Slashdot Mirror

Death can be reversible or non reversible.

<face-palm> Sorry, no. Just no. I don't care if you're an MD; words have meaning. If a person's heart stops and you revive him by cardio resuscitation, you are not reanimating a dead person. You are stopping a person from dying. I'll lay heavy odds that you would do the right thing if the patient's heart and breathing stop and the patient loses consciousness, because I have high regard and respect for anyone who has successfully passed through the grueling process of becoming a medical doctor. But I would argue that proper use of terms is particularly important in the field.

Wikipedia: "Death is the cessation or permanent termination of all biological functions that sustain a living organism." Cessation; not interruption.

Merriam-Webster.com: "a permanent cessation of all vital functions: the end of life."

Dictionary.com: "the end of life; the total and permanent cessation of all the vital functions of an organism."

MedicalDictionary.theFreeDictionary.com: "Death is defined as the cessation of all vital functions of the body including the heartbeat, brain activity (including the brain stem), and breathing." Cessation, not interruption.

Euthanasia.procon.org: "the cessation of life; permanent cessation of all vital bodily functions. For legal and medical purposes, the following definition of death has been proposed-the irreversible cessation of all of the following: (1) total cerebral function, usually assessed by EEG as flat-line (2) spontaneous function of the respiratory system, and (3) spontaneous function of the circulatory system..." There are those pesky words again, permanent and irreversible.

The Definition of Death (Stanford Encylopedia of Philosophy: "According to the organismic definition, death is the irreversible loss of functioning of the organism as a whole (Becker 1975; Bernat, Culver, and Gert 1981)." ... "According to the mainstream whole-brain approach, the human brain plays the crucial role of integrating major bodily functions so only the death of the entire brain is necessary and sufficient for a human being's death (Bernat, Culver, and Gert 1981)." ... "According to the higher-brain standard, human death is the irreversible cessation of the capacity for consciousness...Although no jurisdiction has adopted the higher-brain standard, it enjoys the support of many scholars (see, e.g., Veatch 1975; Engelhardt 1975; Green and Wikler 1980; Gervais 1986; Bartlett and Youngner 1988; Puccetti 1988; Rich 1997; and Baker 2000)." Each of those three definitions shares the necessary component of "irreversible".

You need to use a dictionary more often. Just because you don't like what someone else is posting doesn't make it incorrect. Apple is censoring content.

Your assertion is not the same thing as a dictionary. You are just as mistaken as the other poster if you think that a store choosing not to stock a product is censorship. You don't understand the word.

How about backing that up with some actual dictionary references instead of asserting your opinion as a definition?
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/censorship
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/censorship
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/censor
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/cultureshock/whodecides/definitions.html

Some definitions mention "official", but not all mention government as a necessary component.

Censorship is a word of many meanings. In its broadest sense it refers to suppression of information, ideas, or artistic expression by anyone, whether government officials, church authorities, private pressure groups, or speakers, writers, and artists themselves. It may take place at any point in time, whether before an utterance occurs, prior to its widespread circulation, or by punishment of communicators after dissemination of their messages, so as to deter others from like expression. In its narrower, more legalistic sense, censorship means only the prevention by official government action of the circulation of messages already produced. Thus writers who "censor" themselves before putting words on paper, for fear of failing to sell their work, are not engaging in censorship in this narrower sense, nor are those who boycott sponsors of disliked television shows.
--Academic American Encyclopedia

Reading. It's not just for the landed gentry any more.

You need to use a dictionary more often. Just because you don't like what someone else is posting doesn't make it incorrect. Apple is censoring content.

Your assertion is not the same thing as a dictionary. You are just as mistaken as the other poster if you think that a store choosing not to stock a product is censorship. You don't understand the word.

How about backing that up with some actual dictionary references instead of asserting your opinion as a definition?
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/censorship
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/censorship
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/censor
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/cultureshock/whodecides/definitions.html

Some definitions mention "official", but not all mention government as a necessary component.

Censorship is a word of many meanings. In its broadest sense it refers to suppression of information, ideas, or artistic expression by anyone, whether government officials, church authorities, private pressure groups, or speakers, writers, and artists themselves. It may take place at any point in time, whether before an utterance occurs, prior to its widespread circulation, or by punishment of communicators after dissemination of their messages, so as to deter others from like expression. In its narrower, more legalistic sense, censorship means only the prevention by official government action of the circulation of messages already produced. Thus writers who "censor" themselves before putting words on paper, for fear of failing to sell their work, are not engaging in censorship in this narrower sense, nor are those who boycott sponsors of disliked television shows.
--Academic American Encyclopedia

Reading. It's not just for the landed gentry any more.

Yada-yada

Yeah, right

the racist xenophobes outside the US

You really need to brush up on your definitions. Fearing, criticising and even hating the neocolonial terrorist state that is the USA for its hegemony - military, economic or otherwise is, if anything, reasonable (as in, it has its logical reason), not xenophobic and certainly not racist. The USA was built on racism and never ceased to be racist in its internal and foreign policies, so you're simply projecting.

I myself was a fan of everything USAn up until 2003. Never again.

Dictionary.com disagrees with your definition of game; the ability to win is not part of the definition.

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

What is often overlooked is that the word initiative in the context of government has a specific meaning: "the general right or ability to present a new bill or measure, as in a legislature."

His statement was worded poorly, but also true.

No, I meant 'regimen' (government). Both 'regime' and 'regimen' can be used with this meaning.

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

In English, "The Americas" is the correct way (correct because it's the unambiguous way) to refer to both north and south America. North America is unambiguously North America. Same for South America.

No it is not: As you seem to have been checking wikipedia, you could have looked for the relevent reference.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Americas

Or if you need a dictionary entry, here it goes:

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

"America" is a word used in English to define the sum of both South and North America. It is also used (in English as well) to define each one of them by omitting the "South" and "North" words in the same way you omit "United States of" when you use America to refer to your country.

You can use "America" to classify a continent or the set of two continents, depending on how you see it. It is irrelevant. Either way the word is a synonym to "Americas" and can be used this way in correct English.

You are the one that is wrong. Saying otherwise for the first time shows ignorance. Keep insisting on it, shows stubbornness.

Looking at the definition in Merriam-Webster, or Dictionary.com or simply googling "define:speech"... the definitions aren't nearly that wide. Most specifically mention that you need to utter/articulate/whatever by vocal means and the example phrases in both my links directly contrast speech and written form. This is supported by the fact that constitution had to specifically mention freedom of printed press and it wasn't simply thought "Well, the speech already covers that". I also would argue that speech in common language isn't that wide but that could be a matter of opinion so I won't go there.

I do agree that political messages through paintings, music or even stripping yourself naked to protest demeaning searches should be protected under constitution of the US but I'm not that sure that they are. In general, the whole "speech" word is highly problematic and there should be an errata. For example, where I live (more recent nation than the US), the constitution doesn't mention "Free speech" but it does mention Freedom of religion and conscience, Freedom of expression and right of access to information, Freedom of assembly and freedom of association, each of which is further defined by its own paragraph. For example, description of freedom of information is:

Everyone has the freedom of expression. Freedom of expression entails the right to express, disseminate and receive information, opinions and other communications without prior prevention by anyone. More detailed provisions on the exercise of the freedom of expression are laid down by an Act. Provisions on restrictions relating to pictorial programmes that are necessary for the protection of children may be laid down by an Act.

Which makes it very clear that if it's information or expression, it is protected. Exceptions are the one directly mentioned and where it breaks other peoples' constitutional rights for reasons other than being expression (for example, constitution also protects the right to property, so I can't break your stuff and say "It's just my artistic expression").

However, I doubt that we are going to see any clarifications to the constitution of the US anytime soon. It is treated like a religious document: Instead of people debating what it should say and should it be modified to say that, people debate how it could be interpreted to support the views they already have.

a native or inhabitant of any country of North, Central, or South America

America is not just "The United States of America". There are some continents that go by the name too.

Try clicking BOTH links to see where they go. HINT: Slashdot is only half of them.

Still a valid question about why a summary posted to Slashdot links to Slashdot. I think most people that are reading Slashdot already know the URL.

But my bigger pet peeve is when a summary contains five different links and you have to play "link roulette" to try to guess the one that takes you to the relevant article - hovering over them to look at the URL's doesn't always tell you which is the relevant one.

I guarantee you violated some kind of TOS doing that, which means they can decide to kick you off their network.

I highly doubt that. Can you show us the part of the TOS which says this? If not, what's your guarantee for?

He was specifically afraid of his mother catching him and doing something extreme. His mother, who was in the habit of lighting up with him.

Paranoia
1. Psychiatry . a mental disorder characterized by systematized delusions and the projection of personal conflicts, which are ascribed to the supposed hostility of others, sometimes progressing to disturbances of consciousness and aggressive acts believed to be performed in self-defense or as a mission.
2. baseless or excessive suspicion of the motives of others.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/paranoia?s=t&ld=1032

Seriously? 40% is peanuts? Because that's exactly what the original statement implies.

No, that's not what the original statement implies. The definition of the word "most" ) is "the majority". If 60% of Belgians speak Dutch as their first language, that means the majority, that means "most Belgians speak Dutch". It implies absolutely nothing beyond "there are more Belgians that speak Dutch as their first language than Belgians that speak another language as their first language".
The fact that so many people, like you, read politico-lingual issues into that factual statement is a testament to how rotten the situation in Belgium is. I do not disagree with you on that point and I see no way out. But it's still just a very simple, neutral fact that more Belgians speak Dutch as their first language than any other language.

The dictionary backs you up.

maÂniÂacâ â/ËmeÉniËOEæk/ Show Spelled[mey-nee-ak] Show IPA
noun
1. a raving or violently insane person; lunatic.
2. any intemperate or overly zealous or enthusiastic person: a maniac when it comes to details.

adjective

3. maniacal.
Origin:
1595â"1605; Medieval Latin maniacus of, pertaining to madness. See mania, -ac
Dictionary.com Unabridged
Based on the Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2012.

Example Sentences
On one hand, the idea of a crazy maniac on board is spine chilling.
In the same vein, someone who is extremely cool is considered either fresh or maniac.
The author is being chased by an ax-wielding maniac and rushes to a nearby lighthouse to escape.

Has been since 1826: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/shutter

Horde - a large group, multitude, or number. Seems to work just fine, thanks.

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

I live in central Maryland. There is more to this than just a Derecho. We get every two to three years. They're not unheard of.

WTF are you talking about? "Derecho?

No; prohibition, by definition, is a total ban.

Restriction != prohibition.

I don't know what you have in your understanding, so I'll leave #1 alone (although I suspect it's not the real explanation.)

As for #2, "enforcement" is a weird process. Merchants are broken into four Tiers, where retailers processing more than X million credit trans a year are in Tier 1, and so on. The higher the tier, the more stringent the auditing and requirements, and the higher the fines for non-compliance. A tier 1 retailer might be spending $5 million dollars per year (or more!) in compliance audits. Get down to the small business level of Linn Wu's Chinese Kitchen, and she doesn't care too much if she writes your card number down over the phone when she's taking your order. She might face a $150 fine for non-compliance, and that's only if someone complains.

Where PCI DSS makes most of a difference is if you have a breach. Then, they'll retroactively audit you, find out wherever the leak originated and then fine you like crazy for being out of compliance. The really weird thing is it doesn't matter what your pre-breach auditor determined whether or not you were in compliance - if you were breached, you couldn't have been compliant because had you been following their rules you obviously would have stopped the attack!

It's a noisy and expensive game that's making a small mountain of QSA auditing firms rich, but is providing little more than a dubious amount of "protection" to the retailers. And by "protection", I mean definition 5 of protection as in "Well suppose some of your tanks was to get broken and troops started getting lost, or fights started breaking out during general inspection, like. It wouldn't be good for business, would it, Colonel?"

On the flip side, it seems to be having a positive effect on security. The attacks have had to become much more sophisticated, meaning the attackers need that much more skill to pull them off. That keeps more of the riff-raff skript kiddi3s out. And really, I think it stops a lot more of the internal theft of data by unskilled workers.

You know "shock" has more than 1 definition right?

Yes, I missed a part of the definition - all three masts must be square rigged. Schooners use a fore and aft rig. Dictionary.com also omits the requirement to have a bowsprit. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ship

Ship did have a precise definition, and what you said about sea-faring isn't really true because most of the designs were copied by cultures in contact with one another. Also, the English navy (a central authority) gave everything they saw, and it's those names and definitions, and descendants thereof, that we use in English today.

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

HREF that somehow ended up missing from my original post: ELINT, sigh...

Moot. Your issue is moot moot.

If one provider dies, hope there is another. If there isn't, your SOL. If RIAA decides that a song violates a copyright and pulls it from all streaming... tough.

Has that happened? Band releases a single, it goes on the radio, then it's yanked for all eternity? If it happens at all, it's rare.
A better example would be Disney and their "Vault."

I think a very real danger would be "The RIAA decides that YOU have violated copyright and bar you from their music streaming services." A very easy way to punish people who break their policies, as without the physical media you have no way to listen/watch anything you'd enjoyed from the streaming services in the previous years.

This isn't about owning or renting online... this is about streaming, (i.e. pandora, slackware,etc). Think radio, your issue is mute. If one provider dies just select another. You're not purchasing anything.

Moot. Your issue is moot moot.

If one provider dies, hope there is another. If there isn't, your SOL. If RIAA decides that a song violates a copyright and pulls it from all streaming... tough.
vs
I have a local copy, it will never die unless I choose.

Ah, no, it is a general purpose word, used in print since at least 1865.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/swoosh
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/swoosh
http://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/british/swoosh
http://dictionary.reverso.net/english-definition/swoosh
http://www.ldoceonline.com/dictionary/swoosh

Not one of those dictionaries mentions Nike.

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

devolution
[dev-uh-loo-shuhn or, especially Brit., dee-vuh-] Example Sentences Origin
devolution
  [dev-uh-loo-shuhn or, especially Brit., dee-vuh-] Show IPA
noun
1.
the act or fact of devolving; passage onward from stage to stage.
2.
the passing on to a successor of an unexercised right.
3.
Law . the passing of property from one to another, as by hereditary succession.
4.
Biology . degeneration.
5.
the transfer of power or authority from a central government to a local government.
Origin:
1535–45; ( Middle French ) Medieval Latin dvoltin- (stem of dvolti ) a rolling down, equivalent to Latin dvolt ( us ) rolled down (past participle of dvolvere; see devolve) + -in- -ion

Ignoring that that's not true--as rape doesn't require sexual intercourse, such ignores that cutting off the penis of a man or sewing up the vagina of a woman is itself a sexual offense, mutilation, etc.

I am not sure what definition of rape you use but the definition I know of requires sexual intercourse. Also, I didn't say it would stop sexual mutilation, just rape.

Does it mean an outright ban? I don't think that's needed. But, I could see the rational behind registration, logging of gun transfers, and things like microstamps to at least try to narrow down the possibilities.

I don't mind registration. I don't see the point to microstamping. As someone else already mentioned, it is basically the gun equivalent of DRM. It is a waste of resources (criminals will just use revolvers), it hinders those who are using guns legitimately (increases cost), and it is ineffective on stopping those that are criminals (filing the pin).

I really question, though, how many law-abiding citizens really need a gun for defense vs it just being an object to fetish away their fears; as the simple truth is that either you're unlikely to have the gun on you and readily usable when the time arises (ie, a criminal already has you at gun point) and odds are good that any attempt to brandish your gun when you do have the time risks escalating a conflict unnecessarily or potentially painting you as a target since it seems way too few people who own guns have sufficient, regular training to actually be necessarily good shots.

Consider how difficult it is to legally carry a gun in a lot of areas, you are right, you will most likely not have a gun around when you need it. But that is not the fault of the gun.

In short, I'd probably feel a lot better about the whole situation if there was more "well regulated" training and more limited ownership as a matter of social expectation instead of treating guns as some sort of defensive panacea.

I have no problem with requiring a reasonable amount of training in order to carry a gun. As long as we don't require ridiculous amounts of time and make it prohibitively expensive. Also, we should not have to be law enforcement in order to carry around a gun without worrying about accidentally breaking an obscure or foolish gun law.

    Maybe he really did mean proscribe. I kind of doubt it though. :)

please expound on the inherent disadvantages and obstacles privileged white people must overcome.

I'm going to assume that the world "privileged" got to your post by accident rather than as an attempt of deliberately engaging in a tautology ("privileged people are privileged").

We get sunburn more easily than darker-skinned people. They, in turn, are worse at making vitamin-D at greater latitudes. These are pretty much the only inherent (dis)advantages a race grants to anyone.

As for non-inherent disadvantages, random assholes group "white people" together and pretend that a typical person of European descent is a British colonial lord or a Southern plantation owner living a life of luxury while slaves toil on their behalf, then use this ridiculous strawman to justify calling all white people privileged. For whatever reason, this seems to be especially fashionable amongst the people self-identifying as liberals, and ironically enough sometimes reaches the point of outright racism, when one starts talking about the inherent disadvantages of not being white.

Just out of curiosity, you do know what inherent means, right? Specifically, that how other people treat you is not inherent to you? And that claiming that one race is inherently advantaged or disadvantaged above or below another is pretty much the definition of racism?

please expound on the inherent disadvantages and obstacles privileged white people must overcome.

I'm going to assume that the world "privileged" got to your post by accident rather than as an attempt of deliberately engaging in a tautology ("privileged people are privileged").

We get sunburn more easily than darker-skinned people. They, in turn, are worse at making vitamin-D at greater latitudes. These are pretty much the only inherent (dis)advantages a race grants to anyone.

As for non-inherent disadvantages, random assholes group "white people" together and pretend that a typical person of European descent is a British colonial lord or a Southern plantation owner living a life of luxury while slaves toil on their behalf, then use this ridiculous strawman to justify calling all white people privileged. For whatever reason, this seems to be especially fashionable amongst the people self-identifying as liberals, and ironically enough sometimes reaches the point of outright racism, when one starts talking about the inherent disadvantages of not being white.

Just out of curiosity, you do know what inherent means, right? Specifically, that how other people treat you is not inherent to you? And that claiming that one race is inherently advantaged or disadvantaged above or below another is pretty much the definition of racism?

Good god, man. It's synching. Short for synchronizing. Or am I just not hip with the newspeak?

It's sync . "Synch" looks like it would sound more like "cinch". But otherwise you are correct.

The last time I "sinked" my phone, I had to buy a new one since it wasn't waterproof. :-)

Good god, man. It's synching. Short for synchronizing. Or am I just not hip with the newspeak?

It's sync . "Synch" looks like it would sound more like "cinch". But otherwise you are correct.

The last time I "sinked" my phone, I had to buy a new one since it wasn't waterproof. :-)

incompetent

see also...

irony and possibly... usability

incompetent

see also...

irony and possibly... usability

incompetent

see also...

irony and possibly... usability

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/resolution disagrees (scroll down to "Computing Resolution")

Fair point, but the age of a story really has nothing to do with whether it is a myth or not.

Both ancient and more modern religious stories can be correctly labelled as "myth", assuming the intended definition is: "a traditional or legendary story, usually concerning some being or hero or event, with or without a determinable basis of fact or a natural explanation, especially one that is concerned with deities or demigods and explains some practice, rite, or phenomenon of nature." http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/myth

I find this article annoying as the poster is using this article to promote his point of view which is biased and misleading.

The CSIRO is a scientific research organization and as such it can in no way commercialize the technology.

I agree that it was sad that CSIRO have to take companies to court to defend their patents but if these these companies would play by the rules and license the technology then CSIRO would not have to resort to the flawed legal system.

The fact that you do not like the way it uses patents to fund research is neither here nor their it as it is using patent law for it's intended purpose which is different from a person or organization that uses patents purely for litigation.

I would ask the poster that if he is going to submit propaganda that at least he should be truthful and honest about what he is doing.

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

Yes, we are a representative democracy... and a republic.

You are correct about the definition of republic, unless you're American. When the term is used to refer to America, republic == representative democracy.

Dictionary:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/republic
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/republic

Wikipedia explains (first paragraph.. the rest included because it's interesting):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic

United States

A distinct set of definitions for the word republic evolved in the United States. In common parlance a republic is a state that does not practice direct democracy but rather has a government indirectly controlled by the people. This understanding of the term was originally developed by James Madison, and notably employed in Federalist Paper No. 10. This meaning was widely adopted early in the history of the United States, including in Noah Webster's dictionary of 1828. It was a novel meaning to the term; representative democracy was not an idea mentioned by Machiavelli and did not exist in the classical republics.[53]

The term republic does not appear in the Declaration of Independence, but does appear in Article IV of the Constitution which "guarantee[s] to every State in this Union a Republican form of Government." What exactly the writers of the constitution felt this should mean is uncertain. The Supreme Court, in Luther v. Borden (1849), declared that the definition of republic was a "political question" in which it would not intervene. In two later cases, it did establish a basic definition. In United States v. Cruikshank (1875), the court ruled that the "equal rights of citizens" were inherent to the idea of republic.

However, the term republic is not synonymous with the republican form. The republican form is defined as one in which the powers of sovereignty are vested in the people and are exercised by the people, either directly, or through representatives chosen by the people, to whom those powers are specially delegated. In re Duncan, 139 U.S. 449, 11 S.Ct. 573, 35 L.Ed. 219; Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. (21 Wall.) 162, 22 L.Ed. 627. [54]

Beyond these basic definitions the word republic has a number of other connotations. W. Paul Adams observes that republic is most often used in the United States as a synonym for state or government, but with more positive connotations than either of those terms.[55] Republicanism is often referred to as the founding ideology of the United States. Traditionally scholars believed this American republicanism was a derivation of the liberal ideologies of John Locke and others developed in Europe.

A political philosophy of republicanism that formed during the Renaissance period, and initiated by Machiavelli, was thought to have had little impact on the founders of the United States. In the 1960s and 1970s a revisionist school[citation needed] led by the likes of Bernard Bailyn began to argue that republicanism was just as or even more important than liberalism in the creation of the United States.[56] This issue is still much disputed and scholars like Isaac Kramnick completely reject this view.[57]

In-N-Out is not comparable to McDonalds et al. Most McDonalds are franchises; wages are not set by the corporation. In-N-Out sells a premium product. The In-N-Outs I've seen are drivethrough only.

My experience has been just the opposite, all had inside seating, though they all did have drive-thrus. Once you have had In-N-Out, those other burgers just do not taste as good, something about everything, and I mean everything fresh, nothing frozen philosophy with their supply chain. And the prices are excellent, even in this economy.

And I have never been charged an additional fee for eating inside, to sit down, as I was at McDonalds in the last two weeks...I needed a place to do some work (and there was no In-N-Out nearby, sadly) while waiting on an appointment, had a $1.00 burger (off dollar menu) that cost $1.40, so much for the dollar menu. Did not notice the fee for eating inside the place until after, next time, even if I intend to sit down, I will just tell them that its "to go" and dare them to come say something to me. That will be an interesting conversation. "But sir you did not pay to eat inside." "Please sir can you talk in a lower voice so our other patrons don't look at their receipts and realize we are ripping them off." or perhaps "Were are the linens and silver ware..."

Ford's high wages achieved the goal of acquiring only the best workers. If all manufacturers had started to pay the same as Ford, Ford would not have gotten the best workers, the competitive advantage would disappeared, and Ford's experiment might have failed.

The only reason that they do not pay more is they do not have too. Period. And I repeat as in the original post, Ford was no saint, just a smart businessman, he was reportedly pretty brutal on the shop floor, especially if anyone dared to mention the word union. They were literally beaten according to what I have read.

Health costs are not paid for out of nothing. If a person's living expenses exceed the value of what he produces, he is a net burden on society. He then lives either on charity or theft (one form of theft is getting support from the government.)

There are some, esp the 1%, that like to throw that out there, net burden on society, I think I have heard useless breathers or useless eaters as well...as if those saying that would know what its like to plow a field, gather the eggs from chickens they shucked corn for; bring in the tobacco and hang it in the barn to dry, pick the cotton, clean out the outhouse or my favorite, slop the hogs (have done most of those first hand and I still voted Republican in my first election...later Democrat...now I see the system for what it is and how most (including me at one time) are misled. But I digress.

No they are not paid out of nothing, but the way they game the system, the amount spent on Administration, the amount spent on lobbying all current elected leaders from all parties is just SICK. More than enough to cover health care 100% for every American for the next 10 years without anyone losing their jobs. Not only is the current Health care system SICK, its pervertedly evil, squeezing doctors, patients, everyone involved in every possible way and for what, bonuses for people that know what is in their drugs and thanks to this knowledge will never allow any of their family to take them. Have you watched the Doctors, Nurses and Pharmacists get squeezed from one period to the next over time as has happened in my family. When Reagan was elected, the economy was still doing well people had money to spend, so it was easy to blame everything on malpractice insurance, which while a problem, was THE PROBLEM back in the day....now its just one more problem.

One good definition deserves another...

fascism ~ ( sometimes initial capital letter ) a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing

In fact, neuroscience and psychology points the opposite direction: happiness leads to success.

I don't know where you read that, but psychology and neurosciences (there are several) will never be able to show that, because happiness and success are totally unrelated !

I'll just quote myself from another post here which you probably missed. I'm saying as a matter of fact, based on good science, that the human brain is generally more productive and powerful when it's happy, which leads to increased success, but having success does not reliably trigger happy brain states. Clear enough? For just one study, see Lyubomirsky, S., King, L. & Diener, E. (2005) The benefits of frequent positive affect: Does happiness lead to success? Psychological Bulletin, 131, 803-855.

Firstly, because you need to define what success is. If success is living a life doing a lot of things, you'll get a rich life, but probably not a wealthy one. If success is making a lot of money, it just means that you tend to take risks, it's like betting your life on your choices. The risk of getting unsuccessful is greater than the risk of getting successful.

It's a good thing to think about. I define success in the dictionary definition: the favorable or prosperous termination of attempts or endeavors.

In any case, I don't see how this can lead to happiness.... blah blah more stuff to show you missed my point entirely.... The happy guys never brag about being happy.

Read my post again. I did not say that success leads to happiness. You are arguing against a straw man.

No, it's clearly a value-based term when discussing the information you consider when buying a food product.

Here's a link that might help. Peanuts might kill someone. wheat might make someone sick. GMOs, or anything else not labeled, will not. The difference is pretty clear. You want to know something like that? Fair enough. You want to force others to tell you? Nope, just don't buy it then.

It's being a market worshiper to say that those dominant in the market should be able to determine what information they withhold from their customers rather than their customers being able to determine what information they choose to base their purchase decisions on.

First off, there is a big difference between withholding information and not putting it on a label. If you did that, there would be way too much to label. It isn't being a market worshiper if you say that only essential items should be labeled any anything after than should be voluntary. How hard is that to comprehend?

Yep! People do deserve to know about their food. All of the details they choose to know.

I want to know the complete list of mutations in my food. Do you care? Too bad, I want you to pay for it.

That includes knowing whether or not a vaccine uses mercury or any other ingredient they would base this decision on.

And if you look at food ingredients you can already tell if something is GE.

Er, I'm saying that democracy should be able to promote knowledge—you're the one insisting that GMO food producers should be entitled to use their market weight to ensure ignorance by preventing informed consent.

So, if an apple grower does not tell you what sport they use every time you buy their apples, that is promoting ignorance? No. there is a difference between preventing people from knowing things and not telling them.

You cannot discover the information unless it is labeled.

Tell that to vegans who call companies up to discover what exactly is in the 'natural ingredients' portion of the label, or to the Muslims who call companies to find out what type of gelatin they use. Has doing the homework ever occurred to you?

You're promoting a labeling regime that reinforces this, I'm promoting a labeling regime that allows customers to seek out the information.

No, I'm promoting letting science determine a baseline for what, at minimum, must be labeled, then letting everything else follow market demand. You are promoting an unrealistic system of forcing what you want upon food producers and demanding everyone else pay for it.

I'm promoting informed consent.

When you buy something, it has the ingredients on it. That is informed consent. Is there more you would like to know that it does not say? Don't buy it then. You are free to walk away, just like a Muslim who does not know how a piece of beef was slaughtered is free to not eat it.

In the post you're replying to, I reiterated a list of aspects of food that I want to know about. You ignored it twice. I'm not singling out anything. And I'm not making any comment about the science of GMO, nor calling it "bad", nor asking for "warning" labels. I'm promoting an effort of customers to be better informed about the products they're purchasing.

Fair enough. I must have missed the comment the first time around. It is still unrealistic. If you want to know what state something came from, what variety of crops were used, how they were developed, what genes they have, what proteins are produced, the nature of those proteins, what lines were crossed to make them, who developed the crops, how the crops were propagated, who propagated them, what fertilizers were used, where those fertilizers c

You're a Very Bad Pedant.

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

I'm so sick of this little factoid. See the wikipedia page or dictionary definition of "democracy". The United States fits the bill.

No *woosh* at all, I just wanted you to admit that first.

So now that you believe in all religions as possible, you are going to hell (or the equivalent) according to all of them.

Religion A states if you believe in any other god but theirs, you will go to hell. You state you do, so hell bound you are.
Religion B states if you believe in any other god but theirs, you will go to purgatory. You state you do, so purgatory bound you are.
Religion C states if you believe in any other god, you will be stoned to death. You state you do, so you better keep quiet about that or other followers will try to murder you.

You also equally believe in unicorns and fairies, since that too is impossible to know or prove.
Anyone who believes in unicorns and fairies is clearly delusional.

Definately not a *woosh* on anyone but possibly you, except I think you do know how ridiculous you sound with such claims, so I'm guessing it isn't over your head one bit.

The only rational option when it comes to Gods is: If God wants me to do or not do something, it's up to God to let me know, stop me, or force me.
Lacking that, the only assumption that can be made is I am not involved with Gods plans, and so those plans should not concern me. If they don't concern me, there is no need to adjust my own plans for life around them.

And before you say it, no I do not consider a book re-written hundreds of times by MAN to be the word of any God. A god, to fit the definition, would not need a book to let their wishes known. They would have an infinite number of means to assure we know without a doubt, if that was their goal.
Either god exists and doesn't care what we do, or god does not exist and it again doesn't matter what we do.

We have a name for people who hear and see things that no one else hears or sees because they are proven to not be there. Delusional.

I also see no reason to take into account any opinion or thoughts you might have, seeing as you admit you already broke the highest commandments of all the religions you feel are equally true.
If you can't keep yourself behaving properly to go to a heaven, then why would I want to follow you?

You keep using that word "justice." I do not think it means what you think it means.

No, actually, I think parent to your post has a perfect grasp of what both the word "justice", and the concept of justice, mean - and you have a poor one.

Justice: "noun 1. the quality of being just; righteousness, equitableness, or moral rightness ... 3. the moral principle determining just conduct. ... 5. the administering of deserved punishment or reward.". Your definition of justice as a legal concept is a side issue and not the primary definition of the word.

As long as you get the things you want and need, you may not care whether others less privileged do, and for the sake of argument that may even be a rational and supportable view - but it is not just, by the very definition of the word.

You are comparing his statement to supporting rape? I think maybe you have a problem with blowing shit out of proportion.

No, I'm comparing his statement to blaming the victim, Like it's somehow my fault Verizon hasn't upgraded their infrastructure to support all the unlimited data plans they've sold. I think maybe you have a problem with reading comprehension.

As for not wanting you to use unlimited amounts of data, they don't, which is why they are changing the plan. They tried it, some people, probably you, used way too much data and wouldn't moderate usage, so they aren't selling unlimited plans anymore.

Yea, because it's my fault a heavily-taxpayer-subsidized, heavily-immune-from-prosecution telco sold a bunch of bandwidth they didn't have, meanwhile fought against upgrading their infrastructure, and I have the audacity to hold them to their promise of unlimited data. Right. That's a logical conclusion. Sure. And the Pope is an 80-story space lizard.

FYI, aside from the occasional ISO download, my usage typically falls into the 0-2GB/Mo. range. But some of us are principled people, and when someone sells us something with feature X, it better by-god have it, regardless of whether we plan on using it or not.

Unlimited to many reasonable people doesn't mean "No limits at all of any kind," it means "No specific or preset limits."

Ah, I see, didn't realize I was talking to Merriam Webster here, who apparently gets to define both the terms "reasonable" and "unlimited." My bad.

For those of us who don't write our own dictionaries, "unlimited" is defined as:
1. not limited; unrestricted; unconfined: unlimited trade.
2. boundless; infinite; vast: the unlimited skies.
3. without any qualification or exception; unconditional.

If that's not what Verizon meant to sell me when they sold me an unlimited data plan, that's their fuck up for not knowing English.

For example at work.. we have no traffic shaping, no port rate limits, you can use as much is available, which is a lot. However, it is shared among lots of people. If everyone tried to slam it 24/7 we'd get shit speeds. So you have to moderate your usage.

As a hypothetical employee, let's assume one whose function at the company is not networking related, why should I give 2 fucks about bandwidth usage? That's the network admin's problem, and if he's a useless slacker who can't figure out a load balancer from a hole in the ground that's his problem and fault, not mine.

Fail to do so and we'll notice, and come and talk to you, and if necessary cut your net off.

Riiiight, because the "admin" who can't figure out queuing and load balancing will totally be doing deep packet inspection and monitoring.

In that scenario, I would probably ask management why our IT folks have time to spy on everyone's usage, but not the time to make sure that everything works, and get their worthless asses fired.

It is "unlimited" in that we don't set any hard limits, but that doesn't mean you can use all of it all the time.

What you describe is known as a "conditional limitation, " (see definition 3 above), and thus is not unlimited.

The obvious difference is, at work I am not a customer, and thus have not signed a contract in which the company promises me unlimited data bandwidth in exchange for money, so yea, there's no obligation on the part of my employer to guarantee a specific amount of bandwidth and/or usage. Your example is non sequitur in that you ignore the world of difference between employer/employee and customer/vendor relationships.

That entitled attitude is precisely why companies have to start setting limits.

In fact, the term "halo effect" was coined in this context to describe people who became Apple fans because of buying iPhones, making them more likely to buy Apple computers.

There's a problem with how you define one or more of the following:
fact
halo effect
was
coined

Do you, by any chance, work for Apple? (If not, keep in mind that you might be very positively received as an Apple job applicant.)