Slashdot Mirror

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

Several of these come down on the side of "intent to deprive", most are ambiguous, and some support the taking of things you don't have the right to, eg. Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law says "a criminal taking of the property or services of another without consent".

I think intuitively both work and any native speaker could prefer either. I'm a native speaker and taking without consent is how I would have defined it if you just asked me directly.

The problem is that historically, there has rarely been a difference. Nevertheless, we've long had the verbal concepts like "stealing my idea" or "stealing my thunder" that only work with the "no consent" interpretation (or with the deprivation of potential gain from your idea or your "thunder" or whatnot, which still applies).

"What's hilarious is that you seem to be misusing "illegal" yourself. Hint: it doesn't mean the same thing as "unlawful"."

Good point! So many people here are using the terms interchangeably. It is as if these people think that the two words are synonymous!

What did you barter (to trade by exchange of commodities rather than by the use of money) with? Did you travel with a wagon load of goodies or just a few goats?

Personally, I'd have just tried to lower the price by bargaining. Don't need to lug around feed for the goats that way ;-)

(Wow, I was going to pick on 'dammit', and at least dictionary.com lists it.)

What's wrong with that? "Dammit" is a cromulent word.

Read the MPEG-4 standard. MPEG LA is totally free to stipulate that licensees implement part 13.

Yeah, so what? Allowing one to implement DRM is not the same as requiring it. It simply doesn't make sense in this context, which is web browsers, and we are mostly talking about content which the authors want to be public, not restricted. Nobody's forcing DRM on you.

Anyway, what's to stop somebody putting a DRM wrapper around Theora?

You contradict yourself. Your original point was "It's not like anybody is suggesting that Windows Media Video should be the baseline standard". You were saying that one was a standard and the other wasn't.

There is a SMPTE standard based on a particular version of WMV. Saying "WMV is a standard" is as nonsensical as saying that Quicktime is a standard, because the MPEG-4 container is based on Quicktime.

In any case, not all standards bodies are equal, and SMPTE is significantly narrower in scope than ISO/IEC.

The issue is that h.264 would end Firefox and enrich a patent cabal (besides damaging the web, imho).

You're going off the deep end here:

1. How would H.264 "End Firefox"?
2. What makes the MPEG patents a cabal? There's nothing secret about the organization, and the whole idea of the patent pool is to provide more accessibility and easier licensing, pretty much the opposite of "secret plotting."

You seem to be under the false impression that the goal of the HTML spec is to support Firefox and Open Source agendas in general. It's not.

I know it's heresy around here, but I don't see what's so evil about the patent pool and the MPEG groups. People worked hard to create superior video CODECs. Why shouldn't their work be rewarded? Why should we use inferior technology just to satisfy your ideological agenda? The whole idea of patents is to reward innovation, and that's exactly what they do when used properly. It seems to me that you are saying we should settle for mediocrity because it's "free" and intelligent people who create software and new techniques should not be rewarded for their work.

If your in your car on a public road why would you have an expectation of privacy? I mean you really shouldn't have an expectation of privacy if you are visible in a public place, no matter what jurisdiction you are in. Now an expectation of anonymityis arguable, but not one of privacy. There is a difference. Privacy is others not knowing what you are doing regardless of if they know you or not, anonymity is others knowing what you are doing but not knowing who you are.

Most Complete Topographical Map of Earth Complete

They invented the Thesaurus so we could avoid situations like this.

Main Entry: complete
Part of Speech: verb
Definition: carry out action
Synonyms: accomplish, achieve, actualize, cap, close, conclude, consummate, crown, determine, develop, discharge, do, effect, elaborate, end, equip, execute, fill, finalize, finish, fulfill, furnish, halt, make up, perfect, perform, realize, refine, round off, settle, supplement, terminate, ultimate, wind up*, wrap up*, bring to fruition, bring to maturity, call it a day, carry off, do thoroughly, effectuate, get through, go the limit, go through with, go whole hog, make good, put to bed, round out, sew up

If I start using a word's opposite as if it were the word, and six hundred other people near me start doing it too, that makes it colloquial (in our area), but that doesn't make it right.

six thousand? still colloquial?
six hundred thousand? still colloquial?
six million?

At some point, yes, it does make it "right". borrow isn't there yet, at least in the eyes of 'dictionary.reference.com', but I expect it will be sooner or later.

dictionary.reference.com doesn't decide what usage is right and wrong, it merely reports how we use use them. If enough people use borrow for lend, they'll eventually add it as a definition of the word, first as colloqial, and if it gets widespread enough, as standard usage.

'phat' didn't used to be in the dictionary at all.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/phat

Anyone who uses it that way is wrong. (For the lazy, every single definition of the verb "to borrow" involves receiving, not giving.)

So your parent post should have said "Borrow should only be used to refer to the act of receiving something", but his (her?) statement is still essentially correct, if you go by the actual definition of the word rather than colloquial usage from one particular area.

If I start using a word's opposite as if it were the word, and six hundred other people near me start doing it too, that makes it colloquial (in our area), but that doesn't make it right.

genius (noun) - an exceptional natural capacity of intellect, especially as shown in creative and original work in science, art, music, etc.

expert (noun) - a person who has special skill or knowledge in some particular field; specialist; authority.

Now here's a list of Mr. Nielsen's publications in the field of usability. Also a short biography of the man on wikipedia, listing some of his educational background & contributions.

Given all this, two points:

• Nobody referred to Mr. Nielsen as a "genius" except you. They did refer to him as an "expert" in the field of usability, which it's quite clear that he is, if you read his biography, list of publications, and other credentials. You may not agree with his opinions on usability, but he certainly qualifies as "someone with special skill and knowledge" in that field.
• If your definition of genius requires some level of renown, then the word you should be using is "celebrity," not "genius." Ability, intellect, and creative capacity need not be well-known to the public to be exceptional.

Yeah, more like hard in the butt.

That's right Michel, you're my bitch again, hahahaha.

lol, fucking moron trying to use big words, that's not a word

The dictionary (that's a place where you find the definition of words) does not agree with you.

Idiocracy Id`i*oc"ra*cy\, n.; pl. Idiocrasies. [Idio- + Gr. ? a mixture, fr. ? to mix: cf. F. idiocrasie.] Peculiarity of constitution; that temperament, or state of constitution, which is peculiar to a person; idiosyncrasy.

Just because it doesn't show up on a spell chequer doesn't mean it's not a word, see for yourself bitch. For example "Michel's deep idiocracy was his impetus stupidity, he wasn't aware that most people thought he put the 'moron' on oxymoron by being such an idiot constantly." You should try reading books, you can learn stuff.

Who's the idiot?

Evidently you are an idiot Michel. You proved it yet again - Bwaaaaahahahahahahahahahaha

That would be fine if the context of my comment had anything to do with logic postulates; but as it stands, the word "beg" is used in its common dictionary definition of "to ask earnestly" or "to implore". The phrase, thus, is intended--and can easily be understood--to mean "the premise entreats us in earnest to raise the following question".

http://dictionary.reference.com/dic?q=beg&search=search

I'd say that Fowler's literal translation of "petitio principii" is the faulty one, and as such the "original meaning" that you contend is merely an accident of history.

Don't worry, you're in good company. There's plenty of pedants and pseudo-logicians that insist in debating linguistic prescription without regards toward semantics and historical context.

        Cheers!
        -dZ.

One of the benefits of proper capitalism is that you are free to set up your own business, hire only US workers, and advertise that you do so. You may even be able to produce at lower cost than those companies you resent so much. You are also free to "boycott companies who outsource."

Ethics and morality are absolutely compatible with capitalism. The issue with ethics and morality in business is a cultural and philosophical one; not an economic one.

And please read up on the definition of capitalism: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/capitalism "An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market."

Also: "An economic and political system characterized by a free market for goods and services and private control of production and consumption. (Compare socialism and communism.)"

I hope you're dripping that into an IV, not a catheter...

And you're ignoring that nearly all labor was already paid for and thus the laborers are deprived of nothing. The only exception are some recording artists who everyone knows are being screwed not by pirates but by the record companies. Also, your comprehension of the abstract concepts of labor, money, and markets are lacking, so you might want to be careful before acting like you go much beyond the pre-adolescent stage yourself. You are assuming a strict relationship between labor, payment for that labor, sales of the resulting good, and usage of the resulting good which is naive and simplistic when obviously the situation is more complicated than that. And by refraining from thinking about any of these things before posting that insulting drivel, this puts you solidly in the pretentious douche category.

And you're ignoring that nearly all labor was already paid for and thus the laborers are deprived of nothing. The only exception are some recording artists who everyone knows are being screwed not by pirates but by the record companies. Also, your comprehension of the abstract concepts of labor, money, and markets are lacking, so you might want to be careful before acting like you go much beyond the pre-adolescent stage yourself. You are assuming a strict relationship between labor, payment for that labor, sales of the resulting good, and usage of the resulting good which is naive and simplistic when obviously the situation is more complicated than that. And by refraining from thinking about any of these things before posting that insulting drivel, this puts you solidly in the pretentious douche category.

if it weren't for the veto

Do you mean like the veto that nixon would have had if they had impeached him? If the USA was the subject of such a motion, it would have had to rely on the vetoes of its friends, like the UK - unless we were also facing the same motion...

you misspelled "determination"
"Intimidation" is the correct way to spell it. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/intimidation for what it means.

It's an amazing success story
What do Iraqis think? The killing didn't stop just because GWB said it was all over.

>> Not every muslim is an islamist.

Umm ... not to nitpick, but ... http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/muslim

Musâ...lim /ËmÊOEzlÉm, ËmÊSz-, ËmÊSs-/ Show Spelled [muhz-lim, mooz-, moos-] Show IPA adjective, noun, plural -lims, -lim.

â"adjective
1.of or pertaining to the religion, law, or civilization of Islam.
â"noun
2.an adherent of Islam.
3. Black Muslim.
Also, Moslem, Muslem (for defs. 1, 2).

Origin:
  Ar, lit., a person who submits. See Islam

I think what you meant to say is that not every Muslim is hell bent on shoving their superstitious bullshit down everyone else on the planet's throats on pain of death.

You know, like the Christians did until just a (very) few centuries ago.

Get yo facts rite: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/spelt

So until any other company used it, the first USB port on a computer was proprietary?
So until any other company used it, the first PCI port on a computer was proprietary?
So until any other company used it, the first firewire port on a computer was proprietary?
So until any other company used it, the first X port on a computer was proprietary?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proprietary
The word proprietary indicates that a party, or proprietor, exercises private ownership, control or use over an item of property.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/proprietary
1. belonging to a proprietor.
2. being a proprietor; holding property: the proprietary class.
3. pertaining to property or ownership: proprietary wealth.
4. belonging or controlled as property.
5. manufactured and sold only by the owner of the patent, formula, brand name, or trademark associated with the product: proprietary medicine.
6. privately owned and operated for profit: proprietary hospitals.

(Mini) Display Port is NOT proprietary. Dell uses Display Port. Other laptop or netbook companies may find a mini display port smaller than VGA. Only time will tell.

You must be new here... ;)

Where is the "+1 Chutzpah" mod?

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

Go fucking learn english dipshit.

"Actress" is also a correct word, specifically for female.

No, it's a nonsense word. Like Doctoress or Plumberess. It is forced into the vocabulary by women who, for some reason, feel equal means making up new words. I blame Hollywood for being to afraid to correct it.

Dictionary.com (based on Random House Dictionary) disagrees. Given the late 16th century origin of actress, any nefarious feminist plot seems awfully unlikely. And it seems to me that the entertainment industry is moving toward using the gender-neutral actor, which Dictionary.com confirms in its discussion of -ess. We're generally moving away from -ess, but many such usages are still considered correct. A few might never go away.

- T

"Actress" is also a correct word, specifically for female.

No, it's a nonsense word. Like Doctoress or Plumberess. It is forced into the vocabulary by women who, for some reason, feel equal means making up new words. I blame Hollywood for being to afraid to correct it.

Dictionary.com (based on Random House Dictionary) disagrees. Given the late 16th century origin of actress, any nefarious feminist plot seems awfully unlikely. And it seems to me that the entertainment industry is moving toward using the gender-neutral actor, which Dictionary.com confirms in its discussion of -ess. We're generally moving away from -ess, but many such usages are still considered correct. A few might never go away.

- T

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

Save the doublespeak for the politicians.

This is a guilty until proven - nah never mind you're all guilty, so pay Celine Dion for the crime of backing up your bank statements on blank CDs.

Welfare for an obsolete business model. And yes, you can guess I'm against another blank "Levy" on internet usage. No reason the Media conglomerates should get free welfare from anyone.

No, extragalactic is a specific term that means outside of OUR galaxy, not outside of any galaxy.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/extragalactic
http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_/extragalactic.html
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/extragalactic
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/extragalactic
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/extragalactic
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extragalactic_astronomy

Solar hydroscopic water extraction dates back to at least the '90's.

Yeah, stupid scientists working on solving a problem that's already been solved and people in these climates are only milking this "we don't have clean water" deal to get their less than a cup of coffee a day money from us. I mean a solar powered optical device that can view below the surface of water should have solved all these problems. Or did you mean hygroscopic?

I mean, really, I was making a light-hearted joke

If a joke falls in the forest and nobody laughs was it really a joke?

Don't be one of those guys that is wrong and then winds up looking even more foolish trying to prove that he wasn't THAT wrong. Or start a collection to buy a whole lot of cups and take your troop out to the desert and start generating the water for people to drink and grow crops because the world isn't getting any bigger and while the number of people living on it is.

Also, WTF is a "vicegerent"?

It's the guy who becomes gerent after the incumbent gerent is shot.

All kidding aside, "gerent" and "vicegerent" are words, no matter how much it looks like someone typoed "regent":
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gerent
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/gerent
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/vicegerent
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/vicegerent

Also, WTF is a "vicegerent"?

It's the guy who becomes gerent after the incumbent gerent is shot.

All kidding aside, "gerent" and "vicegerent" are words, no matter how much it looks like someone typoed "regent":
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gerent
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/gerent
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/vicegerent
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/vicegerent

sensile is not a word

sensile is not a word

The people will be so tired from jerking themselves off that they will be too drained to do any real raping.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/conjecture is not the same as http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/evidence

The people will be so tired from jerking themselves off that they will be too drained to do any real raping.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/conjecture is not the same as http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/evidence

blow it out your ass you moron

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

Like being short for "sawbones" wasn't a good enough explanation for them for an old country doctor's nickname.

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/myriad
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/myriad

It also means 10 thousand. Obviously, though, in this context, it just means "a large number." This usage is a rhetorical device commonly called "hyperbole."

In more regular use:
Vintage - old-fashioned or obsolete
To use it in a sentence: Oxford dictionary is full of vintage definitions.
I rarely hear "Vintage" applied to something of good quality. It's mostly synonymous with "antique" these days.

I guess you've gotta get down into the 5-digit range to handle both copy/paste and spelling... ;)

You can indeed garage a car:

The verb garer, from which garage was derived, originally meant "to put merchandise under shelter," then "to moor a boat," and then "to put a vehicle into a place for safekeeping," that is, a garage, a sense first recorded in French in 1901. English almost immediately borrowed this French word, the first instance being found in 1902.

"garage." The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. Houghton Mifflin Company, 2004. 01 Jun. 2009. <Dictionary.com http://dictionary.classic.reference.com/browse/garage>."

It has to do with the word origin. Look it up in the dictionary though: tr.v.garaged, garaging, garages To put or store in a garage.

So now we're running uncontrolled experiments on nonconsenting human subjects in the guise of "public policy" of "liberal democracy" -- tyranny of the majority limited only by a vague laundry list of selectively enforced human rights.

...but our constitution tries to limit the tyranny of the majority as much as possible. This is what's happening with gay marriage; we're trying to limit the tyranny of the majority -- legally, through our constitution. We're adding entries to the vague laundry list.

So now we're running uncontrolled experiments on nonconsenting human subjects in the guise of "public policy" of "liberal democracy" -- tyranny of the majority limited only by a vague laundry list of selectively enforced human rights.

...but our constitution tries to limit the tyranny of the majority as much as possible. This is what's happening with gay marriage; we're trying to limit the tyranny of the majority -- legally, through our constitution. We're adding entries to the vague laundry list.

Sorry but not. The very definition stated "an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations"

You forgot to include what followed immediately: esp. as contrasted to cooperatively or state-owned means of wealth. Which is to say that capitalism is about private ownership/control as contrasted to state ownership. All the things owned by either the state or private interests are called "property".

And then I also stated that capital is not property (land is not money) and that property is not capital (money is not land).

Capital is not just another word for money, property is not just another word for land. I referred you to the definition of capital which you appear to have either not read or ignored. The 6th definition on the linked page is "any form of wealth employed or capable of being employed in the production of more wealth." So the computer I'm typing this on is capital. The machinery and tools I own are capital. They are my property:
"1. that which a person owns; the possession or possessions of a particular owner: They lost all their property in the fire.
2. goods, land, etc., considered as possessions: The corporation is a means for the common ownership of property.

And then my point arises naturally [from your erroneous/incomplete understanding of the words you are using]: given you can exchange money for lands as well as means of production or distribution, money (aka capital) as the very means of wealth exchange *is* the soul of capitalism, not property.

Communist/socialist countries have money, land and means of production too. The key differentiation is who owns and controls those things, in capitalism they are owned by private interests, ie "Capitalism is about the right for individuals to own property" as stated by thtrgremlin.

"Using your own pet definition during conversation is inadvisable if the goal is to have an intelligent discussion"

Like saying that capital is not the central issue of Capitalism, despite its very name?

Your confusion on this point arises from the idea that capital = money. Capital includes much more than money, the words are not interchangeable.

Since the very issue was what Marx stated or not, not if he was right or wrong, or if he tried to carry it on or not, well, I'd bet that, yes, it *does* matter.

Well, you've got a reasonable point there, but I'd argue that the "Communism says" comment made by thtrgremlin could be taken to include the observable actions of communist countries, not just the words of Marx. No communist country I'm aware of has dissolved it's dictatorship except to return to a more capitalist system, such as Russia and China. It is said that actions speak louder than words.

Who is the one pushing their own pet definitions now? Socialism is about state control, not Comunism. Unless, of course, you want to challenge the definition from its very creator.

"The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degrees, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralise all instruments of production in the hands of the State" - The Communist Manifesto.

Sorry but not. The very definition stated "an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations"

You forgot to include what followed immediately: esp. as contrasted to cooperatively or state-owned means of wealth. Which is to say that capitalism is about private ownership/control as contrasted to state ownership. All the things owned by either the state or private interests are called "property".

And then I also stated that capital is not property (land is not money) and that property is not capital (money is not land).

Capital is not just another word for money, property is not just another word for land. I referred you to the definition of capital which you appear to have either not read or ignored. The 6th definition on the linked page is "any form of wealth employed or capable of being employed in the production of more wealth." So the computer I'm typing this on is capital. The machinery and tools I own are capital. They are my property:
"1. that which a person owns; the possession or possessions of a particular owner: They lost all their property in the fire.
2. goods, land, etc., considered as possessions: The corporation is a means for the common ownership of property.

And then my point arises naturally [from your erroneous/incomplete understanding of the words you are using]: given you can exchange money for lands as well as means of production or distribution, money (aka capital) as the very means of wealth exchange *is* the soul of capitalism, not property.

Communist/socialist countries have money, land and means of production too. The key differentiation is who owns and controls those things, in capitalism they are owned by private interests, ie "Capitalism is about the right for individuals to own property" as stated by thtrgremlin.

"Using your own pet definition during conversation is inadvisable if the goal is to have an intelligent discussion"

Like saying that capital is not the central issue of Capitalism, despite its very name?

Your confusion on this point arises from the idea that capital = money. Capital includes much more than money, the words are not interchangeable.

Since the very issue was what Marx stated or not, not if he was right or wrong, or if he tried to carry it on or not, well, I'd bet that, yes, it *does* matter.

Well, you've got a reasonable point there, but I'd argue that the "Communism says" comment made by thtrgremlin could be taken to include the observable actions of communist countries, not just the words of Marx. No communist country I'm aware of has dissolved it's dictatorship except to return to a more capitalist system, such as Russia and China. It is said that actions speak louder than words.

Who is the one pushing their own pet definitions now? Socialism is about state control, not Comunism. Unless, of course, you want to challenge the definition from its very creator.

"The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degrees, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralise all instruments of production in the hands of the State" - The Communist Manifesto.

Well, congrats on finding definitions that support your personal belief that your nationalistic views are not negative. Well, at least most of your definitions were non-negative. Well, I guess that depends on the perspective -- such as what your nationality is in relation to the nationalist, or whether you think a competitive anarchy of nations is a sustainable world model, etc.

it's a stretch to call nationalism a form of bigotry.

Well, I dunno about that. Even Conservapedia will concede that nationalism "can also go to extremes, leading to hatred of non-members of the nation (which is often ethnically defined) and violence."

Nationalism is at odds with globalism. If you have a worldview that includes and respects all nations -- or more to the point, all the world's people -- as equals, nationalism is anathema. Nationalism says my country is better than yours. It's well beyond patriotism, which says my country is great, and I care about it.

Missing from the definition above of "bigotry" is the cross-reference to "bigot", which is defined a bit more thoroughly:

n. One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.

So yeah, I'm pretty sure that "Fuck you, it's our internet, and you don't get to have a say in it" would qualify as nationalist bigotry, as much as "Non-American countries can't be trusted with the internet" does.

And yes, I do qualify nationalism as bigotry. (I don't know what your basis was for the assertion "nationalism is not recognized as a form of bigotry", and I'm not aware of anyone that conclusively determines these things.) Insisting that your country is more capable of something than any other country -- how is that structurally different than, say, insisting that men are better at governing than women, or insisting that white people are better workers than black people? It's a determination of value or ability based not on merit but on circumstance of nationality. Both Radkin and the OC here assert this same national supremacism. "Bigot", then, is an entirely suitable epithet. No one likes being called a bigot, including (and especially) bigots.

Well, congrats on finding definitions that support your personal belief that your nationalistic views are not negative. Well, at least most of your definitions were non-negative. Well, I guess that depends on the perspective -- such as what your nationality is in relation to the nationalist, or whether you think a competitive anarchy of nations is a sustainable world model, etc.

it's a stretch to call nationalism a form of bigotry.

Well, I dunno about that. Even Conservapedia will concede that nationalism "can also go to extremes, leading to hatred of non-members of the nation (which is often ethnically defined) and violence."

Nationalism is at odds with globalism. If you have a worldview that includes and respects all nations -- or more to the point, all the world's people -- as equals, nationalism is anathema. Nationalism says my country is better than yours. It's well beyond patriotism, which says my country is great, and I care about it.

Missing from the definition above of "bigotry" is the cross-reference to "bigot", which is defined a bit more thoroughly:

n. One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.

So yeah, I'm pretty sure that "Fuck you, it's our internet, and you don't get to have a say in it" would qualify as nationalist bigotry, as much as "Non-American countries can't be trusted with the internet" does.

And yes, I do qualify nationalism as bigotry. (I don't know what your basis was for the assertion "nationalism is not recognized as a form of bigotry", and I'm not aware of anyone that conclusively determines these things.) Insisting that your country is more capable of something than any other country -- how is that structurally different than, say, insisting that men are better at governing than women, or insisting that white people are better workers than black people? It's a determination of value or ability based not on merit but on circumstance of nationality. Both Radkin and the OC here assert this same national supremacism. "Bigot", then, is an entirely suitable epithet. No one likes being called a bigot, including (and especially) bigots.

Well, congrats on finding definitions that support your personal belief that your nationalistic views are not negative. Well, at least most of your definitions were non-negative. Well, I guess that depends on the perspective -- such as what your nationality is in relation to the nationalist, or whether you think a competitive anarchy of nations is a sustainable world model, etc.

it's a stretch to call nationalism a form of bigotry.

Well, I dunno about that. Even Conservapedia will concede that nationalism "can also go to extremes, leading to hatred of non-members of the nation (which is often ethnically defined) and violence."

Nationalism is at odds with globalism. If you have a worldview that includes and respects all nations -- or more to the point, all the world's people -- as equals, nationalism is anathema. Nationalism says my country is better than yours. It's well beyond patriotism, which says my country is great, and I care about it.

Missing from the definition above of "bigotry" is the cross-reference to "bigot", which is defined a bit more thoroughly:

n. One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.

So yeah, I'm pretty sure that "Fuck you, it's our internet, and you don't get to have a say in it" would qualify as nationalist bigotry, as much as "Non-American countries can't be trusted with the internet" does.

And yes, I do qualify nationalism as bigotry. (I don't know what your basis was for the assertion "nationalism is not recognized as a form of bigotry", and I'm not aware of anyone that conclusively determines these things.) Insisting that your country is more capable of something than any other country -- how is that structurally different than, say, insisting that men are better at governing than women, or insisting that white people are better workers than black people? It's a determination of value or ability based not on merit but on circumstance of nationality. Both Radkin and the OC here assert this same national supremacism. "Bigot", then, is an entirely suitable epithet. No one likes being called a bigot, including (and especially) bigots.

So exactly my point. Property is not capital and capital is not property.

No, actually, the exact opposite of your point. thtrgremlin said "Capitalism is about the right for individuals to own property" which you disputed but my reference to the dictionary confirmed. Since you didn't notice that I linked to the definition of capitalism and not capital you've mistaken my post as confirmation of your error. A quick read of the definition for capital with particular attention to the 4th, 5th, 6th and 7th definitions will reveal to you that capital is indeed a type of property. Non productive property, however, is not capital.

And then, your dictionary definition is terribly lacky: Capitalism is not only an economic system but a social system too and it's from this fact that my definition derives.

1. Every economic system is a social system too.
2. Using your own pet definition during conversation is inadvisable if the goal is to have an intelligent discussion. If, for the sake of clarifying a little understood point, you are going to use a word in a particular way, the onus is on you to define your terms at the beginning. However, because you were disputing definitions, we may reasonably take your point to be disputing the commonly used meaning of the word and not some private meaning that only you know and haven't divulged.

"Heh! To think that millions of people where actually stupid enough to believe that a dictatorship would dismantle itself through the goodwill of the dictator. If it wasn't so horribly, murderously tragic, that would be funny. "

So what? Does that make false that Marx stated what I pointed out?

Doesn't really matter that he said it, since there is no evidence that he had any intention of carrying it out. If anyone wants to be handed complete dictatorial power, it is because they want complete dictatorial power, not because they want to help you towards utopia. Communism is about state control, and people would be better to not forget it.

And then, your dictionary definition is terribly lacky:

I see you lack understandment so I'll follow your comparation

You might want to reconsider taking people on over the correct use of words. I know they're probably just typos and it's possible that English isn't your first language, but just saying.

There is as much wrong with nationalism as with any other bigotry.
It seems from your speech that you are not only a bigot, but also a pretty uncultivated one, filled with hatred which seems to be the most important purpose in your life. Poor you.

And you pretty much sabotaged your own attempt to make any sort of point whatsoever by indulging in an ad hominem attack.

It doesn't help your case that nationalism is not recognized as a form of bigotry. I'll cut you some slack since English is clearly not your primary language, but I would like to share a couple definitions. First, for nationalism:

1. national spirit or aspirations.
2. devotion and loyalty to one's own nation; patriotism.
3. excessive patriotism; chauvinism.
4. the desire for national advancement or independence.
5. the policy or doctrine of asserting the interests of one's own nation, viewed as separate from the interests of other nations or the common interests of all nations.

[...]

There are other senses of the word which I did not include, but the ones cited should suffice for this discussion. Note that only the third sense given above is explicitly negative, while the fifth sense could be construed as negative or positive depending on the circumstances.

By contrast, here's a definition for bigotry:

1. stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own.
2. the actions, beliefs, prejudices, etc., of a bigot.

While you could argue that some forms of nationalism are pathological (and I would agree), it's a stretch to call nationalism a form of bigotry. While you could even argue that the United States is chock full of bigots (which I consider to be an unfair characterization of the vast majority of Americans), you haven't really shown the GP to be a bigot.

You also seem to take issue with the GP's mode of expression, which, while somewhat confrontational, is pretty culturally common here in the U.S. It's the height of cultural arrogance to expect us to conform to your social norms. You accuse him of hatred and a whole host of other things, but I don't actually see anything hateful in his speech. If you're judging him by a UK lexicon, may I simply remind you that the United States has its own dialect of English that is distinct from the standard UK dialect that most Europeans are exposed to. Expecting his language patterns to conform to some arbitrary foreign set of standards is a bit like expecting a cab driver in Mexico City to speak Castillian, complete with European Spanish idioms.

Finally, just to point out, when you accuse the GP of being delusional, you sort of miss the point he was trying to make. The GP never once said that he actually thought it would be a good idea for other nations to have their own root DNS servers. He was being sarcastic.

There is as much wrong with nationalism as with any other bigotry.
It seems from your speech that you are not only a bigot, but also a pretty uncultivated one, filled with hatred which seems to be the most important purpose in your life. Poor you.

And you pretty much sabotaged your own attempt to make any sort of point whatsoever by indulging in an ad hominem attack.

It doesn't help your case that nationalism is not recognized as a form of bigotry. I'll cut you some slack since English is clearly not your primary language, but I would like to share a couple definitions. First, for nationalism:

1. national spirit or aspirations.
2. devotion and loyalty to one's own nation; patriotism.
3. excessive patriotism; chauvinism.
4. the desire for national advancement or independence.
5. the policy or doctrine of asserting the interests of one's own nation, viewed as separate from the interests of other nations or the common interests of all nations.

[...]

There are other senses of the word which I did not include, but the ones cited should suffice for this discussion. Note that only the third sense given above is explicitly negative, while the fifth sense could be construed as negative or positive depending on the circumstances.

By contrast, here's a definition for bigotry:

1. stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own.
2. the actions, beliefs, prejudices, etc., of a bigot.

While you could argue that some forms of nationalism are pathological (and I would agree), it's a stretch to call nationalism a form of bigotry. While you could even argue that the United States is chock full of bigots (which I consider to be an unfair characterization of the vast majority of Americans), you haven't really shown the GP to be a bigot.

You also seem to take issue with the GP's mode of expression, which, while somewhat confrontational, is pretty culturally common here in the U.S. It's the height of cultural arrogance to expect us to conform to your social norms. You accuse him of hatred and a whole host of other things, but I don't actually see anything hateful in his speech. If you're judging him by a UK lexicon, may I simply remind you that the United States has its own dialect of English that is distinct from the standard UK dialect that most Europeans are exposed to. Expecting his language patterns to conform to some arbitrary foreign set of standards is a bit like expecting a cab driver in Mexico City to speak Castillian, complete with European Spanish idioms.

Finally, just to point out, when you accuse the GP of being delusional, you sort of miss the point he was trying to make. The GP never once said that he actually thought it would be a good idea for other nations to have their own root DNS servers. He was being sarcastic.

"Capital is not property; property is not capital. Capitalism is about giving almighty power to capital disregarding everything else.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/capitalism
  capitalism
  -noun
  an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations, esp. as contrasted to cooperatively or state-owned means of wealth."

So exactly my point. Property is not capital and capital is not property. And then, your dictionary definition is terribly lacky: Capitalism is not only an economic system but a social system too and it's from this fact that my definition derives.

"Heh! To think that millions of people where actually stupid enough to believe that a dictatorship would dismantle itself through the goodwill of the dictator. If it wasn't so horribly, murderously tragic, that would be funny. "

So what? Does that make false that Marx stated what I pointed out?

"You getting informative mod for that post is about on a par with a Branch Davidian getting informative for posting that David Koresh is the incarnation of god."

I see you lack understandment so I'll follow your comparation: I'm as informative as someone that states that for Christians Jesus Christ is the incarnation of god... which is quite diferent than saying that Jesus Christ *is* the incarnation of god.