Slashdot Mirror

Nothing wrong inherently with evil, ya know

The Dictionary Disagrees

-adjective
1. morally wrong or bad;

I think that constitutes something inherently wrong

Its a verb you moron:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/purvey?r=75&src=ref&ch=dic

Proper usage would be "purveyance". Or even "provision".

Can we still rag on TFS for being precocious by using words like "penultimate?"

I'm not sure why you'd "rag on" something for being precocious ("unusually advanced or mature in development, esp. mental development"), but, sure, knock yourself out.

In what ways does it defer, if any, from the techniques used in vending machines?

It doesn't defer anything. It does, however, differ from the techniques used in vending machines.

Someday it may also deter counterfeiters.

Boycott? Really? I just don't buy tickets.

Try reading up on what boycott means. It means exactly what you said... don't buy their products. I also tell people WHY I don't (like in my original post), which is "coercion", but the fact remains that you are boycotting the NFL as much as I am.

I'm not "entitled" to top-quality entertainment. But what I (and many others) see is a complete disconnect between the cost to produce and the cost to buy. This is because of the laws that are enacted (copyright) that unfairly tilt the economy in favor of the industry that controls entertainment and therefore, culture. It's a distortion of the market. Living wages, welfare and universal health care are also distortions of the market... they prop up the people who are not contributing to society from the fruits of the people who are. That's not to say that those are bad things to do, I'm just pointing out that the viewpoints are compatible when you're looking at it from a libertarian standpoint. Both are instances of the government legislating the benefit of one person at the expense of another. And when you factor in the abuses of emergency rooms, welfare and "living wage" rates driving businesses into bankruptcy when applied improperly, there's an understandable backlash against funding more of the same.

Even though you're posting AC and consistently misspelled one of the key words for the topic at hand, you're fairly coherent, so I guess you deserve a brief rebuttal.

rather than as an intellectual shotgun

That was, in fact, exactly what I was trying to do. The OP was making a blanket statement that the Bible was historically accurate and complete, and I wanted to make the point that there's been a whole goshdarn lot of disagreement over the past three millenia about what belongs in it.

The links to the Islam and Jewish Christians articles may have been misplaced, but the point remains that there were plenty of people in the area at the time who didn't see any reason to believe in the resurrection, and were no doubt writing their own religious texts. The same is true of the Paulicans: it doesn't matter if Paul said something different than what they said. They're an example of resurrection-deniers.

The Masoretic text is from the 8th Century, when Christians had been using the LXX for hundreds of years

The point is, again, that the Masoretic version and the Septuagint differ, and someone made a choice . There isn't one single version that everyone has always been reading from. And unless I'm mistaken, Protestants use the Masoretic text for the OT.

The reason the cannon is cannon is because they selected those books which nobody had a problem with that were widely used.

The reason the canon is the way it is has plenty of politics and power struggles mixed in to it.

were relegated to 'Deuterocannonical' status (these are the 'Apocrypha' that were removed from most Protestant Bibles

You seem to have misread one of those articles. Deuterocanonical books are those that are used by the Catholic Church but which are not a part of the Hebrew Bible. They're canonical. Apocrypha, on the other hand, are not. The KJV (a Protestant Bible) originally included the Catholic Deuterocanonical books under the "Apocrypha" heading.

I'm not claiming to be a Biblical scholar; most of what I sort-of-know is half-remembered from confirmation classes way back when. The point stands, however, that the Bible is neither complete nor entirely historically accurate.

Even though you're posting AC and consistently misspelled one of the key words for the topic at hand, you're fairly coherent, so I guess you deserve a brief rebuttal.

rather than as an intellectual shotgun

That was, in fact, exactly what I was trying to do. The OP was making a blanket statement that the Bible was historically accurate and complete, and I wanted to make the point that there's been a whole goshdarn lot of disagreement over the past three millenia about what belongs in it.

The links to the Islam and Jewish Christians articles may have been misplaced, but the point remains that there were plenty of people in the area at the time who didn't see any reason to believe in the resurrection, and were no doubt writing their own religious texts. The same is true of the Paulicans: it doesn't matter if Paul said something different than what they said. They're an example of resurrection-deniers.

The Masoretic text is from the 8th Century, when Christians had been using the LXX for hundreds of years

The point is, again, that the Masoretic version and the Septuagint differ, and someone made a choice . There isn't one single version that everyone has always been reading from. And unless I'm mistaken, Protestants use the Masoretic text for the OT.

The reason the cannon is cannon is because they selected those books which nobody had a problem with that were widely used.

The reason the canon is the way it is has plenty of politics and power struggles mixed in to it.

were relegated to 'Deuterocannonical' status (these are the 'Apocrypha' that were removed from most Protestant Bibles

You seem to have misread one of those articles. Deuterocanonical books are those that are used by the Catholic Church but which are not a part of the Hebrew Bible. They're canonical. Apocrypha, on the other hand, are not. The KJV (a Protestant Bible) originally included the Catholic Deuterocanonical books under the "Apocrypha" heading.

I'm not claiming to be a Biblical scholar; most of what I sort-of-know is half-remembered from confirmation classes way back when. The point stands, however, that the Bible is neither complete nor entirely historically accurate.

Problematical is a perfectly cromulent word.

There is no difference between a phone call and a youtube video (cept its one way).

"cept its one way" is actually a very big difference.

When it comes to long-range over-the-air communication, one-way transmissions are easy (e.g. radio). Two-way is a bit harder, especially when you have a low-power device (e.g. a cheap cell phone) on one end.

But anyway, even if you're right, that doesn't mean cell phones themselves have been "usurped"; you've just been talking about some of the transmission tech that cell companies are using. Even if we switch everything to whatever you think has "usurped" current cell networks ("usurped" implies it has already replaced them, which is of course untrue), you're still going to need mobile communication devices, and that's all a cell phone is.

So no, cell phones haven't been "usurped" :P

You'll note that I've been putting "usurp" in quotes. There's a reason... you don't appear to know what it means, because nothing you've said qualifies under its definition, even if you assume the existence of ubiquitous tech superior to current cell networks. I've continued the conversation under the assumption that when you say "usurped" you mean "replaced by something better", but as I've said, that's quite untrue.

I believe this would be extortion not blackmail. Although, really, both are bad. You REALLY don't want to put your self in a position to be accused of either.

From a professional standpoint I would recommend staying away from any situation where you are making demands or threats to your boss. Such a situation will very rarely help you achieve your goals. More often it WILL damage your reputation, instead of being known as XYZ-good-thing, you will be remembered as the guy who threatened the company. Such extreme incidents have a habit of following you for years. It would be better to just leave than risk long-term damage to your reputation.

If you do want to change the situation, perhaps a less aggressive approach. Next time you are asked to install software product X, have the requester sign a statement that says they have acquired the proper license for this product (or product such a license). This removes the burden from yourself, it is reasonable. Lastly it has a subtle and non-hostile aspect of teaching others about licensing.

I would also recommend starting a license tracking system.

The basic idea here is that you don't want to assign blame. You DO want to move forward in a constructive and positive way, while still meeting your legal/moral standards. If your boss says that everything in use is ok, then don't press the point, but instead ensure that everything going forward can be documented as such.

As for the definition of blackmail, here are a couple of dictionary references (sorry no legal citations, but I am confidante that this would get you in trouble within the US Federal system.):

From dictionary.com

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/blackmail?jss=0

blackmail /blækmel/

-noun

1. any payment extorted by intimidation, as by threats of injurious revelations or accusations.

2. the extortion of such payment: He confessed rather than suffer the dishonor of blackmail.

3. a tribute formerly exacted in the north of England and in Scotland by freebooting chiefs for protection from pillage.

-verb (used with object)

4. to extort money from (a person) by the use of threats.

5. to force or coerce into a particular action, statement, etc.: The strikers claimed they were blackmailed into signing the new contract.

Notice item number 5. To force or coerce into a particular action.

Another dictionary reference:

The crime involving a threat for purposes of compelling a person to do an act against his or her will, or for purposes of taking the person's money or property.

The term blackmail originally denoted a payment made by English persons residing along the border of Scotland to influential Scottish chieftains in exchange for protection from thieves and marauders.

In blackmail the threat might consist of physical injury to the threatened person or to someone loved by that person, or injury to a person's reputation. In some cases the victim is told that an illegal act he or she had previously committed will be exposed if the victim fails to comply with the demand.

Although blackmail is generally synonymous with extortion, some states distinguish the offenses by requiring that the former be in writing.

Blackmail is punishable by a fine, imprisonment, or both.

Notice paragraph 3. "In some cases the victim is told that an illegal act he or she had previously committed will be exposed if the victim fails to comply with the demand."

N P R

N P R

N P R

Since it's properly spelled "fragging", I'd say you probably are.

"Steal" and "take" are not synonyms, you know.

After all, dictionary.com gives this as a sense for "steal": 2. to appropriate (ideas, credit, words, etc.) without right or acknowledgment.

And Merriam-Webster says of "steal": synonyms steal, pilfer, filch, purloin mean to take from another without right or without detection. steal may apply to any surreptitious taking of something and differs from the other terms by commonly applying to intangibles as well as material things.

Oh yeah, and I can't help that the definition you gave is either your own (unlikely) or you stole the definition from someone else.

You and the dictionary should fight.

I'm pretty sure from your comment here that we disagree on the basic nature of language, and on what is the highest authority on "correct" usage. But setting that aside, I'll play your little game.

Can you show me a dictionary in which impact is not a verb? I am going to stipulate that the Scrabble dictionary doesn't count, since it serves its purpose by listing at most one part of speech and definition per word.

While you're pondering that, here's the entry at dictionary.com, which not only includes impact as a verb but lists it as dating back to the late 1700's, in the same time frame as the noun, from the same origin. It notes that there are relatively recent senses of the verb (neither of which is the one used in TFS/A in the first place), but that even they are considered formally correct.

Frankly, all sources I've found other than your teeth seem unanimous on this one.

Yes, I do. If you want to get technical, I'm using the definition of granting an individual/corporation/etc. of special rights or immunities under certain conditions. (dictionary.com).

In this case, it'd be having a driver's license under the condition that the person drives responsibly. I never said anything about it being an arbitrary privilege and neither should it.

Placebo means sugar pill or treatment without active ingredient.
The common definition of placebo effect specifically refers to the positive results or side effects caused *only* as a direct response to the patient's belief and expectations that the placebo they are receiving will work. That single aspect is referred to as the placebo effect.

Also, yes you can say that a placebo is effective. Because you can compare a placebo group with a non-treated group. If 30% less patients die within a year in the placebo group than in the non-treatment group and your stats are solid, you've either got a really kick ass sugar pill that's actually curing people and you need to alert the FDA *or* *drum roll* They got better because of the fake treatment. IE placebo effect.

The placebo effect is a problem of measurement. It would be more correct to say that measurement is becoming less effective.

Clearly measurement is not becoming less effective. The placebo effect is real and can be described and quantitated and no way prevents determining the efficacy of new drugs. In fact our knowledge, technique, experimental design and standards are all improving leading to more accurate *and* precise measurements.

Placebo means sugar pill or treatment without active ingredient.
The common definition of placebo effect specifically refers to the positive results or side effects caused *only* as a direct response to the patient's belief and expectations that the placebo they are receiving will work. That single aspect is referred to as the placebo effect.

Also, yes you can say that a placebo is effective. Because you can compare a placebo group with a non-treated group. If 30% less patients die within a year in the placebo group than in the non-treatment group and your stats are solid, you've either got a really kick ass sugar pill that's actually curing people and you need to alert the FDA *or* *drum roll* They got better because of the fake treatment. IE placebo effect.

The placebo effect is a problem of measurement. It would be more correct to say that measurement is becoming less effective.

Clearly measurement is not becoming less effective. The placebo effect is real and can be described and quantitated and no way prevents determining the efficacy of new drugs. In fact our knowledge, technique, experimental design and standards are all improving leading to more accurate *and* precise measurements.

So maybe Ubuntu had some bad Karma, but the next version will be Lucid.

1.) Easily understood; completely intelligible or comprehensible
2.) Characterized by a clear perception or understanding; rational or sane
3.) Shining or bright
4.) Clear; pellucid; transparent

Sounds to me like 10.04's gonna be a real winner, if the adjectives describe the distros.

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

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

Hate:
1. to dislike intensely or passionately; feel extreme aversion for or extreme hostility toward; detest: to hate the enemy; to hate bigotry.
2. to be unwilling; dislike: I hate to do it.

Strongly disliking the iPhone, perhaps even passionately so, enough to argue for his point... sounds like hate to me. Or are you suggesting the the word hate should only be used to mean exclusively bigotry?

          -dZ.

Um. Please see: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/posthumous?jss=0

Mod parent up. And see http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/endemic

You made me laugh, but attitude is the right word in case you were questioning that seriously.

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

Yes I am aware this could be just a joke, and would expect the woosh. :P

Methinks the term exclusive can have more than one meaning. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/exclusive
b : limiting or limited to possession, control, or use by a single individual or group

or from http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/exclusive
single or sole

So the netflix was limited to one console (XBOX 360) whether by contract or just first entry.

The definitions of I can find are usually based on high barriers to entry, not quality. Can you reference a definition which you've used?

Having to compete with a product that is of an extremely high quality or so far advanced of your own presets itself as a high barrier to entry.

Apart from that you are right, quality is not typically a barrier to entry, the word I used was superior which can be defined as above the average in excellence. In Google's case superior refers to Google's search technology which is quite far advanced from any of their competitors. this persents a cost and/or technolgy barrier to entry

There are markets to which a minimum standard of quality comes with a very high price, the Airliner industry for example, to produce a jet or turboprop airliner that is up the international aviation standards is quite expensive, this has served to create the Airbus/Boeing duopoly which has only recently challenged by the likes of Bombardier and Embraer and only in the small short range jet market, heavies and super heavies will be Airbus/Boeing for a while yet.

They 5th and 14th ammendments are laws, which were passed by votes of congress and then votes in the sates.

No, they are not "laws" in the usual sense, they are amendments to the Constitution. There's a difference between a law and the Constitution.

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land" - The US Constitution, Article VI

Bluntly, you are just inventing your own definitions of words at this point.

And the 5th and 14th amendment don't grant you those rights, they merely affirm and clarify that you already have those rights. If those amendments were repealed, you'd still have those rights and SCOTUS would still enforce those rights, since the are the underlying basis for the Constitution and assumed to be self-evident and inalienable.

How am I supposed to argue with an unevidenced hypothetical. Certainly SCOTUS did not rule granting rights in ammendments before they were passed, which would include the 14th, 19th (women's sufferage), and the 13th and 15th (barring slavery).

The Constitution is "law" in the sense that it is legal language, but it isn't "laws" in the sense in which laws that Congress passes during its normal operation.

So things passed in special session aren't "law"? Again, you are just inventing terms and distinctions that don't exist.

Furthermore, when voting on constitutional law, people don't vote on their preferences, the vote on conformance with the self-evident and inalienable rights.

Like when they voted in term limits, or voted out alcholol? Prove your claim.

And just like you can turn a democracy into a non-democracy by voting away your own right to vote, you can also turn a democracy into a non-democracy by voting away the self-evident and inalienable rights of others.

Olny if said right is a right to vote.

It's relevant, because (1) it shows you're not along in making that mistake--it's a common mistake, usually linked to some political positions--and (2) you can find plenty of explanations why you're wrong.

Not true explanations however.

Yes, and none of that changes the fact that the US is a representative democracy, just like all other modern democracies.

The term "republic" has two usages, one being the American one ("representative democracy") and the European one ("not a monarchy"). All modern democracies are "republics" according to either usage. And all western republics (including the US) are democracies.

You are inventing words.

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

"The United States of America (commonly referred to as the United States, the U.S., the USA, or America) is a federal constitutional republic" - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_states

First off, the word is usury -- it's related to the word usual, oddly enough, since they have a common Latin root.

As for the 20% credit card interest rates, this is not all that uncommon. In fact, most store cards now have 24% APR.

I have a platinum card with HSBC that originally had an interest rate just under 10%. The APR went up to almost 15% over a year ago, and now they are raising my rate again to 20%. I am not sure why, though I suspect it's because I'm carrying a higher balance now. Who isn't these days? Of course, in my case it's because I had a huge number of unexpected expenses this year, like a new water heater, but also because my cost of living has gone up but my income level is currently frozen.

I think you will find that the word you are looking for is "pedantry".

From one pedant to another.

Wrong, wrong, wrong!

If you were born in the United States, then you are native. That is the definition of native.

Being of tribal descent does not make you any more native. Archeology continues to go back an forth on the evidence as to whether there was one or many waves of settlers to North America. There are theories that some of the Clovis cultures might have been related to early European settlers, debates about skeletons like Kennewick man having features that show a genealogical diversity that disappeared around 8000 BCE.

No group can claim to be the "only natives" in North America. People came, others followed, they fought or incorporated each other, or just died out for other reasons. It is the way of history.

So the most that the tribal Americans can claim is they were the last group to arrive before the present group. So what? Well it works well in our everyone is a victim, so give me something society.

Where you are born is where you are native. You may not adapt to the local culture or accept it as your own, but you are native to North America and the US in specific if you were born there.

All the rest is B***S*** politics intended to create yet another group of poor victims who demand money from other people.

Not deferential. Obedient. Doing what one is told. He isn't doing something someone else told him to do. You're not correct.

Dictionary disagrees, both are correct:
http://www.webster-dictionary.org/definition/Obsequious
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/obsequious
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/obsequious
http://www.dictionary.net/obsequious

I do, sir|madam. So does the dictionary.
hiatus /haets/
-noun, plural -tuses, -tus.
1. a break or interruption in the continuity of a work, series, action, etc.

And in this context, so does Slashdot.
The Russians have indicated that they will put space tourism on hold in 2010.
Since the last space tourist is now back on Earth, the Americans are in dire need of a spacecraft able to carry human occupants, let alone space tourists (with the Space Shuttles being retired and all), and there are no clear indications from other countries willing to send up space tourists, space tourism is now effectively on hold for the foreseeable future, There is no reason to believe it will not resume some time in the future, economic and energy crisis notwithstanding.

Can I have $.21 from you? Just once, I promise. And no-one else is going to want the same, I assure you.

This is the same reasoning that allows $x.99 to be such a successful marketing ploy. Have you ever heard the phrase nickel and dimed to death?

As an Internet advocate for your obvious lack of a thesaurus, I give you http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/retarded

As somebody who wants to understand what's being read, I five you Wikipedia on Elegant Variation and suggest you burn your thesaurus.

Does it need said? Yes, yes it does. I five you ...wait, no, it doesn't need said.

As an Internet advocate for your obvious lack of a thesaurus, I give you http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/retarded

As somebody who wants to understand what's being read, I five you Wikipedia on Elegant Variation and suggest you burn your thesaurus.

No, actually, "they" cannot be singular. "He" is the proper singular, gender-neutral pronoun in English. Of course, that doesn't stop people from using "they" in a singular sense -- and it's been done for hundreds of years -- but it's still not correct.

...from the baby-boomer generation. Catapulting cargo into orbit, eh? This is so absurd as to be laughable. But this is what you get from thinking inside the box. You can only think in terms of what's in the box. Does anybody really think that humanity is going to colonize the solar system with such painfully primitive technologies as rockets, space slingshots, and solar sails? Isn't it time that we start thinking outside the box? Isn't it time that we start questioning our most ingrained assumptions in physics so that we can find real solution to the space propulsion and energy production crises? I think so.

Take motion, for example. Physicists think that they understand motion but they really don't. All they got are equations that describe observations. Ask any physicist why two particles in relative inertial motion stay in motion and all you get is a bunch of nonsense mixed with ignorance and self-deception. Some will say nothing is needed and that Newton proved it centuries ago. Others will say that momentum keeps them moving. Still others will tell you that physics is not about the why of things but the how. It's annoying, really.

Yeah. With carp like this, is it any wonder that we are still in the dark ages when it comes to space propulsion? If physicists could truly grok motion, they would understand that it is a causal phenomenon and that, as a result, we are immersed in energy, lots and lots of it. A reevaluation of our understanding of the causality of motion leads to the inescapable conclusion that we are immersed in an immense lattice of energetic particles. Soon, we will use the lattice for both propulsion and clean energy production. We will have levitating vehicles that can go almost anywhere at tremendous speeds and negotiate right angle turns without slowing down and without incurring any damage due to inertial effects. Floating cities, earth to Mars in hours, New York to Beijing in minutes... That is the future of energy and travel.

My advice to all policy shapers and decision makers in the energy production and global transportation arena is this: take a careful look at the writing on the wall and prepare yourselves for the coming changes. The future is here.

The Problem with Motion.

You've seen how vaccines are produced? How? Does your next-door neighbor have a magic vaccine machine in his garage?

Nonsense. Documentaries!

Not the best source, but it sure beats wild guesses.

You're an ignorant fool. 50 cents wouldn't even cover the cost of packaging.

When you need to push out hundreds of millions of vaccines in a single year, your cost per unit drops to incredibly small amounts. I may be wrong about the 50 cents, but it seems likely that I'm not the ignorant fool you claim.

As someone above pointed out, the real costs are likely in R&D and distribution.

You've seen how vaccines are produced? How? Does your next-door neighbor have a magic vaccine machine in his garage?

Nonsense. Documentaries!

Not the best source, but it sure beats wild guesses.

You're an ignorant fool. 50 cents wouldn't even cover the cost of packaging.

When you need to push out hundreds of millions of vaccines in a single year, your cost per unit drops to incredibly small amounts. I may be wrong about the 50 cents, but it seems likely that I'm not the ignorant fool you claim.

As someone above pointed out, the real costs are likely in R&D and distribution.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Binoculars?o=

*moves Yahoo CEO until he's facing the Google building* Pssst, Maybe you should try stealing! It'll keep you closer to the curve.

Get ready for the iYahoo deployment next week!

(All in all I think it'll be a good move for Yahoo, but obviously a bit late to matter..)

I'm used to seeing Panzer as the generic term for a German tank, and reference material seems to back up that assumption. ( http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/panzer?jss=0 )

So, yes. German tank research did not start until after WW1. Hence, the US would not have been attacked by German tanks after the Zimmerman note as they did not exist until after the war.

Furthermore, I'm confused by your righteous indignation. Apparently tanks (misattributed as panzers in your timeline) didn't exist until WE started using them, which is 1918. Except I said 1920s. So they didn't exist even after we had started using them.

Not quite sure how that logic plays out, but I went to an American "school" so I must just be missing some steps that were never covered.

1758, genus name of a type of eight-armed cephalopod mollusks, from Gk. oktopous "eight-footed," from okto "eight" (see eight) + pous "foot." Proper plural is octopodes, though octopuses probably works better in English. Octopi is from mistaken assumption that -us is the L. noun ending that takes -i in plural.

Until today I hadn't realized I had such a low user id...

You may not have realized your id was low, but you probably realized that your username was pretty low.

In Greek, yes (). The Greek word has made its way into English, but 'apology' is completely valid as well. Check out definition 2: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/apology

Please turn your grammar nazi card in on your way out. Thank you.

I wish people didn't use the word ironic when they truly mean something akin to poetic justice. Irony is when a phrase has an opposite meaning than it's literal meaning or intended meaning.

What the author here is trying to convey is that it is cynically funny (funny to those who believe in human selfishness) that the two are correlated. Of course that does not equal causation, but now I'm just getting off topic (PS: I love the lemon graph at the top, I toss it in slide shows randomly to see if anyone is awake.)

I wish people didn't use the word ironic when they truly mean something akin to poetic justice. Irony is when a phrase has an opposite meaning than it's literal meaning or intended meaning.

What the author here is trying to convey is that it is cynically funny (funny to those who believe in human selfishness) that the two are correlated. Of course that does not equal causation, but now I'm just getting off topic (PS: I love the lemon graph at the top, I toss it in slide shows randomly to see if anyone is awake.)

Where I come from the education system teaches children that is is very bad form to play the man instead of the ball, and it teaches them that at an early age. Let's get back to your flawed education system or you explaining your "socialist corporatism" idea shall we instead of childish personal attacks. I'll be intrigued if you can get the two things to relate together while preserving the meanings that all the rest of us know. We cannot read your mind so we are restricted to what is in the dictionary to communicate. Give it a try.

Heh the rest us? I'm pretty sure this thread is old by now. I fail to see why I need to explain to you these things when you are capable of researching them yourself, but here I'll help you with some common interweb sites:

egalitarianism:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/egalitarianism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egalitarianism

totalitarianism:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/totalitarianism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Totalitarianism

fascism:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fascism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism

corporatism:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/corporatisms
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatism

I typically begin researching topics by first looking in the dictionary, then the encyclopedia, then specific literature (books) on the subject at the library. Good luck!

Where I come from the education system teaches children that is is very bad form to play the man instead of the ball, and it teaches them that at an early age. Let's get back to your flawed education system or you explaining your "socialist corporatism" idea shall we instead of childish personal attacks. I'll be intrigued if you can get the two things to relate together while preserving the meanings that all the rest of us know. We cannot read your mind so we are restricted to what is in the dictionary to communicate. Give it a try.

Heh the rest us? I'm pretty sure this thread is old by now. I fail to see why I need to explain to you these things when you are capable of researching them yourself, but here I'll help you with some common interweb sites:

egalitarianism:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/egalitarianism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egalitarianism

totalitarianism:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/totalitarianism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Totalitarianism

fascism:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fascism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism

corporatism:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/corporatisms
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatism

I typically begin researching topics by first looking in the dictionary, then the encyclopedia, then specific literature (books) on the subject at the library. Good luck!