I'm sorry, you misunderstand me - the Oxford comma is one of the few points of English grammar that I absolutely believe are not merely aesthetically preferable, but practically superior. I seriously question the intellectual qualifications, nay, the very value as a human being of anyone who fails to use the Oxford comma.

Are you criticizing my views here, or someone else's? I've plainly said that I don't think that my preferred form of English is a more efficient form of communication than, to use your example, AAVE, and I agree that it's ridiculous to claim otherwise without some pretty compelling evidence, of which there appears to be none. I dislike the implication, however, that I'm wrong to have negative feelings towards another form of English because its users are currently disadvantaged. Regardless of relative power relationships, I absolutely reserve the right to disapprove of cultural traditions or elements thereof I consider harmful. To continue with AAVE, I think that the cultural tradition with which I identify is superior in a number of ways to that usually associated with urban African-Americans. This does not mean I am myself necessarily better than any individual who does identify with that culture, or that African-Americans are somehow inherently inferior - all it means is that I think my culture is better. As such, I would prefer it if those currently identifying with urban African-American culture changed their behavioral and linguistic choices to something more compatible with my own. I don't think that constitutes bullying - I don't plan to use physical force or intimidation to make others conform to my preferences. However, there's a difference between tolerance and respect. I believe in the former, where it doesn't involve risk of physical or serious mental harm. I'll give the latter where I think it's deserved.

That may be so, but it's all we've got once mutual intelligibility is satisfied. And I wouldn't say I "demand" it - I might prefer it, and I might tell them so, but it's not as though I'm going to beat people up who fail to conform to my grammatical preferences. I just won't like them as much. Which isn't even to say I won't like them - it's just to say it will be an irritation.

Um...so? I think I may be using "linguistic prescriptivism" in a slightly different, more general sense than you have in mind. People always try to distinguish themselves as social superiors, it's what we (including linguistically-educated people quick to jump in with cries of "there's no so thing as "correct" English usage! Language is fluid!") do. People also try to get others to share their views about art, music, and morality, and tend to like more those who do so. I fail to see what the problem with that is. The only difference is that the issue of morality has tended to get wrapped up with the power of the state, so views on that one have more consequences (not to say that issues of language and culture don't have significant sociological implications). In any case, if I find one form of the English language more aesthetically pleasing than another, why shouldn't I prefer that it become dominant?

For the most part, no, because I am not a linguist by trade, and am only superficially familiar with the details of the science behind it. However, the gap between is and ought remains as wide as it ever was, and my reasons for preferring certain forms of English are mainly based on aesthetics and tribalism, not some imagined sense of the practical superiority of one form over another (with the vehement exception of the Oxford comma).

I admit that the GGP's post isn't the most defensible (or comprehensible) thing in the world, but my issue with the reply was that "simply false" and "mistake" are the wrong words to use. On what basis is the OED being denied as authoritative? If he doesn't consider it to be such, that's fine, but by his own standards, to say that the claim is "simply false" is like saying my taste for the music of Britney Spears is "simply false" and a "mistake", i.e., something we might say in common conversation as shorthand for a negative value judgement about me as a human being, but not a useful reply in the context of an intellectual debate.

Why exactly do you think that, if you've studied language, you must necessarily give up on linguistic prescriptivism? This is the same problem I have with the more glib moral relativists - I accept that there is no "objective" standard, but that doesn't mean that I can't make prescriptive statements, it just means they're backed up by me, as opposed to nature or God. While the GP's views on the primacy of certain dictionaries may or may not be reflecting a less-thought-out view of language, it's far from "simply false". And nobody who has actually studied philosophy could make this mistake. :-)

You're right, it does help to read the article. Sparkfun doesn't sell anything that could remotely be considered a competitor to SPARC. They're a hobbyist electronics kit store. Unless you consider something like this to be a competing product to a SPARC server?

Well, the major benefit I can think of is that, if no competitor independently comes up with the idea within a year of that publication, then no one can patent your idea out from underneath you. If you publish in a more broadcast way, then a crafty and moral-free competitor might be able to patent it, and if they're large enough, might be able to out-lawyer a small inventor's attempt to prove that they didn't invent it themselves.

That's a pretty limited kind of protection, though, and it's not likely to result in much money for inventor, so I'm not sure it's exactly what the submitter's looking for.

And if all the people who have been lumped in under the term "New Atheist" thought like you claim to have soon after becoming an atheist I'd agree with you. However, that's completely false. If you read the books, it's pretty clear that while Dawkins and the like do blame religion for a variety of things, including wars, they aren't going off into fantasies of lynching the ignorant.

It's been like that for atheists for a long, long time - it's not as though the world pre-Dawkins was exactly trusting and friendly toward atheists. And maybe you hate the religious that much, but I don't. I can understand how people come to believe in God, and while I think they're mistaken, I don't really blame most of them for it. I do hate those who try to limit my and others' freedom on the basis of their unsubstantiated beliefs, but frankly, I think that one's justified.

Other than by emotionally beating them into submission, not often. But that's my point - other than Sam Harris (who really does come off as a bit nuts sometimes) and occasionally Hitchens (who isn't a scientist), the atheist books that came out recently were fairly reasonable and calm. The fact that everyone interpreted them as these abusive tracts is exactly my point - most people in this country have such a skewed notion of what politeness to the religious entails that any explicit criticism is seen as angry ranting.

Actually, no, it is relevant. If your notion of God is a very abstract, deist sort of almighty, then sure, but in case you haven't noticed, a lot of people who believe in God believe all sorts of other things, many of which are either directly contradicted or made highly improbable by modern science. When those people choose to believe in their faith rather than science, that's a problem for this country, and for the people who want to do science in it.

In true Slashdot fashion, I haven't read the book we're talking about, but I've read a lot about it, and while some of what they're saying is sensible (if not terribly new), the part about how "New Atheists" are being unhelpful with their stridency irritates me. So, people who don't believe in God are supposed to confront those who reject science on the basis of faith by being...nice to them? We've basically been doing that for decades, and it doesn't seem to have helped much. While some of the writers identified have been more angry than is perhaps helpful, most of them have simply not been willing to give faith a free pass. The problems America has with scientific literacy have a lot more to do with the fact that more people are unwilling to come out and say "that's absurd, here's the science", because it's seen as impolite, than because everyone's so scared of those "New Atheists".

Actually, you're the one who needs some brushing up on American law. The DA is, in fact, not obligated to prove the attack was unjustified - all that's required to convict you of aggravated battery of a police officer is proof that you attacked him or her with a weapon. Self-defense or justification is an affirmative defense , meaning it's on you to prove you had a good reason to do what you did.

I told the GP to grow up not because we should brush off police abuses, but because responding to them with immature fantasies of being able to shoot cops with impunity is just that - immature.

Uh...citizens are allowed to carry tasers. It's regulated, just like the carrying of any weapon is, but it's not like only police officers can have them. And as it turns out, the law does allow you to use them against someone illegally threatening you, including police officers. You'll have a heck of a time proving that attacking a cop was justified, but that's true of any assault on a police officer. If you're trying to say that police officers can never justifiably threaten your life, have fun explaining that to the next armed mugger you meet. I'm not saying that there haven't been abuses by police officers, but come on - grow up.

I'm not sure why you're such a fan of officers beating people with clubs or their fists. I have a friend who recently became a police officer, and as part of their training they get tased. It can kill, yes, but the chances are pretty slim. Frankly, if I'm going to be subdued by a police officer, I'm going with the taser every time. I don't have numbers (does anybody?), but I'd guess the chances of lasting harm from being hit with an expandable baton are significantly higher than from being hit with a taser. That's why it's ridiculous to confine it only to circumstances where otherwise a gun would be used. Have they been overused? Yes, but so have clubs and fists. Bad or scared cops will will abuse whatever weapons you put into their hands.

That would work, but unless it was a coin that you'd personally stolen from a dragon's horde, covered in eldritch runes of unfathomable power*, it'd be kind of lame. *Now available for $59.99 at ThinkGeek!

Yep - that's why they started calling them "less-lethal" weapons rather than "non-lethal" weapons...though if we're doing dnd references, I'd argue that many of them do subdural damage and something more like a 1d2 with a 5% chance of causing death.

What lethal uses did you have in mind, exactly? It doesn't sound very effective at killing people. As a less-lethal weapon, however, it sounds useful for crowd control, remote perimeters where you'd rather capture than kill, ambushs where you'd rather capture than kill...any number of things.