Messages

It seems my connection keeps turning off everytime I get big.

Downloading pr0n, eh?

Pfff, you're just plaigarising Dave Gilbert...

The UK takes another approach, which is statistically more efficient (fewer people die from        insufficient care), but certainly has its own drawbacks.

Such decisions are inevitably based on political expediency.   Can you not see the immorality of a system where a group group of human beings decide who shall live and who shall die so as to derive the maximum benefit for their benefactors?   In the US system (up til now) the people at least retain their freedom to choose.

In the UK, anyone can always go for the US option and pay out of their own pocket for private treatment if they feel the NHS is failing them.  In the US, paying for treatment yourself one way or another is the ONLY  option, rather than the worst-case scenario.

Besides, doctors decide all the time on priority of treatment,a s there is always SOME resource that is limited, e.g. organs, blood, etc. Are you saying that they are beign immoral? Is it immoral to prioritise non-smokers over smokers for lung transplants?

In the USA, a guy who was really lazy and worthless but whose grandfather was very rich and gave him a good inheritance can get better care than someone who has moderate income but is self-employed, e.g. Dave Gilbert. How is that moral?

Prior to the bill employed Amerikaans who were offered healthcare through their employer had the option to reject it. Whether they couldn't afford it, they didn't need it, they had a different healthcare plan, or otherwise, the point is it was optional.

But the trouble with "options" is that one can be pressured into not taking the best one for yourself in all sorts of ways. Before the smoking ban in bars in the UK, it was of course optional for any bar to ban smoking of its own initiative. But hardly any did because some things are financial suicide unless everyone else does it too (or you're catering for a niche).

And people opting out of insurance means that a magical someone has to pick up the bill when sudenyl the person with no previous health problems gets sick. Sometimes this will mean state aid, sometimes this will be bankruptcy... all of these cost "society" money, too. No man is an island.

In the UK, we are forced to  pay National Insurance (its effectly a tax) for the NHS. In my company they offer a subsidized private insurance scheme too, which "tops up" my NHS cover and effectively lets me queue jump. I never signed up for these queue-jump schemes, personally, until I had kids.

Interestingly, the NHS covers some IVF and also abortions. Now that's a can of worms...

Human: lol i dont have a chinese keyboard
Mitsuku: I am glad you find this funny. Are you looking for a chinese keyboard?
Human: if its cheap
Mitsuku: I'm not sure I understand the implication of that.[/i]

Actually, Chinese people don't have Chinese keyboards, either, in my experience...

Various sexual attractions are now considered OK that were once taboo. And some that were OK (marrying 12 year olds off) are now taboo.

I think the thing that is the real underlying evil is when it is someone abusing an existing relationship of trust and twisting it into something sexual (so that the victim thinks they want it but dont realise the abuse) or when they attacker forces things, which of course are both wrong whatever the age... (one could easily argue that the former is simply an emotional forcing rather than physical) its just that the former tends to diminish its opportunity when the would-be-victim becomes emotionally mature.

However, the law does need to make clear dividing lines in most cases with only small room  for discresion.

Interestingly, in the UK if an 11 year old boy does something sexual to a 15 year old girl then its the boy who has committed the offence.

Thanks, dude!

I like that the website has a "boss button" with the "boss screen" designed by Scott Adams of Dilbert fame.

But surely one USUALLY want the baseline to be the object Y anyway?

Hi Electro, I know you've not got much time but the fade in/out problem is terrible. Any chance that you could introduce an option to make fades just be instant room changes instead until it is fixed properly?

Thanks,

Andrew

OK, this is the answer I was looking for: its a matter of entering into common usage (heh, now define "common"). I realise that at points it did sound like a debating contest but I was also looking for some information, too.

SO, shall we move on to a less contentious subject like religion or healthcare?

You do know that Lorna Doone is the title of the book and that the author is called Richard Doddridge Blackmore?

Your argument is persuasive in the examples you give, Stupot, but the thing is you're telling me could also be used for the word "orange". Why is orange an adjective and cauliflower or bow, not. Obviously all of these words are also a noun, but that isn't what disqualifies bow and caluiflower or orange would be disqualified too. So what is, exactly?

You can say that bow is not an adjective becuase it is short for "like a bow", but then so is orange as an adjective short for like an orange. Is it simply down to the frequency of usage, and if I could presuade (in theory) thousands of people or maybe a couple of famous authors to use bow as an adjective frequently then it would become a valid adjective?

I guess that we also have to accept that for all your condescending tone and supposed expertise you're still unable to answer what rule it is that bow was supposedly breaking other than having some unspecified "inherent qualities".

SSH well I'm sorry but I've really really tried.

Where?

Until then, it would be interesting to hear you address this question I've asked several times by now - is every noun an adjective? Because virtually every noun can be used as you have used "bow", however you have dodged this question every time.

No, I don't think so. Since one apparently doesn't have to explain, I'll leave it at that.

I guess we just have to accept that you regard every noun as an adjective and move on...

I guess that we also have to accept that for all your condescending tone and supposed expertise you're still unable to answer what rule it is that bow was supposedly breaking other than having some unspecified "inherent qualities".

How would you distinguish two sofas on a boat, one at the stern and the other at the opposite end? So "the bow sofa" would make sense there. As for "the road is very bow", I think you could say that a road is bow, it wouldn't be a common usage but then that doesn't make it wrong. Seems that you're having trouble defining adjective, too.

There's this interesting bit on the wikipedia article: "In many languages, including English, it is possible for nouns to modify other nouns. Unlike adjectives, nouns acting as modifiers (called attributive nouns or noun adjuncts) are not predicative; a beautiful park is beautiful, but a car park is not "car". In English, the modifier often indicates origin ("Virginia reel"), purpose ("work clothes"), or semantic patient ("man eater"). " which is perhaps what you are trying to say.

However, if someone is bow legged, the legs would be bow. This doesn't work for the bow (ship) pseudo-adjective, though, I admit. And most people would say "bowed" rather than "bow", but "his legs were bow" features in  Lorna Doone

Err, many of the Chinese words are homophones: there are only 4 tones and at least a couple of dozen different meanings from those 4 tones.

So, what would you say is the real definining characteristic of an adjective? Most high-school kids would be told that it is a word that it limits, qualifies or specifies a noun. What additional rule is it that you're applying to bow to rule it out?

Well, of course, the word "adjective" can be defined as "The part of speech that modifies a noun or other substantive by limiting, qualifying, or specifying and distinguished in English morphologically by one of several suffixes, such as -able, -ous, -er,  and -est, or syntactically by position directly preceding a noun or nominal phrase." in which "bow" fits. Or you can start applying esoteric rules to restrict it further, by excluding quantitites and calling them "determiners" instead and saying that attributive nouns used as adjectives aren't etc.

Its analgous to someone saying that there are three forms of matter (solid, liquid, gas) and then a physicist then coming along and saying no, what about plasma and Boseâ€"Einstein condensates. All very well and true, but you also have to accept that in the world of normal people there is a simpler model that uses some of the same terminology differently to specialists. That model is not necessarily wrong but there may be contrdictions between the simple and complex models.

Apparently those ignoramuses at many dictionaries use the simpler model.



Anyway, back to Homonyms, etc. In Chinese there is a poem called Shī Shì shí shī shǐ. Its about a poet who eats lions in his stone den.

[mean]

Sorry, SSH, but those are in no way adjectives.
Tuomas and Stupot are absolutely right, so just trust us on this one

As opposed  to trusting the dictionary that says:

â€"adjective
18.
curved outward at the center; bent: bow legs.

â€"adjective
5.
of or pertaining to the bow of a ship.

OK, here's maybe a better one: abstract
n: summary
v: steal
a: non-concrete

or mean:
n: average
a: nasty or poor
v: definition or intention

As far as I can see "mean" is the best example, as there seems to be different etymology for the three cases which are all entirely independent. http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=mean

However, there is some interaction between the meaning "average" and meaning "poor" in the same way that the word "common" can mean both "average" and "poor".

Oh, and its a homophone of mein, too!

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

Tuomas, having looked up the meanings of "subjective" and "determiner" in grammar, I'm pretty sure you don't know what you're talking about.

bow legged

bow tie

bow wave