Slashdot Mirror

Here, and in other places, I keep hearing the word "liberal" used as a put-down. Some how insinuating that being a "liberal" is bad. My question to all of you is... Why?

Definition of Liberal

I'm actually quite proud to be a liberal. Seems to be a more accepting, forward thinking type of person.

Marriage is very much already defined by most people as being between a man and a woman. It was never a generic term. How you can suggest otherwise is beyond me.

Marriage is only defined as being between a man and a women because that's what the majority of countries only allow. This is circular reasoning - the definition follows from the way things are, and then saying that things should stay the way they are because that's the definition.

Certainly the word marriage can be used in more general terms (not even between people, eg, a marriage of two ideas), so opposite gender is not something that is intrinsic to the definition, but something that follows from the way things currently are.

Take a look at http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=marriage. It seems that all of the "man and woman" definitions are talking about the legal sense of marriage, but the non-legal definitions talk about "two people".

Of course, I'd be happy if marriage was dropped as a legal concept altogether and replaced with some other word, but then people would moan that their right to marry was being taken away.

[Use of the word "effectuate" whose dictionary status is disputed] makes the patent sound like it was written by George Bush.

If so, then our President would be right, as respected dictionaries confirm that to "effectuate" means to "bring about".

Actually both are acceptible and mean the same thing.

While, "Quoth", and "Umm", may not technically fit that description, "Boxen", most certainly does.

While, "Quoth", and "Umm", may not technically fit that description, "Boxen", most certainly does.

While, "Quoth", and "Umm", may not technically fit that description, "Boxen", most certainly does.

So two out of ten, at least for me, and neither of those two are particularly griping.

I think you mean gripping. All the comments on those stories seem to be griping. :)

Mark

PS In accordence with ISO Flaming Standards, this spelling flame contains one (1) spelling error.

So two out of ten, at least for me, and neither of those two are particularly griping.

I think you mean gripping. All the comments on those stories seem to be griping. :)

Mark

PS In accordence with ISO Flaming Standards, this spelling flame contains one (1) spelling error.

So two out of ten, at least for me, and neither of those two are particularly griping.

I think you mean gripping. All the comments on those stories seem to be griping. :)

Mark

PS In accordence with ISO Flaming Standards, this spelling flame contains one (1) spelling error.

Evolution, on the other hand, is a belief that information (that's what DNA is - information) has the ability to become both more complex, and more orderly over a period of time.

Dead wrong. Evolution is a change in the frequency of alleles from one generation to the next. (That definition comes almost verbatim from my anthropology textbook. Dictionary.com has a similar definition.) It can also be described as natural selection acting on mutation. Nothing requires that changes be in the direction of complexity or order.

At any rate, we are only beginning to map the genetic aspect of evolution. In time, theories that describe evolution on a genetic level will be more refined.

Hey, I hate to be the one to tell you (ok, I lie, I relish being the one to tell you): your sig is incorrect. "Quoth" is most certainly a word, and "boxen" properly refers to something made out of boxwood. An arguement could be made for "umm", since it's about as valid as most other interjections, but I'll settle for dinging two out of three.

Again, I propose that you have not sufficiently proven that non-creationist scientists are unaware of the assumptions they make. I think most scientists are well aware that they dismiss supernatural phenomenon as explanations for natural phenomenon, and they believe that is a valid assumption. Indeed, they often cite this assumption in the form of Occam's razor. Your entire argument rests on this point - so you will have to excuse me if I need a little more than just your word that it is as you say.

You seem to be proposing that scientists simply do what they themselves say they should do - come up with explanations based on what evidence we have - and that I have no problem with. Certainly scientists are not perfect, and any improvement is welcome.

However, I certainly can't see that Creationism (or anything with ties to religion) can do that, for a fairly simple reason. If a theory or belief requires faith it by definition cannot be proven in a manner that can satisfy scientists. Furthermore, I've seen little evidence that creationists, as a whole, are actually interested in what you are proposing.

The argument is that since real structure cannot sensibly arise from randomness (e.g. beaches aren't turned into computers by the action of wind, waves, rain or lightning) and we think rationally (or at least we think we do... but down that recursive path lies madness) our presence here cannot be accidental.

He's not questioning the scientific method, he's questioning our ability to apply it, firstly at all in a random universe and secondly with overriding philosophical constraints. Creationists use the scientific method just like anyone else, the only difference being that they don't make an a priori assumption of materialism (the doctrine that there can be no supernatural effects). Some of them make an assumption of little-d deism but that's not actually necessary to avoid materialistic pitfalls.

Supernatural effects can be measured and and studied scientifically just like anything else. You can only assert otherwise based on just such an a priori assumption.

Materialistic assumptions have been shown to be capable of leading mainstream science badly astray. Note in particular the Baker quote from Ref 11.

I/m sure you mean rogue and not rouge as rouge means red.

Of course, if you use the blue/red colors for Democrats/Republicans, then you are a red nation (hopefully for only a day more) but outside the US, red is mostly associated with Communism and you're far from that...

You're absolutely right, he did graduate from Ivy League universities given the chances that apparently neither you or I deserve. Did he get that chance fairly? No. Is he a hypocrite? Yes.

First Andover, then Yale, then Harvard, then the Whitehouse. Anyone who doesn't believe that the aristocratic power of Legacy exists has his head in the sand.

= 9J =

You're absolutely right, he did graduate from Ivy League universities given the chances that apparently neither you or I deserve. Did he get that chance fairly? No. Is he a hypocrite? Yes.

First Andover, then Yale, then Harvard, then the Whitehouse. Anyone who doesn't believe that the aristocratic power of Legacy exists has his head in the sand.

= 9J =

That is an objective statement that is more opinion then anything else. try dictionary.com

From the story submission:

evolution of the mamalian eye

Did you mean mammalian?

Honestly, if you're not going to edit, why call yourselves editors?

Flatery? Isn't that what the Japanese call that Lord of the Dance guy? Did you mean Flattery?

Actually, it was from the Yellow Kid.

[What's even more fascinating] Is that people whine about spelling so much.

Maybe because not making the effort to use proper spelling and grammar demonstrates a lack of respect for the reader? Nobody's perfect, but even without a spell checker you can catch the vast majority of your errors by just re-reading your post, and if you don't know the spelling of a word, there's a handy thing called a dictionary (there are even online dictionaries) to help you out. I'll agree that criticizing another's errors is generally uncalled for, but the nature of Slashdot (an "informal Internet forum", as you put it) doesn't mitigate the impression your post makes on readers--especially given the emphasis many people here seem to put on proper spelling and grammar.

Just a thought . . .

How people use Football.
Why it's called soccer.

Synonyms for daemon: demon, devil (thesauris.com)

"open-faced peanut butter sandwiches"

You mean slices of bread with peanut butter spread on them?

'cause, you know, a sandwich can't be open-faced because it's a sandwich...

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=foreword

"A preface or an introductory note, as for a book, especially by a person other than the author."

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=foreward

\Fore"ward`\, n. The van; the front. [Obs.]

I think he spelled it right

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=foreword

"A preface or an introductory note, as for a book, especially by a person other than the author."

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=foreward

\Fore"ward`\, n. The van; the front. [Obs.]

I think he spelled it right

The logo was selected out of over 400 submissions in an albeit lengthy process

Anybody have a clue what the word 'albeit' is doing in there?

Now, I consider "shall not be infringed" to mean nothing else but what it says. Specifically, that means "without limitation". It means that the Congress shall not infringe on that right.

I suggest you see the definition of "infringe" as there is nothing about "without limitation."

Your right to keep and bear arms is not infringed if you can still buy arms. If a law is passed saying that you can't buy or sell guns with elephant ivory handles, that law does not infringe on your rights to keep and bear arms. Neither does a law which limits barrel lengths on shotguns (as decided by the Miller Supreme Court case).

If the liberals defended the Second Amendment the way they do the First Amendment, we'd all have the right to own and stash nukes, so I guess I am glad they don't.

Why? Nukes are considered "arms." Either you believe that there should be no limitations on private ownership of arms or you accept that some limitation is reasonable.

But that brings up a good point: All rights have limitations. Free speech doesn't mean that you can yell "Fire!" in a crowded theatre -- because it puts the public at undue risk. Isn't that the reason behind banning some guns (although the Assualt Weapons ban was ineffective and simply raised prices)?

The NRA realises, and rightfully so, that fighting gun control in the courts is tantamount to a lottery. It's a waste of money and time and if the case is heard by a liberal judge, it's all over.

No, it's not. That's what appeals are for. The Supreme Court has 9 justices, of which 5 are considered conservative right now. If the NRA thought that they had a chance, they'd have taken a case to the Supreme Court.

Not exactly. Next time you might want to look it up first.

Wow. Great regurgitation of right wing propaganda.

However, you need to adjust your RDF. (when did rove steal that from Jobs?)

for insulting our allies
- got a reference? Link? Anything but an accusation?

falsely calling them the coalition of the coerced and the bribed

Many of the nations in the coalition formed for the 2003 invasion of Iraq stand to receive substantial aid packages and trade benefits from the United States in return for their support. The administration is provided billions of dollars in "aid packages" to coalition members. Of the 30+ original coalition "members', 19 countries offering only political and/or moral support, one was named without it's knowledge (Solomon Islands), and one was Afganistain. Nine were/are seeking membership into NATO. An Institute for Policy Studies report found that "most were recruited through coercion, bullying, and bribery."

or by calling our action unilateral.

Unilateral means something much different than you must perceive. England, Australia, and the US have stood together on international issues for decades. If you do not consider these three countries to be on the same side, then you have a very myopic view of world politics.
In March of 2003, Ari Fleischer said that the adminstration has "all along said, in terms of actual active combat, there will be very, very few countries."

The original invasion forces consisted of troops from only six countries. Nearly 99.9% of these troops were from the US, UK, or Australia.
The countries sending troops and the amount of troops were:

Albania: 70
Australia: 2000
Romania: 278
UK: 45,000
US: 300,000

oh, and let's not forget
Poland: 200

Without the US's politicing, would the coalition have been created? Did any nations besides the US and UK present evidence insisting immediate action? The coalition was a huge sham, created only for political purposes.


"A universe whose only claim to be believed in rests on the validity of inference must not start telling us the inference is invalid..." -- C.S. Lewis

Somebody always steps up to rationalize genocide. I guess it's your turn.

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

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=fedora

fedora
n.

A soft felt hat with a fairly low crown creased lengthwise and a brim that can be turned up or down.[After Fédora, a play by Victorien Sardou.]

A RedHat Linux distribution http://fedora.redhat.com/

While that's all well and good, that's neither a strict historical definition of the word (see 5a) nor a particularly revealing definition of the word in current usage, where the meaning is more closely along the lines of progressive (3).

I would surely like for the word to be reclaimed from the illiberal clutches of modern Liberalism. But it doesn't look likely any time soon. Better to call yourself libertarian, if that's your point of view.

I *also* used the word "sell". You used the word teach. Let's go straight to the analogy: If instead of going to classes for 4 years you instead go online and buy a "Real Accredited University Diploma" then you have attended a rogue university. I'm not saying it is right or wrong, but it certainly is an institution "Operating outside normal or desirable controls"

I am personally sick of windows worms and viri.

You are sick of windows worms and men? What is the plural of 'virus'?

The plural of Virus, is Viruses.

• 'cept when a rogue scientist sells nuclear secrets to countries such as N. Korea, in which case India is probably pretty safe.

• An unprincipled, deceitful, and unreliable person; a scoundrel or rascal.

The word is "emigrate", if you mean that they should leave the U.S.

link

And he never insisted that, nor even implied it.
No, but he leads people to infer it.

There was no no unilateral invasion of Iraq. [ed] ?
Ok, then where was the support of the UN, and the resolution that we were enforcing? The US and the UK invaded Iraq, no UN troops were involved. A majority of the permanent UN security council (France, Russia, China) condemned the action. During the first five months of the war, the only casualties were US and UK. Yes, two nations were involved, but both were acting in defiance of international opinions and support. It was a very one sided decision .

he said he miscalculated
I believe that I mentioned his admission in the argument that you quoted.
But he did not admit a mistake, just a "post-war miscalculation". In the article you link, he said, 'just as his father has done, that he would resist going "on the couch" to rethink decisions.' Again, implying he would not change any of his decisions if he were to make them again.

Every time history repeats itself, the price goes up. -- John A. Appleman

I think WiFi means exactly what it says.

fidelity, according to dictionary.com, means:
The degree to which an electronic system accurately reproduces the sound or image of its input signal.

Fidelity is not a value in itself; it is merely a concept used to describe the faithfulness of the sound. You can have good or bad fidelity. So, in the case of "WiFi," you have a level of fidelity associated with the limitations of wireless technology.

What is interesting is that the company will waste so much money and time "authorizing" software, but won't do simpler money-saving things like checking if their employees are wasting time reading web sites instead of working!

Put your lawyer hat on for a second. The act of wasting time reading web sites itself may not violate any vendor contracts or purchase agreements. However just the act of installing Firefox could.

Employee termination procedures and lawsuit settlements cost more than thumb-up-the-butt presenteeism.

I checked, and the your definition for new does not exist. "New" does not mean never sold. It means "fresh" or "current" or "latest." Taking your logic, a car made in 1944, put in crate & never sold is "new." No, it's just a 60 year old car that was never sold. It's still quite old. Pentium IIs were released between May 1997 & August 1998. In PC years, those are ancient.

You have Super Magic Fun Travel Wish Yo-Yo 5? Wow, thats like super mega ultra all out drastic excessive extremist fanatical far-out gone immoderate kinky outlandish outré rabid radical revolutionary too much too-too Rare!!!!

Kinky is a synonym for Ultra?

You are a fool. An unpopular decision. You speak of "unpopular decisions". Do you even have the intelligence to read this site? I will speak this in very plain language so even you can understand.

1.) Bush told Congress that he was going to get multilateral support. (Do you know what multilateral means? Here: multilateral.)
2.) Kerry supported that.
3.) Bush said "Fuck it, we'll go it alone." And by alone, I mean without the blessing of the Permanent Security Council. You right wing fucks can go on and on about how having the Dominican Republic sending 12 soldiers to be part of the coalition of the willing is multilateral.
4.) Kerry said, "Hold it, I don't support that."

And that kind of disingenuous bullshit is where you idiots get your talking points from. Did you get sexually excited to be able to spout whatever Sean Hannity told you last night? Is Karen Hughes calling you at all hours of the night to make sure your feeble mind understands whatever 4th grade jingoistic bullshit the Bush Administration is drolling out this week?

Thanks a lot you naive idiot. It's your fault that our nation is in the toilet. Now, please post your angry response to Free Republic and then sign a fucking Republican Bush Oath of Allegiance so you can go to a Bush Rally and chant "FOUR MORE YEARS! FOUR MORE YEARS!" for an hour while your idiot man-child figurehead stumbles around on stage.

Legally, that means that it isn't theft.

Theft, n. (Law) The act of stealing; specifically, the felonious taking and removing of personal property, with an intent to deprive the rightful owner of the same; larceny.

So, yes, it does mean that it is not theft to photocopy a book.

Examples : P.A.T.R.I.O.T. , S.T.O.P. , I.N.D.U.C.E. etc etc.
Im sure a word is thought up, and the words describing what the new law is about are fitted around it.

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

Hawk

That's a good point. The definition I got "contrary" from is here, but to be more specific it says "poignantly contrary." I submit that incongruous and contrary are synonyms in this context, but you're right that simply saying "contrary" was unclear.

However, that any difference matters is what I'm arguing against. See the usage note at my first link for another argument. What makes a chain of events ironic is not simply that it doesn't end in the expected outcome. The actual outcome has to fly in the face of logic. That's what incongruous means.

I still maintain that no situation in the entire song is ironic. There's no reason to expect a 98 year old man to live any longer because he won the lottery. There's no reason to expect a plane to be less likely to fail because a particular passenger is on board. The expected outcome of a pardon arriving two minutes too late is precisely that the convict will already be dead. A person's plans cannot (yet) affect the weather, a free ride that you've paid for is a logical impossibility, and flies are attracted to sweet things.

I'm sorry if I failed to properly explain the concept. Contrary to what the other AC said, there are plenty of real examples of irony.

That's a good point. The definition I got "contrary" from is here, but to be more specific it says "poignantly contrary." I submit that incongruous and contrary are synonyms in this context, but you're right that simply saying "contrary" was unclear.

However, that any difference matters is what I'm arguing against. See the usage note at my first link for another argument. What makes a chain of events ironic is not simply that it doesn't end in the expected outcome. The actual outcome has to fly in the face of logic. That's what incongruous means.

I still maintain that no situation in the entire song is ironic. There's no reason to expect a 98 year old man to live any longer because he won the lottery. There's no reason to expect a plane to be less likely to fail because a particular passenger is on board. The expected outcome of a pardon arriving two minutes too late is precisely that the convict will already be dead. A person's plans cannot (yet) affect the weather, a free ride that you've paid for is a logical impossibility, and flies are attracted to sweet things.

I'm sorry if I failed to properly explain the concept. Contrary to what the other AC said, there are plenty of real examples of irony.