Slashdot Mirror

• soteriology
• eschatology
• syncretized
• Scholasticism

I made it easy for you to use this thing called a dictionary...clicky clicky.

• soteriology
• eschatology
• syncretized
• Scholasticism

I made it easy for you to use this thing called a dictionary...clicky clicky.

• soteriology
• eschatology
• syncretized
• Scholasticism

I made it easy for you to use this thing called a dictionary...clicky clicky.

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 =)

Can we just cancel the election and impe[a]ch Obama today?

Impeach. I don't think that word means what you think it means.

I suppose it depends on the exact definition of theory, it can mean a well established explanation, also (2) a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural and subject to experimentation. But, you are right, in that creationists attempt to place their (weak) theory (or postulate) on the same level as evolution that is well tested; thus trying to gain credibility by association. The theories that you mention all started out as 'postulates' but were then found to be supported by the evidence, make good predictions, etc, creationism does not travel far down this road.

In the scientific sense, creatonism is no theory, but evolution is a well-established theory.

I suppose it depends on the exact definition of theory, it can mean a well established explanation, also (2) a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural and subject to experimentation. But, you are right, in that creationists attempt to place their (weak) theory (or postulate) on the same level as evolution that is well tested; thus trying to gain credibility by association. The theories that you mention all started out as 'postulates' but were then found to be supported by the evidence, make good predictions, etc, creationism does not travel far down this road.

What is a "stable fault?" By definition, a fault exists where there is earth movement. It's just a matter of how long it takes for enough forces to build to create a slip.

A fault exists where there's a big crack in the rock, that's all.

Definition - Geology, Mining . a break in the continuity of a body of rock or of a vein, with dislocation along the plane of the fracture (fault plane).

PEDANTIC

Reality check here. Does it really matter whether the word "make" is used exactly right? Scientists engineered a bacteria that can survive in an unbelievably hostile environment that can make lumps of 24K gold from a solution of gold chloride. This is freaking amazing.

LOL. "Specific linked document" is below, embedded from Scribd. What you quote is a single slide from that document. Even that slide doesn't say "copy", so now you're down to blatant lies. It says to add light effect and round edges - you mean to say those are specific Apple inventions and not common design sense?

Copy 14.to follow as a pattern or model; imitate.

Almost all of the documents follow the same pattern: Apple does it this way. We do it this way. Do it the way Apple does it. Hence "copy"

It requires no such thing. Critique is often confused with "criticise," clearly what you've done here. Critique means that the critic provides a fairly rigorous analysis, positive, negative, or both. The attacks launched above are little more than juvenile trolling - hopefully that's obvious. Merely stating that the poster does not like the gallery obviously does not fall into any category that could be called critique. Taste, perhaps, but not critique.

Critique
1. an article or essay criticizing a literary or other work; detailed evaluation; review.
2. a criticism or critical comment on some problem, subject, etc.
3. the art or practice of criticism.

Source: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/critique

I have no clue what sardonic means.

Do you have a clue what "dictionary" means?

sarÂdonÂicâ â/sÉ'rËdÉ'nÉk/ Show Spelled[sahr-don-ik]
adjective
characterized by bitter or scornful derision; mocking; cynical; sneering: a sardonic grin.

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

pron definition
jargon
(Or "pr0n") B1FF-speak for pornography. Often seen on IRC in such desperate cries for help as "I WNAT PRON!!!!!"
(1997-09-14)

No. I am laughing at you because you claim that two or more stories that may or may not be based on a real incident or person, that have likely been transformed over time to works of fiction which, when retold, are "too good to be true" constitutes data. It doesn't take a genius to quickly realize that ...Even when many anecdotes are collected to prove a point, "The plural of anecdote is not data." (Roger Brinner[19]) On the plus side, I hear Digg is looking for new members all the time.

How does he know you're gay?

Well:

:-)

The big happy face is a sign!

Why, see a definition of "gay":

having or showing a merry, lively mood: gay spirits; gay music. Synonyms: cheerful, gleeful, happy, glad, cheery, lighthearted, joyous, joyful, jovial; sunny, lively, vivacious, sparkling; chipper, playful, jaunty, sprightly, blithe.

He's just looking for happy people, give him a break!

And as far as the other defintions, well, the happy homosexuals are called gay. The sad ones are just called homosexuals.

sad but true.

Faith is a requirement for religion, because religions are always false.

 
Not only is your assertion not provable as true, it can be proven false. Furthermore, it is flamebait and should be modded as such.
 
There are over 4,200 religions in the world. Do you know them all? Have you proven each one false? HAve you read a peer reviewed journal for each one where it was proven false?
 
From http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/religion: "a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, ..." really? a set of beliefs is false? So my religion is that the universe came into being by chance. I assume you disagree and can prove this false?

Well, since you are rolling out your own private definitions of words it's pretty fucking hard to communicate here isn't it? Of course you have no idea what I'm talking about if you are going to redefine everything at the drop of a hat.

My statements were based on standard definitions of republic, monarchy, and theocracy.

Republic (recall I was speaking of a specific definition of republic):

a state in which the head of government is not a monarch or other hereditary head of state.

Monarchy

a state or nation in which the supreme power is actually or nominally lodged in a monarch.

And in turn, a monarch has as it's first definition a hereditary ruler of a country, second as an absolute ruler. Both apply to North Korea.

Theocracy:

a form of government in which God or a deity is recognized as the supreme civil ruler, the God's or deity's laws being interpreted by the ecclesiastical authorities.

This is a little stretched, but it's worth noting that the previous rulers of North Korea, Kim Il-sung and Kim Jong-il are worshiped to a degree with numerous shrines, portraits, and frequent tributes (a "cult of personality"). And Kim Jong-un does interpret the wishes of his father and grandfather, so he's taking the role of ecclesiastical authority.

Well, since you are rolling out your own private definitions of words it's pretty fucking hard to communicate here isn't it? Of course you have no idea what I'm talking about if you are going to redefine everything at the drop of a hat.

My statements were based on standard definitions of republic, monarchy, and theocracy.

Republic (recall I was speaking of a specific definition of republic):

a state in which the head of government is not a monarch or other hereditary head of state.

Monarchy

a state or nation in which the supreme power is actually or nominally lodged in a monarch.

And in turn, a monarch has as it's first definition a hereditary ruler of a country, second as an absolute ruler. Both apply to North Korea.

Theocracy:

a form of government in which God or a deity is recognized as the supreme civil ruler, the God's or deity's laws being interpreted by the ecclesiastical authorities.

This is a little stretched, but it's worth noting that the previous rulers of North Korea, Kim Il-sung and Kim Jong-il are worshiped to a degree with numerous shrines, portraits, and frequent tributes (a "cult of personality"). And Kim Jong-un does interpret the wishes of his father and grandfather, so he's taking the role of ecclesiastical authority.

Well, since you are rolling out your own private definitions of words it's pretty fucking hard to communicate here isn't it? Of course you have no idea what I'm talking about if you are going to redefine everything at the drop of a hat.

My statements were based on standard definitions of republic, monarchy, and theocracy.

Republic (recall I was speaking of a specific definition of republic):

a state in which the head of government is not a monarch or other hereditary head of state.

Monarchy

a state or nation in which the supreme power is actually or nominally lodged in a monarch.

And in turn, a monarch has as it's first definition a hereditary ruler of a country, second as an absolute ruler. Both apply to North Korea.

Theocracy:

a form of government in which God or a deity is recognized as the supreme civil ruler, the God's or deity's laws being interpreted by the ecclesiastical authorities.

This is a little stretched, but it's worth noting that the previous rulers of North Korea, Kim Il-sung and Kim Jong-il are worshiped to a degree with numerous shrines, portraits, and frequent tributes (a "cult of personality"). And Kim Jong-un does interpret the wishes of his father and grandfather, so he's taking the role of ecclesiastical authority.

I'm an attorney. My job frequently involves trying to figure out what the hell the law is when legislators don't do their damn job of making it clear.

And that's not the point at all. The discussion is about the use and value of firearms [and other weapons] as self defense, and the advantages and disadvantages of an armed society. The law exists because we determine what's good (we think) and codify it. We wouldn't put a law on the books that says "Murder ugly girls" because that ... would be bad.

These arguments are more important than the law. They're also highly theoretical. Fortunately laws exist for a reason and some assumptions can be made--for example, we're talking about tools of death, and the law makes unjiustifiable homicide illegal. The law makes some provisions for self-defense, because we'd rather have an attempted murder end with the attempted murderer dead than with some single mother dead by murder-rape and so if she stabs him in the throat that's maybe less ideal but we don't really care all that much.

Inside all that, you have to decide if you're going to let people have guns, and who you're going to let have guns--actually the same thing, because 'who' could be 'nobody' (which covers 'if'). To do that, you have to decide who is the dangerous element, and how to reduce their access or how to make them less dangerous. Obviously, criminals are a dangerous element; non-criminals are dangerous due to lack of skill, and so training makes them less dangerous. Gun registration increases accountability.

At a point the argument tends to come down to allowing nobody access to guns or allowing "law-abiding citizens" access to guns. So now all we're down to is weeding out the "criminals" from the "non-criminals," which classically we've done by assuming that mostly anyone without a history of psychological problems or violent crime is a 'law-abiding citizen'. If you want to look at cost-benefit, you need to make some tricky adjustments: 'law-abiding citizens' aren't the people we gave guns, but rather the people who remain 'law-abiding'. That means if we arm 1000 'law-abiding citizens' and 10 of them commit crimes with guns, what we did was arm 990 'law-abiding citizens' and mistakenly arm 10 'criminals'.

So, given that, the legislature meets to decide on gun laws. Their question is: do the 990 armed law-abiding citizens improve the situation enough to offset the problem caused by the 10 now-armed 'criminals'? Another good question is: would the 10 'criminals' have had the drive and opportunity to obtain firearms in the first place? We know criminals can; the question is both how many, and of course motivation. Face it: sometimes a bad man won't go and get himself a gun, but if you make it legal and easy to get a gun he WILL go and get himself a gun and then do bad things with it.

These discussions aren't for the benefit of lawyers. The arguments over guns are centered around what the law SHOULD be. That's not the lawyer's job; it's not the judge's job; it's the jury's and the legislature's job to decide what the law SHOULD be.

Just because you dislike or don't understand something doesn't render it "loaded." I'm tempted to give you a lmgtfy link but I'll play it classier here.

So according to that definition, if a thing is well and good and you write a defensive statement explaining why it's well and good, you're an apologist? Like, if I wrote a piece about why laws that say premeditated murder is illegal are good and important, I'm a murder legislation apologist?

You're attempting to pre-quantify all possible scenarios. That works in computers... well, not really; a lot of input validation is "X Y ad Z are valid; all else is strange and scary." The world isn't so black and white.

I'm an attorney. My job frequently involves trying to figure out what the hell the law is when legislators don't do their damn job of making it clear. It's not about whether or where trying to imagine every permutation "works"; it's about asking questions to determine if the law is sufficiently clear or not, and trying to find clarifying case law when the statute and legislative history aren't clear. As you say, the world is not black and white, which is why it's very important that the law do as much as it can to warn people about what will or won't be considered legal *in advance* of their deciding to do it. Regardless, this entire tangent is a complete departure from the broader point I was making.

The real question is: what better way do you propose? The police can't escort every single citizen around everywhere to make sure they play nice. People need to defend themselves. I can kill a man with a drinking straw or a pencil, though I'm much more effective with my bare hands or a knife. That's not really great when a firearm is involved at range; in closed quarters, I'll take my bare hands against a guy with a gun. At range? Arms are too short to box with God.

Again, actually, no, that's not the real question. My point was that you were confusing legality with ethicality, and you're doing it again right here. I'm not arguing with you about what the law ought to be; I'm pointing out to you that what the law IS and what it OUGHT to be are not always the same thing, and therefore if you're going to use language referring to legality, your analysis needs to adhere consistently to that decision. When you go off the rails, as you do here, into questions of justification, you're getting into policy arguments. Even if some jurisdictions make distinctions more or less along the lines you do (I've no doubt some do), that doesn't change the fact that using the word "criminals" in reference to gun owners is not particularly useful when you haven't defined what you mean by "criminals." Some people are only "criminals" in some jurisdictions where they wouldn't be in others. Do you understand the distinction I'm making here? Your self-defending gun owner is, in some jurisdictions, every bit as much of a "criminal" as a home invader. That's why it's not useful to rely on "crime" statistics when making arguments about the efficacy of gun laws, given that some gun laws technically create more criminals. The better question is whether gun laws increase or reduce VIOLENCE, whether or not that violence has legal sanction.

What's with this "apologist" thing lately? It's like people wanted to find a word that says, "Well, this stuff is wrong and evil and bad, and you're saying sorry for it being wrong and evil and bad and for people doing it." Loaded wording.

Just because you dislike or don't understand something doesn't render it "loaded." I'm tempted to give you a lmgtfy link but I'll play it classier here.

an industrial or commercial site that is idle or underused because of real or perceived environmental pollution.

I prefer to undermine my arguments in an ethical manner.

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

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

Meaning #4. Welcome to the 18th century.

Retard

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/paid?s=t

A company should be legally bound to provide the servers, support and all other required infrastructure even if only one user wanted it, otherwise they loose the copyrights on their game?
What if there are not enough players to support the costs of this infrastructure? They should be forced to take a loss?

They can't "take a loss" if they aren't selling their product in the first place. If they are not willing to provide, then there is no benefit in letting them keep their monopoly.

Owning the rights to a single game and not selling it is NOT a monopoly

Monopoly is defined as

1. exclusive control of a commodity or service in a particular market, or a control that makes possible the manipulation of prices. Compare duopoly, oligopoly.
2. an exclusive privilege to carry on a business, traffic, or service, granted by a government.
3. the exclusive possession or control of something.
4. something that is the subject of such control, as a commodity or service.
5. a company or group that has such control.

source

Is not hyperbole because in context it is clearly not intended literally (it can be intended literally, but that's much rarer and context should make it obvious).

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hyperbole?s=t

hyperbole, noun:
1. obvious and intentional exaggeration.
2. an extravagant statement or figure of speech not intended to be taken literally, as “to wait an eternity.”

Well, the best way would be to get the spent fuel back, and check the amounts. U-238 could be put near the reacting material like with neutron activation testing, but I don't believe that any remotely usable P-239 could be recovered that way (hence why reactors that produce plutonium have to be specially designed). It might be possible (I'm not an expert) to produce dirty bombs by heavily neutron activating a ton of stuff, but a dirty bomb is a far cry from a nuke, and it would be a very slow process. The main problem would be finding a place to keep the spent fuel, as nobody wants to have to keep the stuff.

Dirty bombs don't work except to freak out a gullible uneducated populace. The US Army checked this out decades ago, found there was nothing there, and went on to other things. Doesn't stop the media in the US from hyping it up,though. Gotta sell those advertising slots in the evening news somehow ya know.

Seriously, though, there is no way this 'fuel bank' won't get politicized, and no way the US will stand still and let it be placed anywhere but the US. And if they get built in the US, what corporation is going to run them, for 'the good of mankind', of course, as long as it's profitable as hell. They want something viable, start getting into thorium reactors. At least stockpiling thorium has a chance of working. 'No pourmouthing, El Presidente For Life, how much uranium do you really have?' could become a thing of the past. And since thorium is non-weaponiseable, there'd be no problem for Iran to build thorium reactors for power plants. Win/win in my opinion.

Actually Dictionary.com has a slightly different definition. Why does it always come back to the Catholics? And when are they finally going to admit they're worshipping Cathol? I mean really. They've got his name right in their title!

propaganda [prop-uh-gan-duh] Show IPA
noun
1.
information, ideas, or rumors deliberately spread widely to help or harm a person, group, movement, institution, nation, etc.
2.
the deliberate spreading of such information, rumors, etc.
3.
the particular doctrines or principles propagated by an organization or movement.
4.
Roman Catholic Church .
a.
a committee of cardinals, established in 1622 by Pope Gregory XV, having supervision over foreign missions and the training of priests for these missions.
b.
a school (College of Propaganda) established by Pope Urban VIII for the education of priests for foreign missions.
5.
Archaic . an organization or movement for the spreading of propaganda.

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

I don't know if Bill could have just come out and say that. It would be offensive; better beat around the bush. Politically it's stupid to talk about religion (or politics lol). So he attacks the fruits of their beliefs instead. That only works because of a commonplace preconception of a distinct and favorable distance the concept of science has from religions; Bill is awesome.

Fundamentally creationism is the result of using the context of a religion and trying to explain observations and questions in that context. So for what its worth, a plausible definition would be applying creativity and imagination to explain an observations or answer a question in a religious context.

If you understand science to be a religion (and it fits the definition http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/religion except item 4 because scientist isn't in the list) modern scientific theories are also results of creationism insofar that an application of creativity and imagination are/were used to explain observations and answer questions in the religious context of science and its underlying belief(s). All scientific knowledge is based on at least one belief => that what is observed and/or measured is the truth. And while that may not be completely untrue, it also is not completely true; you just have to make up your own mind, take it on faith, or not.

Bill is an idiot.

Still, an interesting tidbit (this historic context of the word).

In Chinese medicine an equilibrium is the balance of two opposing forces (yin and yang energy), life and death as disease may be at issue are only two such forces. PH levels, levels of salts, happiness and anger, odds of helping and odds of harming etc. all represent other such equilibriums.

I'd be careful about those. I'm not a biologist,...

Your caution reminds me of a quote from Winston Churchill. "There are three types of lies: Lies, Damned lies, and Statistics" :)

Any science depends on observations and interpretations of those observations. While I agree with your tone regarding the wacko/conspiracy types and how their pseudo-scientific findings can seem credible, I'd like to point out: if you look at the standard definition of religion: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/religion, science fits all but the fourth definition and only because the term scientist doesn't appear.

The idea that science is based on knowledge rather then believe does not separate it from any other religion because all their "knowledge" is still based on belief. The belief that what is observed and measured is truth, in fact, observation and measurements are still faculties a human beings. Scientists distance their other beliefs or volition from their papers to try and put it in an impartial light but that too isn't always beneficial or even possible.

but from what I've seen of them they pull many of the same tricks with misinterpreting scientific data and deliberately

Half the world scientists can't agree on the cause of global warming, there are significant political agendas that look to science to back it. So when you use the words "tricks", "misinterpreting data" and "deliberately", I don't think any scientist, whether medical or otherwise is more or less wacko. Back to the same "insanity is subjective" theme.

Global warming is more a political "hot topic" than vaccines because we hear about it more, but it's no less polemic. It makes perfect political sense to try and discredit anyone who might challenge that delicate equilibrium for the good of the population. Therein lies the real issue, our various levels of committees of doctors can very well be in collusion, after all it's their credibility that comes to question if they don't agree. They are strong only if they remain united, classic games theory. They actually have no other choice.

To put it another way: The whole 'vaccination causes AUTISM!!!!' was started by a doctor with an interest in a lawsuit against vaccine companies; he stood to gain if it succeeded. Instead he eventually ended up losing his license.

I won't be joining the herd to feel secure by choosing to believe everything my committees of doctors say; I even go so far as to say that they may actually know but won't say because they too can't fall out of the ranks without personal consequences. But I offer no more generosity to the credibility of the "wacko/conspiracy" types after all they are the flip side of the same coin. I am not a biologist, so all I can do is shrug. It's an interesting paper, there are other interesting papers out there too. The world isn't perfect and nor are vaccines.

It seem that resisting vaccines because of a few hidden cases (case for conspiracy) where they did harm is a political trend. But if there where no vaccines, it would be very easy for people to easily justify those few lives for the lives of so many others a vaccine could save. It's only now that disease seems to be such a remote possibility to some people (thanks in part to vaccines, but also hygiene, scientific knowledge an others) that they feel inclined to give issue attention. Politics again!

So weighing the benefits vs the side effects... :) Please feel free to email me: lcambilargiu@gmail.com I've enjoyed our conversation.

PS. Sorry about chopping your original posting to bits. I'll try to be more mindful next time.

Theft only makes sense in one of 2 contexts, personal property or capitalism. Your example deals with the 1st and assumes that possession is binary (either I have a thing or I don't).

In the context of capitalism, and particularly with regard to copyright, the possession of a legitimate copy of a thing must be secured from someone possessing the right of distribution. The original copyright laws were passed to protect the distributor from unfair competition. (Companies without a contractual agreement with the author were selling/distributing copies of sheet music without the right to do so or the implied obligation to compensate with author in the form of royalties.)

Your argument is: specious

Adjective:

      1. Superficially plausible, but actually wrong: "a specious argument".
      2. Misleading in appearance, esp. misleadingly attractive: "a specious appearance of novelty".

..I've yet to bean a political scientist who thinks a true Communist system can ever exist among humans.

Out of curiosity, how many political scientists have you beaned*?

Bean, Verb:
Hit (someone) on the head.
dictionary.com

Well, it's stealing by the second definition here: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/steal

Bathroom = In 99.9% of the world a room where you go to shower, wash with water.... in USA room where you go empty your body of fluids etc

Wrong. American bathrooms have bath tubs, showers, sinks, and toilets. When there's no tub or shower (as in a restaraunt) it's not called a bathroom, it's called a rest room. Why it's called that I don't know. In Britain it's called a "loo", silly sounding slang word. I wonder where it came from. Here there are also other slang words for bathroom/rest room: the john, the head (a navy reference), the can (a prison reference), and many more.

Before the automobile, people would carry trunks (large wooden boxes) on their carriages. When the automobile came along, the trunk stayed... but for some inexplicable reason you insist on calling it a "boot". Where the hell did that come from?

"Hood" (American) and "Bonnet" (British) are both silly names for an engine cowling.

so NASA don't loose more rockets due to imperial units

Well, if you don't loose the rockets they can't leave the launch pad, now can they?

America decided to go off and do more of it's own thing

We always go off and do more of "it is" own thing.

As to metric, most packaging has both imperial and metric markings here.

There is an interesting aspect towards Science Fiction... The fact that it is Fiction.
fiction [fik-shuhn] Show IPA
noun
1.the class of literature comprising works of imaginative narration, especially in prose form.
2.works of this class, as novels or short stories: detective fiction.
3.something feigned, invented, or imagined; a made-up story: We've all heard the fiction of her being in delicate health.
4.the act of feigning, inventing, or imagining.
5.an imaginary thing or event, postulated for the purposes of argument or explanation.
  [reference.com]

In other words Science Fiction is not real. They are stories created by someone. There isn't any strong evidence a Warp/Hyper Space Drive will work or Time Travel is possible. Or that most planets out of the solar system if they do have life chances are it will just be the equivalent of slime on the rocks. If we do find intelligent alien life we have a chance to be able to communicate with them.

The vision of the future I see is closer to Red Dwarf then as of Star Trek. They are no Intelligent Aliens, In a couple of thousand years we may be able to colonize a few planet our of our solar system (to be a backup for humanity), over millions of years we would diverged in evolution. But this will be probably across 2 or 3 planets.

I give you: The Dictionary!

Here you have a trained killer threatening to severe heads with an axe.

I'm a former Armored Cav officer. I've been a range instructor and supervisor, and trained some of the instructors who are still active right now teaching soldiers how to use 50 cal. machine guns, grenade and rocket launchers, and even main battle tanks. I've taught courses in how to make improvised high explosives from common kitchen supplies, in amounts sufficient to lead an organized insurrection (and I still have all my fingers). So, I'd like to go on record as saying, If I ever threaten anyone with an axe, it's a metaphor or something. If I was at all serious, I'd be talking weapons that can literally do a thousand or more times that damage from literally 45 to 60,000 times that range (i.e. MLRS). Hell, If I was at all serious, I wouldn't be talking - that's called operational security, and is also a concept to which this marine was probably exposed. (And incidentally, it's sever, not severe http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sever ).
          Yes, investigate. The situation justifies reasonable care. I'd consider a 24 hour detention for evaluation to be just possibly reasonable, or a properly warrented search to see if this former marine has a weapons collection, and what kind. Maybe even those should be reserved as options following up a quick law enforcement interview. And, yes, the government has the mandate to check into thretening sounding statments and see if there's serious intent connected to them, and can put a person to at least some inconvenience following up. Most jurisdictions have some standard of just how inconvienienced the former marine can be before he he has a valid complaint of government overreaction. However, I'd have to figure that any time a well trained soldier, airman, marine, or whatever is talking about archaic weaponry such as axes, the chances is they are actually less serious than some civilian nutcase who thinks an axe is some sort of really elite weapon that might easily get them past modern arm bearing security guards and such. I don't think the Marines are suddenly teaching people that axes beat assault rifles and sub-machine guns - at least I hope not.

Perhaps you mean "still extant"? http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/extant

This constant upgrading inevitably introduces instability.

No wonder if you're trying to build a skyscraper from this.

I was assuming "Copyright © 2012Oxford University Press" complete with a link to their main website was a pretty good sign. Merriam Webster doesn't seem to generally list superlatives unless they are of an unusual form ("fast" for instance doesn't list "fastest"). Some other sources do exist, though, and I don't have access to a printed dictionary right now.

Right, because it's completely impossible for someone to find a story that's written in a particular style, which will also tend to have a similar vocabulary, and grab, reorder and glue together parts of it to make a story in a particular structure.

Oh, and "write a story" isn't an essay assignment, it's a creative writing assignment.

Yes, you do seem to be being (probably deliberately) thick.

"crisis [krahy-sis] noun, plural crises [-seez]

Example Sentences:

1. Well, let's go back to history and think about the leading indicators of financial crises and what they are.

2. However, computers are still amateurs when it comes to thinking their way through unforeseen crises such as component failures.

3. Feedbacks in the economic network can turn local crises into global ones. "

For non-native English speakers (like me), it's actually a correct ejaculation, meaning "with" or "combined with" ( http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/cum?s=t )

Dictionary.com and Merriam-Webster disagree with you.

Since when is wikipedia a good citation? Especially about something controversial, like he meaning of a twenty year old word? Remember, anybody can edit it, you don't have to be a lexicographer, all you need is an opinion enough others share. How about http://dictionary.reference.com/

Main Entry: patent troll
Part of Speech: n
Definition: a company that purchases a patent, esp. from a bankrupt firm, and then sues another company claiming that one of its products infringes on the purchased patent
Etymology: 1993
Usage: derogatory; also patent trolling, (n.)

Although I'm afraid the definition is a bit nebulous, it's not in Webster's.

Sounds suspiciously like a sociopath

a person with a psychopathic personality whose behavior is antisocial, often criminal, and who lacks a sense of moral responsibility or social conscience.

Those are bad. They tend to end up in jail or a mental institution... for good reason.

s/synch/cinch/

A cinch is a sure thing, easy.

"Synch" would be pronounced "SEENK", be more generally spelled "sync", and mean "to synchronize" or "a synchronization".

Though I suppose you might mean that restoration is actually some kind of synchronization (from the backup to the live server), in which case this is a very clever pun. But I doubt it.

The meaning of the term hacker hasn't changed and isn't the problem. Hackers have always been perceived as intruders, as trouble. They've always seen themselves as students and masters of techology, driven by curiosity more than anything else.

Just look up "hack" in the dictionary (e.g. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Hack). Calling yourself a "hacker" is pretty much asking to be viewed in a pejorative light.

Which is probably not a coincidence. "Tinkerer" sounds lame. "Hacker" is edgy.

Recent rhetorical efforts to redefine the meaning of the word "natural" is just an attempt to legitimise our actions and excuse ourselves of our responsibility for those actions. It is a rhetoric that can be applied to any situation: It's in my nature to be angry, and other primates also commit murder -> murder is natural, so my murdering my wife is natural and therefore I shouldn't be punished for it.

As rhetoric goes it is also a philosophical cul-de-sac. By saying that every effect is natural, there is nothing that is unnatural - the distinction becomes meaningless.

I don't think we shoiuld accept this redefinition. We know it's root cause - it is the same lie as treating denial as scepticism, people redefining their illogic to attain legitimacy. Illegitimacy should be called out at source.