the other end you, without any prof, are trying to pass as a law that they are wrong. Now that is a claim.

Aparently you dont know the definition of theory or claim.
https://en.oxforddictionaries....
https://en.oxforddictionaries....

A theory is a set of ideas that the author is not sure of. When prof arrives, it becomes a Law. A claim is when ppl anounce a theory to the world as if it was a law but with no prof.
Ppl researching EMdrive do not claim it to be 100% as they say it. They are just saying "lets study it and test how far it goes".
On the other end you, without any prof, are trying to pass as a law that they are wrong. Now that is a claim.

"What dictionary is that?"

See the Oxford Dictionary definition.

According to Oxford Dictionary, the word "nonplussed" has two meanings: 1) surprised, or 2) "North American informal Not disconcerted; unperturbed."

A note below the definition says

In North American English a new use has developed in recent years, meaning ‘unperturbed’—more or less the opposite of its traditional meaning ... It is not considered part of standard English