Slashdot Mirror

feel free to write to dictionary.com with your critique.

To do some work for you I find http://dictionary.reference.co... which supports your idea of the word. But it does support both our versions very well.
So it's still correct to say "create a copy". And people use the word that way.

You say academia doesn't use it that way, the rest of the world does.

Don't hire a coder to do a software developer's job. Developers Developers Developers.

Quite backwards, in my experience. The more shit you feel the need to add to your title, the less capable you probably are.

If you're a programmer you can probably program.

If you're a software engineer, you probably think you can program, but really rely almost entirely on other programmers, an IDE, someone else's libraries, tools, APIs, etc. to do the real work while you focus on promising users and PHBs functionality and changes without understanding how shit actual works or what the impact of those changes you promised will be.

If you're a project manager, you probably programmed something a decade ago and have unrealistic expectations of how shit and people will and should work.

If your title includes references to "as a service", "cloud hosting", "rich media", etc., then you're really nothing more than a middle man selling someone else's shit to idiots who don't realize they're buying marketing fluff they don't want or need.

This applies to all sectors. You can be the regional head of marketing and development for social media by being a 38 year old overweight lumpus if you've been at the company a while and have a nephew who has a Twitter account.

BTW, I thought I was making "lumpus" up. http://dictionary.reference.co... That shit just sounded right.

Not that I would put it past the NRC to attempt to redefine the meaning of the word "nuclear", but you're misreading that. It says: "byproduct material" is "nuclear material (other than special nuclear material) that is produced or made radioactive in a nuclear reactor". It doesn't say "radioactive material ... produced".

No matter what NRC pages say, the fact remains, the term "nuclear" does not refer to all radioactive materials:

http://dictionary.reference.co...

Imposing a religion on anyone is antithetical to true Christian doctrine. I am to proclaim the truth of Jesus Christ which includes His creation.

Science is experimentation, observation, then conclusion. Science is repeatable.

Evolution is speculation about the past. Neither any of you nor I were present during any of your speculations about the past. Evolution is a belief. Non-scientists applied dates to fossils based on arbitrary underground layers, but those same non-scientists dated the varying levels underground by the fossils. Clearly circular reasoning as opposed to science. Evolution is superstition. RCA assumes a steady rate of decay, but once again, none of us were present even 1,000 years ago to confirm through proper scientific method a steady rate of decay.

Know this, Jesus Christ loves you. He made the world, and He owns it. Jesus Christ is the way, the truth, and the life, and no one comes to the Father without Him. The Kingdom of God is at hand, and the last days are coming to a close when the earth will be consumed by fire. Believe and repent.

I hate to agree to agree to generalizations like that, but things like this add to that point.

Do we really need a word to imply betrayal of ones heritage just by becoming successful and escaping the ghetto?

>And since when is "roadable" a word? It always comes off as a pathetic attempt to legitimize a concept; the idea that something is so new and so awesome they had to make up a new term.

The early 1920's.

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

Moran

Is this you?

And FYI, moron.

"Killing" virtual people is a simulation of killing. A computer simulation is not alive, and therefore cannot be killed by definition. Nice strawman through.

I agree that "even more stupid" may sound more "proper," but seriously... who cares? "Stupider" makes just as much sense. And it's not like it's not in any dictionaries:

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

"Sophistry does often imply intent"

But it doesn't necessarily imply intent (definitions 1 and 2). that's why it says "especially" and not "always".

- Random House Dictionary

Funny how you cherry-picked there, the full random house definition is as follows, you'll note your "vindication" definition is 2nd, an actual expression of regret is first.

apology [uh-pol-uh-jee]
noun, plural apologies.

1. 1. a written or spoken expression of one's regret, remorse, or sorrow for having insulted, failed, injured, or wronged another: He demanded an apology from me for calling him a crook.
2. 2. a defense, excuse, or justification in speech or writing, as for a cause or doctrine.
3. 3. (initial capital letter, italics) a dialogue by Plato, centering on Socrates' defense before the tribunal that condemned him to death.
4. 4. an inferior specimen or substitute; makeshift: The tramp wore a sad apology for a hat.

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

Well, we could pick at their wording, but assuming we take their use of the word "categorically" to mean what the word means, it's rather hard to suggest that they intended to say anything other than what their statement says on the surface: it didn't happen.

Obviously they could be lying, but so could Reuters, or maybe Snowden forged the documents, or maybe Reuters simply misunderstood them, or maybe it's just some sort of bullshit NSA internal documentation intended to mislead any spies who happen to steal the information. (...and it did get stolen, which almost seems to kick that last idea into the realm of possibility.)

Hell, now that I think about it, that might also explain Google et. al.'s denial of their involvement with the NSA as well. I mean, if you can't actually spy on everything your enemies do on the internet, you might just settle for convincing them that you can, so that they're afraid to use the internet and are therefore at a disadvantage by not utilizing a valuable tool. It might also cause them to choose methods of communication that you can easily monitor.

Maybe Edward Snowden stole a honeypot. Wouldn't that just be hilarious? Has he revealed anything that's independently verifiable?

No the subject at hand is your ignoramus "us vs them" stupidity.

Ignoramus is a noun, not an adjective.

He is allowed to use english and treason is an appropriate word. Please do not limit the word or its use by restricting its definition to what a single national document says it means. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/treason

I'm bitching that you hae no actual arguments to present

Oh my! Well then. Allow me to point out my past arguments:

[bitching about how little roads cost and how grandparent has a bad argument

ARGUMENT #1) The government does quite a lot. "He drove on public roads" is a metaphor for all the things the government does for the public good. It includes providing safety, law, a fair system that keeps Walmart from enslaving you, regulators that keep Monsanto from dooming us all in plagues, the FDA keeps factories from dumping toxic sludge into rivers, and it keeps the banks from simply stealing all your money.

[Bitching about how thin a slice of the pie "all that other stuff" accounts for]

ARGUMENT #2) Well if you look at it that way, the feds also take a very thin slice of your income. Taxes aren't that bad.

[Bububut that seems unfair! We rich dicks are a MINORITY!]

ARGUMENT #3) Yeah, dude. It's a progressive tax. Name me a place that doesn't have a progressive tax?
ARGUMENT #4) Our constitution specifically states that the government has the power to do this.
ARGUMENT #5) If you're unhappy with being the wealthy group of people in the most powerful nation, you're never going to be happy, no matter how you're taxed.
ARGUMENT #6) The method in which the wealthy make their wealth is often (but not always) at the detriment of those less wealthy than them. They got that money from somewhere. The rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. The Gini index is rising.
ARGUMENT #7) There seems to be no way to justify the income of the super-wealthy. They can not possibly have helped or advanced society so much as to justify this massive inbalance in wealth.

So there you have it. A pretty good list of arguments for why your statements are wrong. A list you've so far blithely ignored. Well, I guess you did try to have a counter-argument for #1 (by erroneously lumping social security into the pie chart), but after that you just whined that it doesn't seem fair to tax rich dicks.

BRAND NEW ARGUMENT #8) Whoa! Holy shit, how did I miss this one. You're getting confused on the definition of "minority group". It's a sociological term. And frankly, those guys suck at math. Yes, there are less rich guys than poor guys, the rich are in the minority. But the term "minority group" has a different meaning than that. It means the used and abused subset of a populace, not necessarily the ones there are less of. That's how black people were still a minority group in the south after they were freed. You're using the casual term overlap and abusing it.

You were taught that "progressive taxation is good",

Yes, because a progressive tax IS GOOD. At least it's a hell of a lot better than any other alternative tried so far. A flat tax, or even the dystopia of a regressive tax, seems to accumulate ALL the wealth to a small subset at the top who always abuse that wealth and use their power to stay in power.

and "Walmart is bad"

Whoa now. Walmart is POWERFUL, not necessarily bad. And as a corporation you can trust them to try and get as much money as they can in any way they can. And like a strong dog, it needs to have a leash on it. It's like radiation; dangerous, powerful, potentially useful, and it needs to be properly handled OR IT'LL FUCKING KILL YOU.

and the other lessons schools teach

Pft, is that a jab at education? Are you fighting against education now?

Why is it OK to hurt group A and not group B?

Because group A is "hurting"(in your sense of the word) group B in the ludicrously imbalanced system that is the fre

Where I'm from, further can be used for distance:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/farther

Usage note
Although some usage guides insist that only farther should be used for physical distance (We walked farther than we planned), farther and further have been used interchangeably throughout much of their histories. However, only further is used in the adverbial sense "moreover" (Further, you hurt my feelings) and in the adjectival senses "more extended" (no further comment) and "additional" (Further bulletins came in).
The expression all the farther (or further) in place of as far as occurs chiefly in informal speech: This is all the farther the train goes.

See also: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/further

Again with the name calling.

Take your fascist views to another country, Commie!

fascist - I do not think that word means what you think it means.
Commie - I do not think that word means what you think it means.

NOWHERE in the SECOND AMENDMENT does it say ANYTHING about gun education

Nor does the parenting handbook - because their is no parenting handbook. I feel it is my responsibility to raise fully functional, non-sociopath, productive children. Incidentally, I also teach them that name-calling is a sign of weakness.

Again with the name calling.

Take your fascist views to another country, Commie!

fascist - I do not think that word means what you think it means.
Commie - I do not think that word means what you think it means.

NOWHERE in the SECOND AMENDMENT does it say ANYTHING about gun education

Nor does the parenting handbook - because their is no parenting handbook. I feel it is my responsibility to raise fully functional, non-sociopath, productive children. Incidentally, I also teach them that name-calling is a sign of weakness.

An Anonymous Coward provided the definition, I'll re-post it for you.

The AC posted:

please refrain from redefining solicit. it has never meant that

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

In case your clicky finger is broken:

solicit [suh-lis-it] Show IPA
verbs 7

verb (used with object)
1.
to seek for (something) by entreaty, earnest or respectful request, formal application, etc.:
He solicited aid from the minister.

2.
to entreat or petition (someone or some agency):
to solicit the committee for funds.

3.
to seek to influence or incite to action, especially unlawful or wrong action.

4.
to offer to have sex with in exchange for money.
verb (used without object)

5.
to make a petition or request, as for something desired.

6.
to solicit orders or trade, as for a business:
No soliciting allowed in this building.

7.
to offer to have sex with someone in exchange for money.

Origin
1400–50; late Middle English soliciten

I don't think you understand how language or dictionaries work. When everyone consistently over time uses a word to mean a particular thing, and holds that thing to be the correct usage, that's what the word means. It is entirely possibly that "loose" will eventually be accepted as a word for misplacing something, but it's not yet considered so. The word "currency" is used to refer to Bitcoin by countless groups that make every effort to use language correctly and no significant number of people (is there even anyone but you?) claiming it is not correct means that that's what the word means.

Even if "currency" once meant something else (though it didn't) it wouldn't now. Like the word "egregious". When I tell you you are an egregious human being you are well aware I am not referring to you as eminent or distinguished. I'm referring to how "extraordinary in a bad way" your critical thinking, reasoning and debate skills (such as they are) are.

Such a definition is entirely useless because it does apply to almost anything swapped for something else

So basically the dictionary is "wrong" because you think the definition is something else? What an amazing combination of arrogance and idiocy.

which is why there is the second part to it (;money) which you have pretended to be too stupid to notice.

Oh, right, money:
money
1. any circulating medium of exchange, including coins, paper money, and demand deposits.
[snip]
4. any article or substance used as a medium of exchange, measure of wealth, or means of payment, as checks on demand deposit or cowrie.

Oops. Did you mean to point out that you were still wrong? One definition actually mentions cowrie (shell money). How embarrassing. You should probably look words up before you try to use them.

Thank you for your personal definition but I will go with the dictionary one thanks.

I said, "A currency is simply something that is generally accepted in exchange for goods and services. "

The dictionary says:
currency
1. something that is used as a medium of exchange; money.
[snip]
I think my statement is a fair paraphrasing of the dictionary definition and is certainly what i think of when i think of the concept of "currency". I would say that you are the one redefining the term by trying to limit it to concepts with which you are familiar. The world has seen a great many objects most of us would see as strange used as currency. Salt, squirrel pelts, sea shells, and giant stones up to 12 feet in diameter. And yes, in ancient Egypt, beer was even used as currency.

I really hate this "let's make it difficult to communicate just so I can trick others into misunderstanding what I mean and make it look like I've won an argument" shit that has been disgorged from the ugly end of US politics. You can be a better person than that.

Ditto. You jumped in in the middle of a conversation I was not having with you. I'm not clear on what you were objecting to and why, and you have yet to explain it. If you want me to address a specific objection you will have to state it clearly and forthrightly. As of now you're just playing games and being deliberately obtuse. Not to mention hypocritical in trying to accuse me of being anything less than forthright in the face of your semantic games.

If you object to the word "currency" being used to describe Bitcoin you're going to have to come up with something pretty convincing, as all the evidence is stacked against you. If you object to something else, you're going to actually explain what that is.

Many of the critics of the theory of evolution fall into the trap of misunderstanding the definitions of 'theory' and 'hypothesis'

Scientific Theory (from http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/scientific+theory:)
"scientific theory
noun
a theory that explains scientific observations; 'scientific theories must be falsifiable'"

Theory (from http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/theory?s=t:)
"theory [thee-uh-ree, theer-ee] Show IPA
noun, plural theories.
1.
a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity. Synonyms: principle, law, doctrine."

Hypothesis (from http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hypothesis:)
"hypothesis [hahy-poth-uh-sis, hi-] Show IPA
noun, plural hypotheses [hahy-poth-uh-seez, hi-] Show IPA .
1.
a proposition, or set of propositions, set forth as an explanation for the occurrence of some specified group of phenomena, either asserted merely as a provisional conjecture to guide investigation (working hypothesis) or accepted as highly probable in the light of established facts."

Here's where things become more interesting:
Scientific Theory (from http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/scientific+theory:)
"scientific theory
noun
a theory that explains scientific observations; 'scientific theories must be falsifiable'"

So, a scientific theory must not only explain the phenomenon, but also be well supported by empirical evidence and experimentation and be falsifiable yet proven. A hypothesis, on the other hand, is only a proposed explanation for given observations.

Here's a nice comparison between the concepts: http://www.diffen.com/difference/Hypothesis_vs_Theory

Many of the critics of the theory of evolution fall into the trap of misunderstanding the definitions of 'theory' and 'hypothesis'

Scientific Theory (from http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/scientific+theory:)
"scientific theory
noun
a theory that explains scientific observations; 'scientific theories must be falsifiable'"

Theory (from http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/theory?s=t:)
"theory [thee-uh-ree, theer-ee] Show IPA
noun, plural theories.
1.
a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity. Synonyms: principle, law, doctrine."

Hypothesis (from http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hypothesis:)
"hypothesis [hahy-poth-uh-sis, hi-] Show IPA
noun, plural hypotheses [hahy-poth-uh-seez, hi-] Show IPA .
1.
a proposition, or set of propositions, set forth as an explanation for the occurrence of some specified group of phenomena, either asserted merely as a provisional conjecture to guide investigation (working hypothesis) or accepted as highly probable in the light of established facts."

Here's where things become more interesting:
Scientific Theory (from http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/scientific+theory:)
"scientific theory
noun
a theory that explains scientific observations; 'scientific theories must be falsifiable'"

So, a scientific theory must not only explain the phenomenon, but also be well supported by empirical evidence and experimentation and be falsifiable yet proven. A hypothesis, on the other hand, is only a proposed explanation for given observations.

Here's a nice comparison between the concepts: http://www.diffen.com/difference/Hypothesis_vs_Theory

Many of the critics of the theory of evolution fall into the trap of misunderstanding the definitions of 'theory' and 'hypothesis'

Scientific Theory (from http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/scientific+theory:)
"scientific theory
noun
a theory that explains scientific observations; 'scientific theories must be falsifiable'"

Theory (from http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/theory?s=t:)
"theory [thee-uh-ree, theer-ee] Show IPA
noun, plural theories.
1.
a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity. Synonyms: principle, law, doctrine."

Hypothesis (from http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hypothesis:)
"hypothesis [hahy-poth-uh-sis, hi-] Show IPA
noun, plural hypotheses [hahy-poth-uh-seez, hi-] Show IPA .
1.
a proposition, or set of propositions, set forth as an explanation for the occurrence of some specified group of phenomena, either asserted merely as a provisional conjecture to guide investigation (working hypothesis) or accepted as highly probable in the light of established facts."

Here's where things become more interesting:
Scientific Theory (from http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/scientific+theory:)
"scientific theory
noun
a theory that explains scientific observations; 'scientific theories must be falsifiable'"

So, a scientific theory must not only explain the phenomenon, but also be well supported by empirical evidence and experimentation and be falsifiable yet proven. A hypothesis, on the other hand, is only a proposed explanation for given observations.

Here's a nice comparison between the concepts: http://www.diffen.com/difference/Hypothesis_vs_Theory

Many of the critics of the theory of evolution fall into the trap of misunderstanding the definitions of 'theory' and 'hypothesis'

Scientific Theory (from http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/scientific+theory:)
"scientific theory
noun
a theory that explains scientific observations; 'scientific theories must be falsifiable'"

Theory (from http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/theory?s=t:)
"theory [thee-uh-ree, theer-ee] Show IPA
noun, plural theories.
1.
a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity. Synonyms: principle, law, doctrine."

Hypothesis (from http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hypothesis:)
"hypothesis [hahy-poth-uh-sis, hi-] Show IPA
noun, plural hypotheses [hahy-poth-uh-seez, hi-] Show IPA .
1.
a proposition, or set of propositions, set forth as an explanation for the occurrence of some specified group of phenomena, either asserted merely as a provisional conjecture to guide investigation (working hypothesis) or accepted as highly probable in the light of established facts."

Here's where things become more interesting:
Scientific Theory (from http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/scientific+theory:)
"scientific theory
noun
a theory that explains scientific observations; 'scientific theories must be falsifiable'"

So, a scientific theory must not only explain the phenomenon, but also be well supported by empirical evidence and experimentation and be falsifiable yet proven. A hypothesis, on the other hand, is only a proposed explanation for given observations.

Here's a nice comparison between the concepts: http://www.diffen.com/difference/Hypothesis_vs_Theory

I had to use urban dictionary to understand wtf a "photog" was:
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=photog

Slang for Photographer apparently. Although I've never heard or seen anyone use the term and apparently those writing the summary title thought they were being "hip".

You might have used the regular dictionary instead, and learned that the word "photog" has been in use for over a century. Congrats, you're one of today's Lucky 10,000!

Only if you use definition 4 of "hurt" from the same source. I think you know very well that the generally agreed-upon definition of violence is compatible with definition one of hurt, "to cause physical damage or pain", not all.

When you try to stretch words in this way they lose all meaning. It's okay to say "I don't like violence and I don't like hindering legitimate businesses". That's way clearer than claiming that hindering a legitimate business is violence.

But actually, when I searched for violence on dictionary.com I didn't get the definition you're quoting:

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

There are some obviously similar definitions but none are the same or even close enough to just be a typo apart. In particular, the word "hurt" does not appear on that page.

or do you think that the subsidy is real; but smaller?

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

While I'm all against abusive big-brother type monitoring, how else do you expect this to work? Initially there is no clear defining line saying when a type of monitoring becomes unacceptable. In order for the courts to establish that line, one side needs to argue to them that it is acceptable, while the other argues that it is not. If law enforcement doesn't argue the pro side, who will?

And then they complain when it gets pointed at them. That would be what makes them hypocrites.

I suck at golf, does that make me a bogeyman? At least I'm a good dancer - a boogieman.

Perhaps you mean boogeyman?

Nope

You can't get a telephone-number for free? Buy a phone for $40,- and get a unique number. Not exactly free but close enough.

I think you need to learn how money works. "$40" and "free" are, in fact, not the same thing. If you understood this then you would realise your reply is pointless.

You probably need this: "Free".

i think both you and the summary mean "practise" the verb, not practice the noun.

I think you forgot that the whole English-speaking world is not European.

Of particular interest is the line that says "Also, British, practise". If you're going to correct someone, get your own shit together, won't you?

Dump a bunch of supposed important people into an underground tunnel? Sounds good!

Also, in round accelerators they can achieve much higher energies, iirc, since the particles can travel around the ring many times... while in a linear accelerator its maximum energy is dictated by the length of a single run.

The internet was designed and has been used in a fashion where you link what you are talking about.

Really? Do you have a citation supporting that claim?

People post here in their free time, for personal amusement/enrichment. While it is reasonable to ask for an article or link, it is entirely unreasonable to demand them. Beyond unreasonable, is the act of continuing to harass someone about a missing link after they have provided it.

It's the golden rule, don't be an asshole

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

I'll go ahead and use the following definition from the Dictionary.com for reference.

A symmetrical bell-shaped curve that represents the distribution of values, frequencies, or probabilities of a set of data. It slopes downward from a point in the middle corresponding to the mean value, or the maximum probability. Data that reflect the aggregate outcome of large numbers of unrelated events tend to result in bell curve distributions. â-- The Gaussian or normal distribution is a mathematically well-defined bell curve used in statistics and in science generally.

It's purpose is to define what the mean average of a given set of values is. With a bell curve you can tell not only what the average of a set of numbers is, but what the mean average is. For this reason you can use a bell curve to get a better define what the "normal" or "average" for a set of data is without being thrown off by a small number of outlier values.

Now my argument that I'm putting forth is that if you have a set of values (in this case game review scores) and plot them in a bell curve you will find out what the actual average score is from a given site. If you plot a 100 data points from 1 to 10 and 80 of them range between a score of 6, 7 or an 8 you can discern that they actual mean "average" is probably a 7. By definition you can't have almost everything be above average.

An honest site will fit somewhat close to a bell curve for their defined range, whereas a dishonest site simply can't do that.

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

noun, used with singular verbs. Regardless of the derivation, it's not a plural. And if you can't say maths without it sounding like a speech impediment, I think that's your problem (note: I say math). Can you say "baths" without it sounding like you have a speech impediment? That's a real plural and it is a word that you're likely to encounter in North American life.

Maybe it should be "math's", since it seems like more of a contraction than a strict abbreviation.

More to the point, what is freedom itself?
Freedom noun.
1. the state of being free or at liberty rather than in confinement or under physical restraint
Mechanism: Self Control.
2. exemption from external control, interference, regulation, etc.
Mechanism: Self Control.
3. the power to determine action without restraint.
Mechanism: Self Control.
4. political or national independence.
Mechanism: Self Control.
5. personal liberty, as opposed to bondage or slavery
Mechanism: Self Control.

I guess one could even say that the separation between a stable mind and insanity is self control.
So shut the fuck up and do what I tell you to do; then and only then, will I give you my bread and beer you made so that you just might live another day.

Incorrect. I never once said or implied that punishment in general implies big government; we're talking specifically about the death penalty.

And if you think punishment is the ultimate big government, then you imply the argument against big government means no punishment. We can play these word games where you try to say something that appears to be one thing but is really something else all day long. Just don't get mad when I call out what it implies.

Nonsense. The argument? You speak as if there is only one group at work here. This comment shows that there are multiple groups at work here.

I don't think you will find any group that thinks the government on a federal or state level should not do what the constitution demands or limits them from doing and still have that argument construed as being against big government. It doesn't have to be one group, but you will be hard pressed to find a group with a deviation from how I explained it.

But really, why refer to it simply as "big government" (among other ambiguous terms) and then act surprised when people don't know exactly what is meant? When you say "big government," it makes it sound like you're talking about government in general, and that's exactly what group I'm talking about.

Big government is a term used by people who object to the government's approach on freedoms and deviation from constitutional roles. I mean lets look the term up and see what it is..

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/big+government
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/big-government
http://www.macmillandictionary.com/us/dictionary/american/big-government
http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/big-government

Those all with a few different wordings state the big government is a derogatory term used to describe an over reaching government outside it's constitutional roles. But Wikipedia has a more detailed description of it.

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

the first paragraph on the page says "Big government (sometimes capitalized as Big Government) is a derogatory term generally used by political conservatives, laissez-faire advocates, or libertarians to describe a government or public sector that they consider to be excessively large, corrupt and inefficient, or inappropriately involved in certain areas of public policy or the private sector. The term may also be used specifically in relation to government policies that attempt to regulate matters considered to be private or personal, such as private sexual behavior or individual food choices. The term has also been used to define a dominant federal government that seeks to control the authority of local institutions - an example being the overriding of state authority in favor of federal legislation."

The reality of it is when the term is used, it is assumed those who hear it either understand the meaning or have the wherewithal to open a dictionary or do a Google search or at minimum ask someone to explain it to them. Perhaps it is a fault of those who use it in that we automatically assume the people on the other end already understand the concept. The term is not just two words Big and Government put together, but one phrase with two words that mean a specific thing or subject of things.

No. You just weren't sure which group I was referring to.

No, I'm confident you were not referring to any group who uses the term big government and instead were combining the definition of

You're wrong, AC is right.

a person whose physiological functioning is aided by or dependent upon a mechanical or electronic device.

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

a bionic human

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cyborg

having normal biological capability or performance enhanced by or as if by electronic or electromechanical devices

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bionic

Obduct
Ob*duct"\, v. t. [See Obduce.] To draw over; to cover. [Obs.]

So this isn't made up (At least, not by Cyan) at all. Perhaps you should endeavour to expand your vocabulary somewhat. Or, to put it in terms you might more easily understand: "Use dictionary, learn words, speak better."

noun
1. the final issue, the conclusion, or the result: The upshot of the disagreement was a new bylaw.
2. the gist, as of an argument or thesis.

Synonyms
1. consequence, outgrowth, aftereffect.

(not Nissan Leaf range) so you can do most driving folks would need to do.

I'm not claiming they're in the same class of car, but Nissan Leaf range *WILL* do the distance "most driving folks would need to do".

From http://www.reference.com/motif/sports/average-commute-in-miles-for-americans
the average commute is 32 miles, round trip, every day.
(Nissan's page says less than 29 miles/day, quoting FHWA)

The Leaf can do 75 miles. So you get *more than double* the average commute, plenty of room for driving around town on errands, etc.
http://www.nissanusa.com/electric-cars/leaf/charging-range/

(I don't have an electric car, yet, though I may get one with even slightly less than a Leaf, e.g. the electric smart, which is 68 miles combined.)

Smug

Baroque: "extravagantly ornate, florid, and convoluted in character or style," not unlike the architectural style of the same name. Seems fitting for at least some Makefile instances I have seen.

> waitstaff

Please tell me that's not really a word in use.

Sorry to be the one to break it to you, but ...

You disagree with the founding fathers then, on philosophical grounds, with respect to inalienable rights. Just because you don't believe that any such thing as an inalienable right can exist does not alter or change the fact that the rights enumerated were *specifically* and *explicitly* considered to be such.

You are welcome to your differing philosophy, but any interpretation you then make of documents whose writing was *predicated* on the existence and validity of inalienable rights is automatically wrong.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/inalienable+right
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_and_legal_rights

But it is not a unique pseudonym, and I know it's cool to be contrarian to ACs because they prefer to share an alias rather than add an extra layer of arbitrary identifiability.

I'll just leave this here in the delusion you'll actually fucking read it.

FREEDOM Mega Huge Internet Company Definition
1.the state of being free or at liberty rather than in confinement or under physical restraint. (Self Control)
2.exemption from external control, interference, regulation, etc. (Self Control)
3.the power to determine action without restraint. (Self Control)
4.political or national independence. (Macro Level Self Control)
5.personal liberty, as opposed to bondage or slavery: a slave who bought his freedom. (Self Control)

SELF CONTROL Mega Huge Internet Company Definition
1.control or restraint of oneself or one's actions, feelings, etc.

FREEDOM Encyclopedia Company Definition
1: the quality or state of being free: as
a : the absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action (Self Control)
b : liberation from slavery or restraint or from the power of another (Self Control)
c : the quality or state of being exempt or released usually from something oppressive (Self Control)
d : ease, facility (Self Control)
e : the quality of being frank, open, or outspoken
f : improper familiarity
g : boldness of conception or execution (Self Control)
h : unrestricted use (Self Control)
2
a : a political right
b : franchise, privilege

SELF CONTROL Encyclopedia Company Definition
restraint exercised over one's own impulses, emotions, or desires

FREEDOM Community Voted Definition
1. Something the American people just think they have.
2. Being able to make choices. Performing an action of your own choosing. Freedom will always be relative to the environment/situation which you inhabit.
3. Freedom is basically the right to be treated as an equal.
No-one has the right to exert any form of power over another, for any reason at all.
We all differ physically & intellectually; and circumstances do vary based both on merit and luck. We however diminish ourselves by using any of these 'advantages' to exert power.
Anyone who believes that they are better than another for whatever reason; is basically shallow and deluded.
If you do the right thing for the right reason and positively benefit the universe; you are far more likely to achieve happiness and essentially be at peace with yourself. Your conscience will always be there, it will always remember and it will hold you accountable. Do not delude yourself on this; the easy path often leads to great peril for your soul.
When you are doing something wrong, you are aware of it. You can lie to yourself (as many do), but what is the point? really that is just silly.
It is just as easy to make the right choice as is it to make the wrong one.
You have the freedom to disobey orders or rules (Refer norms).
You have the strength to do what needs to be done to try to benefit everything that exists.

Okay; I understand that things may already be in place; things are unfortunately not that simple. however, you can change your job, you can quit the military (hopefully), you can change how you act!!
It is possible to be in charge of a 100 people and not be an arsehole. If you are in charge of that many people you have the privilege of being able to increase the happiness of all of those souls. Sure, some of them wont appreciate it (Refer: Bogan) and there may be a price to pay, depending on the action that you take (remember: small steps still lead somewhere). But, it is still the right thing - its that simple.
Do you think you are something special? - prove it

"