from The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 4th Edition
- n. A movie rating indicating that admission will not be granted to anyone under the age of 17.
- The symbol for reactance.
- The symbol for the Roman numeral 10.
- abbr. Christ (Greek &KHgr;&rgr;&igr;&sgr;&tgr;&ogr;&sfgr;, Christos)
- abbr. Christian
- abbr. experimental
- abbr. extra
from Wiktionary, Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License
- adj. Suitable only for those aged 16 or (later) 18 years and over.
- adj. Obscene.
- n. The twenty-fourth letter of the basic modern Latin alphabet.
- n. The number 10.
- n. A symbol of the IPA, representing a voiceless uvular fricative.
- n. strike
- n. A hazard indicator, sometimes incorporated into standard labelling and signage systems
- n. An unknown quantity or unknown value.
- n. The twenty-fourth letter of the English alphabet, called ex and written in the Latin script.
- n. Any mark that looks like that letter, such as such a mark made by a person who cannot read or write, in lieu of a signature.
- n. The spot behind the goal.
- n. Ecstasy, a particular street drug.
- n. One of the tristimulus values which, with Y and Z, defines coordinates in a three-dimensional color space. Pronounced big X or cap X.
- abbr. Christ
- abbr. cross, crossing
By way of comparison, Apple has a habit of only supporting the current and previous version of OS X-- the 2005-vintage OS X 10.4 Tiger saw its last update in May 2009.
Let's consider: Is it substantively meaningful that someone exposed to a violent videogame feels X% more aggressive in the aftermath, where X is a small but reliably non-zero number?
(Note: There's no way the current version of iTunes 10 for Mac OS X-- which tramples over Apple's interface guidelines by arranging its window-close buttons vertically, not horizontally like a normal OS X app -- would pass muster under clause 10.3.)
A lot of fields have the problem that ever-smaller sub-sub-specialties operate in surprising isolation from other specialties, to the extent that two large bodies of expert consensus in areas that really ought to be related have developed so independently that they sometimes literally contradict each other: people in sub-field A take X as axiomatic, whereas people in related sub-field B studying similar issues take ~X as axiomatic.
This is justified on the grounds that principle X is a good thing and so therefore 0.5X is better than 0X, which is what happens when the other guy that believes ~X is elected.
Or what is the least bad solution if you take it as a given that everyone will get health insurance that covers X% of expenses above $X?
But certainly, it would be fair to say "the top X%" of the population in Net Worth is rich, and the bottom X % is poor.
VIEW FAVORITES yahooBuzzArticleHeadline = 'Al Qaeda\'s Zawahiri Courts American Blacks by Quoting Malcolm X'; yahooBuzzArticleSummary = 'In his latest and most media-savvy video "Zawahiri identified al-Hajj Malik al-Shabazz -- Malcolm X-- as a fellow Islamic \'struggler and martyr\', "writes former CIA agent Michael Scheuer (aka" Anonymous ") on Asia Times Online.
That is, if I needed a payback of $X per year on a proposed investment of $Y, now the company must make X/0.70 in profits for X to be left to pay me after taxes.
Fit one more than X dollars in in-kind charitable contributions, more than X% of income to deductions in general, things that are out of line with others in your income class, etc., and odds of being audited shoot up.