The Free Dictionary  
mailing list For webmasters
Welcome Guest Forum Search | Active Topics | Members

Profile: Kirill Vorobyov
About
User Name: Kirill Vorobyov
Forum Rank: Advanced Member
Occupation:
Interests:
Gender: Male
Home Page
Statistics
Joined: Tuesday, October 4, 2016
Last Visit: Monday, August 19, 2019 10:11:28 AM
Number of Posts: 881
[0.09% of all post / 0.84 posts per day]
Avatar
  Last 10 Posts
Topic: shoo-in
Posted: Monday, August 19, 2019 9:56:14 AM
thar wrote:

It is normally 'send away', in modern usage, but there can be an element of herding, moving an animal in a specific direction.



I never knew this meaning either, thanks!
Topic: Reaching Critical Mass on Mass Shootings - "The Lancet"
Posted: Monday, August 19, 2019 9:46:39 AM
Blodybeef wrote:
any aggressive, or perceivedly aggressive, action in traffic (if not crowned by an accident) may 50% of the time end in bloodshed.


I was thinking of going to Antalya by car next year...



Blodybeef wrote:
almost always spend their last money on buying a shotgun,


Are you joking trying to scare us ignorant tourists? Applause Please say you are. My children are now in Turkey enyoing Mediterranean sun... d'oh! They are with their mother (my former wife). I don't think she ever married again, but who knows - if she might have a Turkish boyfriend or something... This wouldn't count as a divorce if she just breaks up with him (a hypothetical scenario), would it?
Topic: shoo-in
Posted: Monday, August 19, 2019 9:19:22 AM
thar wrote:

a fixed affair, that is, in which the steeplechase racers have arranged to drop to the rear of the "meant" jumper and "shoo" him to the wire, they previously, of course, having got their money down on the horse thus generously treated.



Wow, thanks a lot, Thar! Now I think I am beginning to understand where it comes from...

So it began from horse races, where the horse meant to win was "shooed" (sped up / encouraged?) by the would-be competitors so that it finished first. I mean, at least that was the original allegory. If I understood the idea correctly.Think



Topic: shoo-in
Posted: Monday, August 19, 2019 8:31:50 AM
Hello!

I looked it up in the dictionary, and now I know what shoo-in means (like in a shoo-in candidate).

So I am just wondering - do you think this is because shoo rhymes with sure? Like a "sure in"?
I am just curious.
Topic: Nationalism an Evolutionary Dead End
Posted: Friday, August 16, 2019 9:03:09 AM
BobShilling wrote:
Kirill Vorobyov wrote:
I understand your point, but to me it is lacking one important element.

And that is, that we do need competition for development. And therefore we will need competing nations on this planet before (if ever) we as an entire human civilization can compete with other populated worlds. Angel


It may be true that competition has been beneficial as far as individuals and companies are concerned, but I am not sure that it is beneficial between countries.

And don't underestimate cooperation.



Quote:
So in the current circumstances it seems that the world can be better managed when divided into a set of separate nations with each of them taking care of their own home in the first place, and then helping others if they wish so in the second.


In the 21st century, a great many things that happen in one country affects other countries, sometime the whole world. Looking after our own country, if we bothered to do it, would be a start, but cooperation rather than competition with other countries would benefit us all. As Epi wrote,
"The necessity [...] of seeing ourselves as the human race and that our sense of kinship should be worldwide rather than in the ancient notions of tribal competition and rival kingdoms is obviously the adaptive path to the future".


I didin't say a word against international cooperation. Competition between countries never excluded their cooperating with each other on issues of common interest and importance. The role of such cooperation has been increasing, and hopefully will be further increasing with further economic and technological development.

So nobody's against cooperation. What this whole argument really comes down to is this - a (relatively) transparent management by national governments versus the globalist model of the world without borders being managed in a completely non-transparent way by a murky group of global oligarchs who are not elected by anybody and whose names few would even know. Perhaps many people who you may call "nationalists" understand just this. They want to be governed by responsible national governments cooperating with each other, rather than by irresponsible oligarchs conspiring with each other.
Topic: Nationalism an Evolutionary Dead End
Posted: Friday, August 16, 2019 7:37:48 AM
Epiphileon wrote:

It is unlikely that we would do away with countries anytime soon, or even if we ever would entirely. The necessity, however, of seeing ourselves as the human race and that our sense of kinship should be worldwide rather than in the ancient notions of tribal competition and rival kingdoms is obviously the adaptive path to the future.


Hi, Epi!

I understand your point, but to me it is lacking one important element.

And that is, that we do need competition for development. And therefore we will need competing nations on this planet before (if ever) we as an entire human civilization can compete with other populated worlds. Angel

Another aspect of this is that to be a good caring owner one has to feel true affection for one's property. This principle applies to "managing" contries, too. Maybe at some distant point in future we all will truly feel equal love for the whole planet Earth and all people living on it, but this is far not the case yet. As of now Earth is populated by people who are different in some ways - physically, mentally, culturally - and you can't just ignore this fact and jump into some "world of common identity" that just doesn't exist, at least not yet. So in the current circumstances it seems that the world can be better managed when divided into a set of separate nations with each of them taking care of their own home in the first place, and then helping others if they wish so in the second.

And I mean competition, not fighting. We have gone some way beyond primitive tribes, so I believe leaders of most countries now realize that wars only cost an awful lot in both human lives and money, so they are best to be avoided.

Topic: Mathew tells about Jesus
Posted: Friday, August 16, 2019 7:04:37 AM
whatson wrote:
.
The real Matthew, when writing in English, was
consistent in capitalizing proper names. and never tried
to save printer's black by substituting "i" for "I".




This doesn't matter because none of this is about English or their predecessors' gods anyway. So it's been solely a matter cultural exchange all along.

Topic: EU data collection
Posted: Friday, August 16, 2019 6:56:20 AM
Y111 wrote:
This is probably for them to know where you traveled if it turns out later that you work for the GRU.


Again, tech giants will know that without the need to even ask you. They'll know it anyway.

Governments are just a few steps behind technologically.
Topic: Greenland loses 11 billion tons of ice in one day!
Posted: Thursday, August 8, 2019 9:04:15 AM
Epiphileon wrote:
Kirill Vorobyov wrote:
Depending on which side you're on on this, I have a good or a bad news for you:
There is nothing humans can do about changing this planet's climate.
This will probably remain the case for at least a few centuries to come.


So you're saying that even if we managed to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 50% over say the next 10 years that this would have no effect on the climate?


Actually I am, yes. The climate is going to be evolving one way or another regardless of that.

E.g. 80% of greenhouse effect is due to water vapour. I don't have numbers at hand, but I am sure human activities are responsible for a negligibly small portion of vapour emission into the atmosphere. Most of it just comes from the surface of Oceans. I mean literally, imagine we turned everything off or left this planet altogether, how would that affect the amount of water vapour in the atmosphere? Zero effect. An outside observer wouldn't have noticed it.

The greenhouse effect evolves its own way, there are positive and negative feedbacks involved. And when it comes to evolution of the climate, the greenhouse effect is probably not the only factor. The planet has been cooling, then warming, then cooling again, and this has been going on for hundreds of millions of years regardless and in the absence of any humans.

Now, this is NOT to say we the humans shouldn't care about cleaner energy, cleaner industry, about minimizing the effect of human activities on nature in general. We do need clean water, clean air, biological diversity, and all those other aspects of pleasant and healthy environment. We want to lead healthy and happy lives, don't we? I just think we come up with wrong prescriptions when we put all these things in the context of "fighting the climate change". This is a wrong context, it misrepresents what we really need them for.
Topic: Greenland loses 11 billion tons of ice in one day!
Posted: Thursday, August 8, 2019 5:27:57 AM
Depending on which side you're on on this, I have a good or a bad news for you:

There is nothing humans can do about changing this planet's climate.
This will probably remain the case for at least a few centuries to come.

Main Forum RSS : RSS
Forum Terms and Guidelines | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2008-2019 Farlex, Inc. All rights reserved.