Slashdot Mirror

Straight from the dictionary: an area of computer science that deals with giving machines the ability to seem like they have human intelligence.

It doesn't matter if the algorithm brute-forces or not. In order to qualify as "artificial intelligence," it just has to seem intelligent. The enterprise is one of mimicry.

And don't forget, we aren't saying that the machines are intelligent. That's why we stick the word "artificial" in front of it. If we were actually making the machines intelligent, we would instead call it "machine intelligence" or something like that. But we don't. Because that isn't what we are aiming for.

What we are aiming for in "artificial intelligence" is exactly what we have achieved here. And also, you are an idiot for not already knowing this. It took me five seconds to look it up.

Are you going to give a definition of AI and explain why this doesn't qualify?

Here is a definition straight from the dictionary::

":an area of computer science that deals with giving machines the ability to seem like they have human intelligence. the power of a machine to copy intelligent human behavior"

So, we aren't talking about giving computers a soul. We are taking about imitation of intelligent behavior. Winning at games that normally require a lot of intelligence exactly fits.

Maybe you are thinking of Artificial General Intelligence which has not been achieved here and is not being claimed.

So...maybe that is what you meant. Or maybe you just don't know what you are talking about.

Says who?

According to a fitting authority:

the condition of being conscious : the normal state of being awake and able to understand what is happening around you
: a person's mind and thoughts
: knowledge that is shared by a group of people

Maybe you were thinking of the phrase "self-consciousness," which would logically refer to the state of being aware of one's self.

Wrong.

"a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices"

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

I just looked up "hacker" in the dictionary:

4 : a person who illegally gains access to and sometimes tampers with information in a computer system

So, you are wrong.

It is above the pay grade of the low level bureaucrat to make the distinction between animal and human (if there is one).

If you read TFA, it shows the section of law that exempts this information from FOIA requests. It uses the term "individual". Miriam Webster lists several definitions of that word, one of which is: "of, relating to, or existing as just one member or part of a larger group". It does not specify "human" in that definition. Surely, this one dolphin was just one member of the larger group, and it certainly behaved in ways that would individuate itself from that group.

Of course, when the law was written the situation of autopsying a dolphin wasn't considered. But in this case "other animal" vs. "human" wasn't a distinction the law makes. The bureaucrat didn't need to make that decision.

Good points. The EO also makes reference to "natural persons' later, adding to the confusion. But I think you are correct in stating the person who denied the request probably saw "medical Records" and their mandatory annual training said medical records are not subject to FOIA requests and thus denied the request. In addition, it's easier (read safer) to deny a request and let someone higher in the food chain overrule it than to release something that shouldn't be released. You can always point to some rule that you though prevented the release and peel will go "OK, well it really means..." but if you screw up they can hang you with the same rule.

It is above the pay grade of the low level bureaucrat to make the distinction between animal and human (if there is one).

If you read TFA, it shows the section of law that exempts this information from FOIA requests. It uses the term "individual". Miriam Webster lists several definitions of that word, one of which is: "of, relating to, or existing as just one member or part of a larger group". It does not specify "human" in that definition. Surely, this one dolphin was just one member of the larger group, and it certainly behaved in ways that would individuate itself from that group.

Of course, when the law was written the situation of autopsying a dolphin wasn't considered. But in this case "other animal" vs. "human" wasn't a distinction the law makes. The bureaucrat didn't need to make that decision.

> There is nothing "regular" about Regular Expressions.

Yes, there is.

regular
"4a : constituted, conducted, scheduled, or done in conformity with established or prescribed usages, rules, or discipline"

Strictly speaking, you can make a semantic argument about "following a belief", because I added the interpretation that this is done in an honest conviction of the truthfulness of such belief, which you didn't state.
But let's assume that we exclude people who simply follow a tradition without giving it much credit, like in fact many modern "religious" people do when they go to church once a year for christmas and once in life for marriage.

Tricking out non-god religions is a nice parlour trick, but doesn't make a difference to the core argument, because for the rationality question it doesn't matter if your invisible friend is the almighty lord in heaven or the wood-spirit in the magical tree. Likewise, Buddhism is largely misunderstood as a "be nice and meditate" tradition, but the non-western forms of it contain a large set of magical beliefs that are unproven, unfalsifiable and irrational. It does have a fairly large part of worldly rules that are not based on its religious beliefs, but on cultural and social experience, same as Taoism. And you could try to view them seperately - as is commonly done in folk-buddhism of the western kind - but you could do the same for Christianity or Islam or Zoroastrianism or almost any other religion. But in that case you're not actually talking about, say, Christianity anymore. "Pick and choose" is a very common form of avoiding the revolting barbaric parts that almost every religion contains, but in this argument I won't allow it.

Atheism might be a belief (though by word and definition, it is rather a non-belief, but let's not be nitpicky), but that doesn't mean it is a religious belief. "I think it might be snowing in Helsinki right now" is also a belief, as is "too much sugar is bad for health", and none of them have anything to do with religion.

There are at least 3000 defined belief systems in the world, and probably millions which are undefined. Have you checked each one and objectively assessed them against agreed, objective criteria?

I don't have to. A class of statements can be refuted as a class if you can refute any of their shared assumptions.

What exactly constitutes a religion is indeed subject of debate, but this is not a philosophy class so let's keep it simple:

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

: the belief in a god or in a group of gods

        : an organized system of beliefs, ceremonies, and rules used to worship a god or a group of gods

        : an interest, a belief, or an activity that is very important to a person or group

I will not consider the 3rd definition, because it is included to explain such examples as "Hockey is a religion in Canada." - in other words, a metaphorical use of the word.

The shared assumption is "god or gods". You can argue Buddhism and probably a dozen other religions, but they are rare exceptions, by your number less than 1%. Animism and other "nature spirit" religions fall under a wide definition of "god" (being almighty and all that shit is a fairly recent invention, many old gods are little more than big nature spirits).

By rejecting the principle possibility of gods, I can reject all religions, known, unknown or even completely forgotten to history.

If not, then your statement religion is bullshit is merely a statement of belief, and self contradictory.

Are are, again, trying to mix any kind of belief with religious belief. That's a very cheap trick, please don't insult readers by assuming they are so stupid they don't see the difference.

And in any case, your claim was that:

(me)For that you don't need to be 100% rational, you just need to be rational enough to consider religion bullshit.
(you)Which rules out everybody.

I have shown that there is at least one person that considers religion bullshit, so it does not rule out everybody. Everybody minus one is not everybody anymore.

Wikipedia, Merriam-Webster, and American Association for the Advancement of Science, among others, disagree with the claim you just made, and that's just picking some of the hits from using Google.

You mean roughage? Yeah, don't trust urban dictionary for your spelling. Ruffage sounds like something a dog would eat when it's sick.

Fascism may be defined as

Sorry, but neither you, nor some Professor Emeritus get to redefine terms. Fascism has a perfectly clear definition in the dictionary already:

a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition

Trump is, quote obviously, an Individualist, which is the very antithesis of Fascism and other forms of Collectivism (such as Socialism). You were saying?

marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation or victimhood

So, Trump's pointing out, that our enemies use the Internet to organize attacks against us, is, in your mind, equivalent to "preoccupation with community decline"?! Wow...

Can truth really be "fascist", or would you like to pick a different quote?

Thank you for the citation. Now, how about the other part of my request: explain, why you feel this is fascist of him? Not just wrong, but fascist ? And why it was not "fascist" of Ted Kennedy to do the same? Thanks.

There is no "in addition to hate speech", those three terms define 'hate speech'.

Maybe it loses something in translation? Per Webster

Sedition : the crime of saying, writing, or doing something that encourages people to disobey their government

We have a long tradition of this in the US, and the occasional shameful period of outlawing it anyway.

Some "other people" have a little higher level of protection, e.g. ethnic or religious groups are extra protected, again: why you can not cope with that is beyond me.

Because of a popular and well-know act of sedition: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal ..." It's rather fundamental over here.

It also means something small. "A speck of dust."
http://www.merriam-webster.com...

a number of similar articles, items, or devices arranged, connected, or used together

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

First of all, I'm still waiting to hear where I called you a liar. It's a serious accusation which you have repeated several times, and which I believe to be wrong, so I believe some actual evidence is in order.

It was the equivalent of saying if I have any examples of water being wet please tell you elsewhere - and you know it - deliberate belittling insult pretending reality is not real just to push your agenda.

No, it isn't. Here's the evidence that water is wet. It is easy to produce, because it is both true and actually self evident, unlike your statements.

Your point, however, is a contested one. As such, you shouldn't act hurt or surprised that someone asks you to substantiate it. In essence, you are accusing me of lying, of claiming something different than what I believe in. I reject that accusation. I truly believe that criticism against Israel is not self evident and needs substantiation.

When you are stating that this is self evident and requires no proof, what you are doing is not to show it is true. What you are doing is to show that you are holding it as prejudice. An opinion based on belief rather than facts.

As for the BBC accusation, please do post a link if you want to discuss it. Your abstract makes no sense. You are presenting accusation of misrepresentation as proof that these accusations are wrong. Again, this might align with your prejudice, but is not proof of anything. The BBC could be unfairly misrepresenting the truth, in which case Israel would have a valid cause to complain.

Shachar

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

So, you are claiming that a fetus is not a human being? Genetics would tend to disprove that point of view. I was explaining the POV of those "nutso "pro-life" murderous thugs" to you. You are the one who is redefining things, not I. A human being is a human being, it doesn't matter if it is before the first trimester. From the point of view of those "nutso pro-life murderous thugs", people who are performing abortions are committing murder.

So feminists, if you're really for equality

Don't look at what they say, look at what they do.

Are you trying to say efficacy ?

In this case 1: appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect

You don't care about their concerns, just that they don't see your 'idealized' version of the Nuclear Industry that only exists in your head. You criticize them for not understanding your point of veiw and your not even interested in theirs which you dismiss as invalid.

Your "argument" isn't even supported by the laws governing site selection of Nuclear power plants.

Saying "mote point" is entirely possible. Though contextually his usage was wrong.

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

While free speech is great and all, this kind of advertising probably should be made illegal. This in the same sense that it's supposedly illegal to advertise toy products for the show of the same children's show.

I think this might be crossing into the territory of subliminal advertising.

relating to things that influence your mind in a way that you do not notice

Maybe it was meant in another sense? (Of course you know it was...)

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

1.c (1) : characterized by or conforming to the technical or ethical standards of a profession (2) : exhibiting a courteous, conscientious, and generally businesslike manner in the workplace

"now a days"? Are you from the 14th century?

Looks like video games match every single English definition of the word "art" out there:

art - noun \'art\

* something that is created with imagination and skill and that is beautiful or that expresses important ideas or feelings
* works created by artists : paintings, sculptures, etc., that are created to be beautiful or to express important ideas or feelings
* the methods and skills used for painting, sculpting, drawing, etc.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/art

* The expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power
* Works produced by human creative skill and imagination
* Creative activity resulting in the production of paintings, drawings, or sculpture
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/art

There is no benefit in electing the guy whose wife just died because you feel bad for them. And those voters would be more likely to be duped by politicians trying to sway them with plea to emotion rhetoric.

You're confusing being emotional with being capable of empathy. The two are quite independent.

emotional: 2. dominated by or prone to emotion <an emotional person>

empathy: 2. the action of understanding, being aware of, being sensitive to, and vicariously experiencing the feelings, thoughts, and experience of another of either the past or present without having the feelings, thoughts, and experience fully communicated in an objectively explicit manner; also : the capacity for this

Like making people afraid of terrorists so they will agree to give up freedoms

Being capable of empathy would lead one to realize that committing a terrorist act comes at a great cost, most of the time the terrorist's life, and thus requires a strong motivation. Then one would wonder what could have given them such strong motivation and/or destroyed their will to live, and try to figure out what can be changed so it does not happen.

But if the person is emotional, their fear could totally prevent them from trying to understand the source of their fear. So far from being the same thing, empathy and being emotional can be in conflict.

There is no benefit in electing the guy whose wife just died because you feel bad for them. And those voters would be more likely to be duped by politicians trying to sway them with plea to emotion rhetoric.

You're confusing being emotional with being capable of empathy. The two are quite independent.

emotional: 2. dominated by or prone to emotion <an emotional person>

empathy: 2. the action of understanding, being aware of, being sensitive to, and vicariously experiencing the feelings, thoughts, and experience of another of either the past or present without having the feelings, thoughts, and experience fully communicated in an objectively explicit manner; also : the capacity for this

Like making people afraid of terrorists so they will agree to give up freedoms

Being capable of empathy would lead one to realize that committing a terrorist act comes at a great cost, most of the time the terrorist's life, and thus requires a strong motivation. Then one would wonder what could have given them such strong motivation and/or destroyed their will to live, and try to figure out what can be changed so it does not happen.

But if the person is emotional, their fear could totally prevent them from trying to understand the source of their fear. So far from being the same thing, empathy and being emotional can be in conflict.

spelling/ punctuation/ grammar nazis are useless topic derailing turds as it is, but you've reached a special level of turdliness: the desire to exert an authority you don't possess about crap no one cares about... AND you are wrong

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

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

"not natural or real : made, produced, or done to seem like something natural"

Not natural indeed.

Can you cite any terror acts carried out by Haganah?

What a very carefully phrased question. Something the Iranian government would likely ask "Can you cite any terror acts that we have carried out?"

You mentioned Haganah specifically, citing its foundation of the IDF as the reason for continuity. So I asked about Haganah. For the record, I fully consider Palmach part of Haganah, and would love to hear terror acts done by it in this reference, too.

If you didn't want to be asked this specifically, you shouldn't have phrased your accusation in this way.

Fortunately, it's easy to point out where the Haganah actively and directly used terrorism to achieve its goals - try learning about the SS Patria.

From Merriam Webster:

Terrorism(n): the use of violent acts to frighten the people in an area as a way of trying to achieve a political goal

Can you explain what an operation designed to prevent a ship filled with refugees from leaving, but ended up killing them by mistake has to do with terrorism?

Read up on their Palmach unit.

I know about Palmach. Again, I'd like you to be specific, because it seems our understanding of what constitute proof is vastly different.

Learn what happened after Ben Gurion's famous October 1st (1945) decision.

I see it as one army fighting another. I understand you don't. Personally, I think you'd be hard pressed to convince people that military actions, directed solely against military targets, and attempting to avoid hurting civilians where possible are "terrorism". If you do not agree with that, you will find that every single army in the world that has ever participated in any armed conflict is a terrorist. I doubt that's where you're heading.

By the way, were you aware that the Haganah explicitly approved the bombing of the Hotel David? Explicit as in "carry out the operation" explicit.

Are you aware that the hotel was the British army's headquarters (thus, a legitimate military target)? Are you aware that an advance warning was given (though not properly passed through and acted upon) in order to minimize casualties? Again, it's a hard press to call attacking a military target "terrorism".

The bombing of ships known to be carrying deportees, and the bombing of civilian facilities (e.g. King David Hotel) is the foundation of modern terrorism - ironically adopted by the very people the State of Israel displaced and marginalized.

Aside from the flaws I already mentioned in this argument, it is simply false. The foundations of modern terrorism is targeting civilians, striking targets based on affiliation rather than military relevance, indoctrinating populations that death is a high cause, and that achieving it for both yourself and your enemy is worth more than preserving and cultivating life.

You are correct that these foundations are found in actions carried out in Palestine as far back as the early 20th century. You are, however, missing the culprit. Firing at civilian buses merely because its occupants are Jews and accidentally killing an innocent, unrelated Arab with a bomb, and then declaring him Shahid are actions that Arab radicals in Palestine were doing well before the 1930's. These are the foundations of modern terrorism.

Also:

In other words, perhaps you should learn a little bit more about what happened before.

That's what my previous reply was meant to be. You were specifying actions I was not aware of, and I asked for citations. Turns out, I disagree with your analysis (or, possibly, you were more ignorant on those matters than you thought you were). There is no reason to sound smug about your answer. This is how discussion is supposed to go.

Shachar

Definition of MONETIZE

transitive verb
1 : to coin into money; also : to establish as legal tender
2 : to purchase (public or private debt) and thereby free for other uses moneys that would have been devoted to debt service
How many of these commonly
misspelled words can you spell?
3 : to utilize (something of value) as a source of profit

#3 sure sounds like "make money from" to me!

This is just me pointing out a lying bully who is deliberately misleading people.

The obvious rebuttal here is that words have meaning.

Bully: a blustering browbeating person; especially : one habitually cruel to others who are weaker

Blustering means among other things threatening. Since I have yet to be threatening in this thread, a key component of bullying is missing. Similarly, browbeating is coercion to get someone to do something. That's not happening either.

Similarly, "lying" means intentional spreading of a falsehood. You never bothered to say specifically what of what I wrote was a falsehood or why. You apparently do disagree with the observation:

This is an example. We have a bald assertion that the Hugo picks by "the puppies" were chosen on the basis of politics.

Note that no one in this thread has bothered to provide evidence or reason to dispute my observation. It's all empty assertions and noise. One can get very tired of that.

This is no "debate".

True, I won that when you refused to and continue to refuse to back up any statements you made. You've only made my argument stronger emotionally since.

Nobody cares that you think for some bizarre reason that I'm a lying bully. You give out those insults like candy and with about as much thought as breathing. There's no weight or credibility to it. And as I noted earlier, that accusation just strengthens my rhetorical position. Unfair, aggressive attacks do that for the one attacked.

You start off arguing to fail. Stop that. You need to up your game.

Yeah, sorry, you lost this one. Plenty of those definitions include "before puberty", which excludes someone who is 14. But hey, in case you wanted another one: how about this? Note the first one, "an unborn or recently born person".

While I agree placing a 14 year old on this sort of list is stupid - teenagers aren't that responsible, and they shouldn't get hit with the horrors of the judicial system for sending nudes - they aren't children "by every definition". And you're being kind of an ass about it, which really doesn't help your cause.

I'm just going to leave this here for you, 2A: http://www.merriam-webster.com...

Every on-boarding or HR system we've looked at has zero support for this; they are great at getting tax info, your home address, etc. but not for getting you a computer nor access to a myriad of systems.

"On-board" is not a verb, it's an adjective.

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

If you wanted a verb, you could have used "initiate" or "set up".

Artillery is ordnance not arms. Explosives were not considered personal arms by the framers.

Why? Because you want it to be? And who said anything about "personal" arms. Certainly not the US Constitution.

Arms - 3rd usage - noun - "a means (as a weapon) of offense or defense; especially : firearm"

"Especially" is not "exclusively". If the framers had meant "personal arms" or "personal firearms", that's what they would have specified.

If you want "artillery" to be excluded, you'd better try to get an amendment passed, because it ain't excluded the way it's worded now. Neither are nuclear weapons, chemicals, or bacteriologicals. I do believe you would be in a world of hurt under various statutes dealing with the general topic of terrorism if you used, or even threatened to use, chemical or bacteriological. As far as artillery goes, I know for a fact there is private ownership and (test/demo) firing.

Wow - what a great set of insults. Too bad they completely failed to respond to the actual issues I raised.

I'm sorry your feelings are so easily hurt, perhaps you should familiarize yourself with sarcasm.

For example, I show you how Texas is attempting to do something illegal against college students and you pretend that I think that is racist

No, you didn't 'show' anything, you 'claimed' something. Further, you failed to cite specifically how it was illegal as constitutionally (see 10th amendment) it is up to the states to define eligibility requirements to vote... restricted by a few areas (religious test, race, sex).

Of course you make no attempt to deny that what they are doing is illegal, instead you make fun of me because you thought I was claiming racism in that case.

Correct, I'm not going to try to prove a negative.

Are you really stupid enough to think a crime is still acceptable unless I prove it is racist crime?

Still waiting to see/hear how it is a crime. Feel free to cite a specific statute if you'd like.

I also love how you did not understand a simple comparison

I also love how you do not understand sarcasm or taking ideas and added a good mix of progressive double-think in to highlight the ridiculousness of what you are saying.

Let me explain. Massachusett's Voter ID law lets you vote if you don't have a Voter ID - even if just provisionally.

Yup, saw that the first time you said it... but again, you are describing different states, which sometimes have different laws believe it or not. Ex: Age to get an unrestricted drivers license in Texas is 17, Massachusetts's is 18, while Maine it's 21. Racism? (is that better?)

Texas's Voter ID law does not let you vote at all - if you don't have the ID.

Yup, they have specific requirements. Different states have different rules for ID, polling times, absentee voting, etc. What is the news?

You might do better if you go back and re-read everything I wrote.

Why? You keep repeating the same arguments without actually considering their place in the larger system.

Unless of course you are just a troll paid to insult intelligent people (or worse, doing it for fun)

And there is where we know I've won... you assume I'm trolling vs arguing against your nonsense while using a fun bit of rhetoric along the way.

Oh and finally, your huge attempt to pretend this is all about race basically proves that no you do not care about anything EXCEPT racism.

I'm confused... you claim I'm pretending this is all about race... but I don't really care about anything but race? How exactly does that work? More so... how exactly do you know just how I'm thinking? What if... you are wrong about more than just that?

Or is it just a battle against out of state college students? I don't often hear that argument on the evening news or from lawyers who are fighting against voter ID laws... they tend to be the ones who scream racism.

You yourself implied that you think the "lazy/stupid/poor" should not be able to vote.

Wait... I thought you said 'finally' above... still more?

Oh that's a good one! You accuse me of not reading/comprehending what you said... and yet you have this good nugget. I use that line as a rhetorical play against those who claim it is all about race who simultaneously are practicing the soft bigotry of lowered expectations.

Which happens to be the most Un-american of ideas

Agreed... any other arguments you wish to try to straw-man me with?

It is entirely within the realm of possibility for a policy to not have racist intent and still have a racist result.

I think you need to look up the meaning of 'racist'

(Though in this particular case, there is certainly the appearance of intent.)

In such a ridiculous hypothetical yes... but it is just that, a non-existent hypothetical.

Let's assume that only one of the qualities you list can present an impediment.

So skin color is automatically an impediment? Still waiting to see/how/where that is to getting a voter id.

If blacks are on average more poor than non-blacks, is it possible that this is a result of racism?

It's possible, but I'm still waiting to see an explicit example of that being the case across the board.

(Hint:yes).

Citation? And yet that apparently only applies to blacks? How then do we account for those who are not in fact poor? No one was racist enough to them?

The whole voter fraud problem is itself a fraud.

Tell you what... turn off most of the logging on your server, disable most of the firewall rules and publish the IP address of it publically... I assure you any rumors of it getting hacked are just a rumor as you've got no concrete evidence of it happening... because you lack the tools to identify such actions.

You do - as always, have the right to your own opinion.

You do not - as always, have the right to your own facts.

Let's just go through his post and I'll help you read between the lines on his post:

How about we create rules that foster responsible procreation?

OP is making this statement in reference to Netflix's new policy. This statement implies that Netflix's policy encourages people to have children irresponsibly.

If someone wants kids they should have the means (money, time) that is required to take care of them before getting pregnant.

Since we are still referring to people who work at Netflix, the OP is implying that Netflix employees do not have the time or money to have children. Now there are several types of employees at Netflix: executives, managers, white collar office workers, and people that run the machines that stuff DVDs into red envelopes. Netflix has approximately 2,000 employees. The median salary at Netflix is $180,000 per year. So the OP is saying that an upper-middle class family does not have the time or money to reproduce.

Netflix did something helpful for new parents, sure, (and people working at netflix are probably people we'd rather be having more kids than Joe Bob and his sister/wife Fanny Mae)

Here the OP is saying that, while he would prefer that Netflix employees have more kids than your average person, he would still like the government to discourage them from reproducing.

but there are people out there who take their "right" to have kids and stomp on my "right" to not pay a dime for their terrible decisions.

Here the OP uses quotes to suggest that having children should not be considered a right. He also states that those people having children is a terrible decision.

We shouldn't be incentivizing having more kids in any settings, we should de-incentivize having kids when you can't afford it (ie. jail time)

This goes right back to his opening statement that this Netflix program creates an incentive for the wrong type of people to be reproducing. He's also trying to control who becomes a parent - the very definition of Eugenics.

And here you demonstrate your misunderstanding of the word Eugenics, which has absolutely nothing to do with genetics in the modern sense:

Well, sorry muchacho, you don''t get to define everything, especially when you make shit up to make your point. The only thing you've been accurate about in your quest for high dudgeon is his jailing comment. The rest is odd crap you made up to support your jeremiad.

If you look at the definition of eugenics you'll see that I am not redefining anything.

The noun form of "elite" refers to one or more. It has no plural form, any more than "sick" does. It just makes you sound ignorant when you say "elites". Do you say "helping the sicks"?

That's an overly narrow take on the word "elite" and its various meanings. Yes, in one construction, "elite" is a (usually plural) collective noun referring to a class of people or things that are superior. "The Silicon Valley elite are conspiring to keep the lowly programmer down, man!"

But unlike "sick," "elite" need not be a collective noun. Right there in the dictionary definition, you can see a member of "the elite" is "an elite," and multiple such members would be plural "elites." Just because you have 3 Rockefellers and 2 Kennedys in a room together, does not reconstitute the whole murky cabal that is "the elite"--you have 5 elites. This construction also conveys a subtle connotation of particularity. You may say the "wealthy elite" are, as a class, not paying enough taxes, but you'd refer to "wealthy elites" who are being investigated for tax evasion.

Now, GP's usage is closer to the first meaning, and it would've been fine to use "elite." But, whether intended or not, using "elites" gives the statement a slightly different spin. It reads not as [the whole of landed gentry] or [the class of one percenters], but rather a nonspecific-but-interested subset of the wealthy and powerful who want to further criminalize infringement of their IP.

"Jigawat" is the accepted pronunciation for the term involving electricity. according to Webster's dictionary

vice deliberately packing the car.

vice != verses

Vice is not a comparison. http://www.merriam-webster.com...

verses != versus

vice deliberately packing the car.

vice != verses

Vice is not a comparison. http://www.merriam-webster.com...

verses != versus

vice deliberately packing the car.

vice != verses

Vice is not a comparison. http://www.merriam-webster.com...

verses != versus

vice deliberately packing the car.

vice != verses

Vice is not a comparison. http://www.merriam-webster.com...

The Oxford and Merriam Webster dictionaries don't agree with you.

http://dictionary.reference.co...
Upgrade (noun)
a new version, improved model, etc.:

http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Upgrade (noun)
an occurrence in which one thing is replaced by something better, newer, more valuable, etc.


So even if Windows 10 was nothing more than "hello world", it is still, by definition, an upgrade.
and before you get all "hurr it's M$ it's never improved/better AMIRITE?" That doesn't matter, the definition means it can be one or more of those separated by commas

Yes I'm quite familiar with the industry designation, but the truism that pedantic nitpickers abound here also remains.

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

Definition of INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
: the technology involving the development, maintenance, and use of computer systems, software, and networks for the processing and distribution of data

As for those deriding the term esport, I think you are displaying your own ignorance and falling into typical typecasting. First, go read the definition of sport: http://www.merriam-webster.com... - You will notice that while there is significant talk of physical activity, it is not exclusively physical. Second, while I have played and enjoy watching baseball, I know that I will never reach the skill or compensation levels of professional baseball players, just like I'm never going to acquire the skill or compensation of the best Starcraft players, some of whom earn in the neighborhood of 100k and 170K a year "playing". Maybe you could once have made generalizations like this and be taken seriously, but the world turns and things change. Get used to it.