Slashdot Mirror

Actually:

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

Cowardice is the opposite of courage.

Courage is not standing up to something and facing the consequences. Courage is standing up to something despite the POTENTIAL consequences. For example, fighting for your country is courageous, even if you manage to avoid the consequences and survive.

Jumping in front of a bullet when it was avoidable isn't courageous, its stupid.

We are at war, but it isn't national war, like Britain(1812), WWI, II, Korea, Vietnam ....I'll agree, that we have our troops in places they shouldn't be. But to call it a "war" is nothing more than trying to make a stupid point that doesn't exist

See? Even in your own post, you prove my point that to argue semantics based on whether or not we are at war kind of misses the point. I agree with you that Bush and Co. have us technically at war with an ideology (terror) as ludicrous as that is, and that this is an unwinnable war if for no other reason than there is an endless supply of people/groups to name "terrorists". I also agree that this was foolish, short-sighted and doesn't make any sense. In spite of the technicalities, we are, in essence at war and are spending enormous amounts of money, energy, and lives for good reason.

I'm a little more in the center, so I'll also agree with you that we cannot win any of the wars you mentioned because they are wars on ideologies that are largely subjective. But come on, man, ease off the "we're not at war" stuff. It just ends up sounding like a red herring.

There is no such word as "verbage."

Correct. Dictionaries are easier to use when you spell correctly.

Pre- is for events... not verbs. A machine with no operating system installed at all would be "pre"-installed. A "pre"-heated oven would be room temperature.

Curious, but both Merriam-Webster and the Oxford English Dictionary seem to disagree with you. Since you need to have a subscription to the OED, I'll quote what they say:
pre-, prefix
With verbs, or participial adjectives and verbal nouns derived from them, in sense 'fore-, before, previously, in advance'.

Would you like to amend your statement to say that the OED is killing the English language? Because that would be a pretty silly argument to make.

I guess Adobe needs to sue Webster's.

...get over it.

Tenant is someone who rents housing or office space. Tenet is a point of view, doctrine, or belief. I rather think you mean the latter of the two.

(doffs Grammar Nazi cap and goes back outside to work in the garden)

Cheers,

Tenant is someone who rents housing or office space. Tenet is a point of view, doctrine, or belief. I rather think you mean the latter of the two.

(doffs Grammar Nazi cap and goes back outside to work in the garden)

Cheers,

Why would anyone want to Pirate the Olympic broadcasts?

You must be new here allow me to explain. First and foremost a vast majority of the money holding populace are simple rubes. The profits to be made from a relatively poor and uneducated populace such as China has is not to be underestimated. This is common in the United States of America, such as Yellow Ribbons once found on the vast majority of the SUV driving public. Themselves unlikely to formulate even a remotely insightful or articulate statement as to the conflict responsible for it's re-adoption. Taking advantage of the rubes can also happen on a much more local level for when the Boise Broncos won the 2007 Fiesta Bowl the local news industry was elated to find it's self in a constant self gratification stroke fest as it replayed the admittedly exciting game over and over. Including a year later. Wal-Mart also jumped into the fray to hawk a commemorative DVD with all associated Bronco's paraphernalia located conveniently nearby. It was given the same status in the store as a new Hannah Montanna release for many months after. Just think if China pulls some big wins, the populace is going to eat it up.

"The repair technician that installed the software has done this to at least 10 woman and has photos of at least one undressing."

I believe the correct word is womans, duh it's plural.

The correct word is women . Women is the plural of woman, just as men is the plural of man.

Why do you care whether someone thinks like you do or not?

Step back a sec - am I communicating with a child here? You keep putting things in my mouth, trying to find strawmans that don't exist, and now this? I care just as much as you do, as we're both continuing the discussion. There is absolutely no point in you asking this question of me, as to ask the question means you are displaying the same "care" as I am, and thus you can answer the question yourself.

Again, scoring gymnastics has a subjective component. If you don't think so then YOU are the one who doesn't understand the rules.

Again, it doesn't matter whether or not it has a subjective component.

The only arguments that seem to have been "completely obliterated" are yours that gymnastics is scored objectively.

Do you skip entire sections of what I've written? How many times do I have to repeat that it doesn't matter whether or not it is subjective, because the definition (not mine, Webster's) doesn't state that such a definition requires purely objective scoring. Hell, for that matter, the word "sport" doesn't require scoring of any nature at all.

Are you frightened by the idea of boxing being a sport as well? The scoring for boxing is just as "subjective," after all...

1 a: a source of diversion : recreation b: sexual play c (1): physical activity engaged in for pleasure (2): a particular activity (as an athletic game) so engaged in

"Physical activity engaged in for pleasure" - "recreation" - sounds like throwing a frisbee to a dog to me.

My quote: To suggest that they were "outdated" would be to acquiesce that at one time they were correct; this is not the case. Nothing in the words "competitive," "sport," or even "competitive sport" is exclusive of the activity having artistic components, as I already stated.

Your response: First of all, I was not calling such a viewpoint outdated.

I was stating I had no intent of arguing that a viewpoint was outdated, because it isn't merely outdated - it never was correct. To pretend that means I'm setting up a strawman is also just plain silly. I'm merely pointing out that I have no intention, desire, or need to make the sort of argument that you suggest I make.

And here, you've made my point for me. In American football, it does not matter if a touchdown was run in from 3 yards away or a beautiful pass that makes the Sports Illustrated cover - it's the same points. This, some people would classify as a "sport".

No, there, I make the point you're missing. American Football is scored on extraordinarily simple rules. Gymnastics is scored on more complex rules. In Gymnastics, it is not merely what you do, but how you do it that determines the score. All the gymnasts know this. So where move X gives Y points if done perfectly, it gives less if not completed in exactly the ideal way. How you think that makes your point for you, I don't know - and why you think awkwardness is really all that subjective a trait given a panel of judges (not just one), I don't know either. The judging criteria isn't terribly subjective at all (though admittedly, it is by intent becoming slightly more subjective).

You are saying that sports include competitions that have subjective components.

No, I'm stating that sports doesn't exclude subjective things, which isn't the same at all. Competitive painting isn't a sport. I also directly stated, and will state again, that "sports" don't have to be "competitions" at all; I already gave the example of playing frisbee with your dog in a park. Check again yourself.

I am discrediting the exclusiveness people are trying to put upon the word "sport" - an exclusiveness not backed up by Webster. That I am arguing for status quo means the burden of proof is on those who would, for some unknown elitist armchair-quarterback reason, think that the words "subjective" or "objective" even come into play (I say "armchair-quarterback because it's primarily just American Football lunatics that get so offended at calling gymnastics a sport). Two men trying to woo a girl by bringing her the most flowers? Hell, I'd argue it is more of a sport, an athletic event, than a bunch of fat guys running into each other for 5 seconds, then resting for a minute, then doing it again. Give me rugby or soccer/football any day over American Football...but I digress.

Just think of it this way, if it helps - a field goal is a non-graceful touchdown, completed in an incomplete or non-ideal manner, but alas - the ball was taken over the goal line, so some points will be given. Just like that person stumbling through the difficult move, and not getting the full score for it.

Is it just the complex scoring system that scares/offends you? Here is an explanation of the new scoring system. It's really not nearly as "subjective" as you think; I don't think the athletes would mind much if the technical scores were determined by a compute

hacking (uncountable)

1. (computing) Unauthorized attempts to bypass the security mechanisms of an information system or network.

Hack

...4b: to gain access to a computer illegally

You may prefer to use other definitions yourself, but the usage here is perfectly correct.

empty

1 a: containing nothing <empty shelves> b: not occupied or inhabited <an empty building> c: unfrequented d: not pregnant <empty heifer> e: null 4a <the empty set>2 a: lacking reality, substance, meaning, or value : hollow <an empty pleasure> b: destitute of effect or force <an empty threat> c: devoid of sense : foolish 3: hungry 4 a: idle <empty hours> b: having no purpose or result : useless 5: marked by the absence of human life, activity, or comfort <an empty silence>

empty

1 a: containing nothing <empty shelves> b: not occupied or inhabited <an empty building> c: unfrequented d: not pregnant <empty heifer> e: null 4a <the empty set>2 a: lacking reality, substance, meaning, or value : hollow <an empty pleasure> b: destitute of effect or force <an empty threat> c: devoid of sense : foolish 3: hungry 4 a: idle <empty hours> b: having no purpose or result : useless 5: marked by the absence of human life, activity, or comfort <an empty silence>

empty

1 a: containing nothing <empty shelves> b: not occupied or inhabited <an empty building> c: unfrequented d: not pregnant <empty heifer> e: null 4a <the empty set>2 a: lacking reality, substance, meaning, or value : hollow <an empty pleasure> b: destitute of effect or force <an empty threat> c: devoid of sense : foolish 3: hungry 4 a: idle <empty hours> b: having no purpose or result : useless 5: marked by the absence of human life, activity, or comfort <an empty silence>

empty

1 a: containing nothing <empty shelves> b: not occupied or inhabited <an empty building> c: unfrequented d: not pregnant <empty heifer> e: null 4a <the empty set>2 a: lacking reality, substance, meaning, or value : hollow <an empty pleasure> b: destitute of effect or force <an empty threat> c: devoid of sense : foolish 3: hungry 4 a: idle <empty hours> b: having no purpose or result : useless 5: marked by the absence of human life, activity, or comfort <an empty silence>

empty

1 a: containing nothing <empty shelves> b: not occupied or inhabited <an empty building> c: unfrequented d: not pregnant <empty heifer> e: null 4a <the empty set>2 a: lacking reality, substance, meaning, or value : hollow <an empty pleasure> b: destitute of effect or force <an empty threat> c: devoid of sense : foolish 3: hungry 4 a: idle <empty hours> b: having no purpose or result : useless 5: marked by the absence of human life, activity, or comfort <an empty silence>

empty

1 a: containing nothing <empty shelves> b: not occupied or inhabited <an empty building> c: unfrequented d: not pregnant <empty heifer> e: null 4a <the empty set>2 a: lacking reality, substance, meaning, or value : hollow <an empty pleasure> b: destitute of effect or force <an empty threat> c: devoid of sense : foolish 3: hungry 4 a: idle <empty hours> b: having no purpose or result : useless 5: marked by the absence of human life, activity, or comfort <an empty silence>

empty

1 a: containing nothing <empty shelves> b: not occupied or inhabited <an empty building> c: unfrequented d: not pregnant <empty heifer> e: null 4a <the empty set>2 a: lacking reality, substance, meaning, or value : hollow <an empty pleasure> b: destitute of effect or force <an empty threat> c: devoid of sense : foolish 3: hungry 4 a: idle <empty hours> b: having no purpose or result : useless 5: marked by the absence of human life, activity, or comfort <an empty silence>

The word "republic" simply means there's no monarch. The word "democracy" means that the government be it monarchy or republic, is subject to (dis)approval of the people.

From the federalist papers: The two great points of difference between a democracy and a republic are: first, the delegation of the government, in the latter, to a small number of citizens elected by the rest; secondly, the greater number of citizens, and greater sphere of country, over which the latter may be extended.

The US founders meaning of republic was that there would be a government by representatives rather than by direct democracy, by a true federation (where the central government's power is derived from that of the component states), or by a monarchy or dictatorship. The word has evolved somewhat, as countries have found it useful to call themselves republics even if it would not accord with how the US founders used the word.

Your definition is 1a and the other definition is 1b of http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/republic

While your definition does have support, it's not as cut and dry as you make it. It is one definition of several, not the only acceptable definition of the word.

Kind of pointless. Whether you acknowledge it or not, "Xeroxing" is part of our language. You can rant against that all you want. Apparently, instead of discussing it rationally, you just want to lobby personal attacks.

Can you even read? Not once have I said the word "Xerox" isn't "part of our language". As I've tried to explain twice already, the technical term is *NOT* Xerox, it's "xerography". Yes, "Xerox" has become synomomous with "making a copying", but that *doesn't* make it the technical term for the process involved. Both the dictionary and Wikipedia agree with me.

In fact, it is hoped that some will survive in order to return information about enemy capabilities.

Would you mind citing your sources for this statement?

My sources are:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cannon+fodder

http://martiallaw911.info/glossary.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannon_fodder

Note that none of these sources make mention of cannon fodder returning from battle with tactical information, as you suggest.

"Cannon fodder" is almost always used to describe a massive force of soldiers with no individual identities (ie, the stormtroopers in Star Wars.)

The phrase "cannon fodder" has never been used (correctly) in reference to one, high value fighter (aka, the "big gun")whose commanders expect will prevail in battle.

Hence, I stand by original statement that "cannon fodder" has been misused.

For the record, I can debate this point all weekend, if that's what it takes.

A. The Rules of Playing SCRABBLE were first registered for copyright protection under registration No. AA 104547, published on December 1, 1948 ...

The rules can't be copyrighted; they're intangible. The rulebook can. Unless Scrabulous substantially copied the text of the Scrabble rulebook, they didn't violate that copyright.

B. The Gameboard for SCRABBLE ws first registered for copyright protection under gegistration No. K 18528 and published on December 1, 1948 ...

The look of the gameboard was copyrightable, and Scrabulous was probably wrong in making their gameboard resemble the Scrabble board as much as it did.

C. The Official SCRABBLE Players Dictionary ...

Yes, that's copyrighted but I'll skip it because it's not relevant... you were just being thorough in listing the copyrights held by Hasbro. I understand that.

25. The SCRABBLE name is inherently distinctive and has been registered as a trademark in the United States Patent and Trademark Office ...

I'm not really sure how well this holds up. "Scrabble" is a word. If it can be claimed that it's descriptive of the rules or play (which is debatable, I'll admit), its trademarkability is suspect. Reading the criteria for trademark distinctiveness, I'd say "Scrabble" is probably a suggestive trademark (although arbitrary and descriptive could both be argued, and probably would be in court by opposing parties - although I don't think arbitrary holds weight: the game consists of sliding tiles around, and the word scrabble could feasibly be used to describe those actions). If a name is descriptive, it has to also be distinctive in order to be trademarkable. I'd be willing to say that "Scrabble" is distinctive, but since it's also somewhat descriptive of the game, "Scrabulous" could be argued as also being descriptive and not necessarily a rip-off of Scrabble.

Basically, Hasbro did have a case, but a lot of the charges are not nearly as strong as they'd like us to believe. They're being greedy, IMO.

When the hell did "carrot and stick" meaning "providing an incentive to perform" (the proverbial carrot at the end of a stick) start being so widely misused as "the combined use of incentives and punishments" (be good get a carrot, be bad get beat by the stick)?

It never changed, you just learned it wrong the first time and haven't bothered to learn the correct meaning ever since. "Carrot and stick" is not "Carrot on a stick".

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/carrot%20and%20stick

Perhaps if the post was made in German, you wouldn't need the English annoyances.

My point was essentially a variant of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis ("The way we speak shapes the way we think."): The way we speak shapes the way we speak. Due to German not using the plural form when referring to both continents I think in the singular form and thus use that form. By the way, both Wikipedia and Merrian-Webster agree with me about "America" being a valid identifier for both continents at once so I don't think I need to use the plural form.

Lol.. Now your just being silly.

Yes, that would be the main point I was trying to make: Sweeping generalizations like "Europeans are poor" or "America is plagued by hurricanes" are inherently silly. You lump things together where it doesn't make sense and the result is an argument with at best a fleeting connection to reality. It's the same kind of broken logic as "you look Asian so you must know Kung-fu"

I'm not that amazed by the survival of various nations inhabitants in the face of natural disasters, though. We humans spread over the panet because we're quite adaptable. If I went down there during hurricane season I probably wouldn't last long (the natural disasters in my area being more inconvenient than dangerous) but the people there know how to deal with hurricanes and have adapted accordingly. Okay, you're right, it is amazing.

Tate had insisted that the companies settle charges that they violated FCC rules before she would approve the deal. The companies agreed this week to pay $19.7 million to the U.S. Treasury for violations related to radio receivers and ground-based signal repeaters.

Erm... so the FCC basically held this over the companies' heads as a condition for approval? How does this differ from extortion again?

FYI: the word you were looking for is populace. "Populous" is an adjective, which means full (of people).

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

Interestingly.
ADVERB

Either there's a word missing in the sentence, or it should be rewritten:
And, interestingly, Godwin is actually using taxpayer dollars for this. The complaint is sealed."
  - or -
Godwin is actually using taxpayer dollars for this, and, interestingly, the complaint is sealed."

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/interestingly Interestingly - in an interesting manner.

Deprecate: v, play down, belittle, disparage, etc.

Depreciate: v, to lower in estimation or esteem, to lower the price or value of, etc.

As an aside, I don't think Miriam-Webster is ever a good dictionary to cite when the point of contention is American English vs. the Queen's English. Miriam-Webster is a derivative of Noah Webster's works, the American lexicographer who is specifically known for pushing an American way of spelling words.

They are similar words. They both share the "de-" prefix, meaning "away, off, reverse, remove". After that, they have nothing in common, other than a similar spelling.

The etymology of deprecate comes from the latin de- precari, "to pray against", which somehow morphed into the current usage of "to belittle", or "to make obsolete".

The etymology of depreciate comes from the latin de- pretium, "lowered price".

Back on point, you argue that "to pray against" somehow morphed into "to belittle", and so I suppose the claim is that "lowered price" did not.

Another online dictionary which pulls definitions from many sources, lists "to belittle" many times in regards to uses of depreciate. Deprecate itself also shows up.

Furthermore, the definition of deprecate has depreciate as #3: "to depreciate; belittle".

If you're American, it's a bit silly to argue with a Brit or really anyone in the Commonwealth about a specific word's usage, spelling, or pronunciation, since all can differ, but still be correct.

Deprecate: v, play down, belittle, disparage, etc.

Depreciate: v, to lower in estimation or esteem, to lower the price or value of, etc.

As an aside, I don't think Miriam-Webster is ever a good dictionary to cite when the point of contention is American English vs. the Queen's English. Miriam-Webster is a derivative of Noah Webster's works, the American lexicographer who is specifically known for pushing an American way of spelling words.

They are similar words. They both share the "de-" prefix, meaning "away, off, reverse, remove". After that, they have nothing in common, other than a similar spelling.

The etymology of deprecate comes from the latin de- precari, "to pray against", which somehow morphed into the current usage of "to belittle", or "to make obsolete".

The etymology of depreciate comes from the latin de- pretium, "lowered price".

Back on point, you argue that "to pray against" somehow morphed into "to belittle", and so I suppose the claim is that "lowered price" did not.

Another online dictionary which pulls definitions from many sources, lists "to belittle" many times in regards to uses of depreciate. Deprecate itself also shows up.

Furthermore, the definition of deprecate has depreciate as #3: "to depreciate; belittle".

If you're American, it's a bit silly to argue with a Brit or really anyone in the Commonwealth about a specific word's usage, spelling, or pronunciation, since all can differ, but still be correct.

google it fool

Just admit it... You screwed up. Irrespective of the fact that there is a redirection from "self-depreciation" to "self-deprecation" in wikipedia, they are not synonyms.

Deprecate: v, play down, belittle, disparage, etc.

Depreciate: v, to lower in estimation or esteem, to lower the price or value of, etc.

They are similar words. They both share the "de-" prefix, meaning "away, off, reverse, remove". After that, they have nothing in common, other than a similar spelling.

The etymology of deprecate comes from the latin de- precari, "to pray against", which somehow morphed into the current usage of "to belittle", or "to make obsolete".

The etymology of depreciate comes from the latin de- pretium, "lowered price".

Your insistence that wikipedia is authoritative on this somehow just makes you look even more silly. Especially on /., where amateur linguists and grammar nazis roam unfettered. :P

google it fool

Just admit it... You screwed up. Irrespective of the fact that there is a redirection from "self-depreciation" to "self-deprecation" in wikipedia, they are not synonyms.

Deprecate: v, play down, belittle, disparage, etc.

Depreciate: v, to lower in estimation or esteem, to lower the price or value of, etc.

They are similar words. They both share the "de-" prefix, meaning "away, off, reverse, remove". After that, they have nothing in common, other than a similar spelling.

The etymology of deprecate comes from the latin de- precari, "to pray against", which somehow morphed into the current usage of "to belittle", or "to make obsolete".

The etymology of depreciate comes from the latin de- pretium, "lowered price".

Your insistence that wikipedia is authoritative on this somehow just makes you look even more silly. Especially on /., where amateur linguists and grammar nazis roam unfettered. :P

you won't find it in Merriam-Webster, for example

FYI: http://www.merriam-webster.com/info/07words.htm

This is an example of how the rising generation is so used to "buzz words" chosen for shock value, etc., and has gone completely away from clarity of speech and writing. What the O.P. means to say, really, is "I don't want to pay the going rate for this service, so I'll call Verisign 'a monopolistic company' because everyone knows 'monopolies' are bad, and that will communicate the 'badness' of 'companies like Verisign.'"

Oddly, the word "rhetoric," also from the Greek (rheteros, "a speech") used to be a positive appellation for the study of good, clear communication of thoughts and ideas. But it has also succumbed to the buzz-word dementia, and now usually means "empty words."

Speak for yourself. The real Greek word meaning "speech" (among many one that is still related to the term "rhetor" or "rheter") is "rhesis".

Come back either after you've found "rheteros" (at best a made-up "Greek" word that you came up with to sound smart without being) or realized your stupidity.

I mean, if you really wanted to sound smart and start spewing "Greek" words without knowing Greek words, why didn't you simply look up an English dictionary that usually states the etymology in a very friendly transliteration to alphabet (so you won't have to wreak your brain trying to learn the Greek letters)?

Sorry my good Anonymous Coward, my usage was correct.

The term "quiet" can be used as a adjective with to mean "very", I.E. I am quiet confident, I am quiet considerate, that is quiet a problem and so on.

Sorry mate but you are quite wrong. Check out Mirriam-Webster or Google if you don't believe me. You'll notice that none of the definitions mean "very".

I think you mean the word quite, as none of your examples make any sense as written.

Your original text could either have been "I'm quietly confident" or "I'm quite confident", but your usage is simply incorrect.

Okay, I saw this post and couldn't believe it...savvy a verb and adjective? WTF? Well, it turns out that savvy really is a verb (although I can't say I have ever heard it used that way), but the only other form is the noun form, which is overwhelmingly used. There is no adjective.

The correct pedantic plural is "penes."

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

Nope. "Appropriate" doesn't imply any such thing. (Don't you even TRY to look your words up before telling someone they got a definition wrong?)

I know Slashdot hates to confront it, but illegal copying really is described by the verb "to steal".

Bootlegging works, but "steal" is just as accurate and descriptive.

Steal: 1 a: to take or appropriate without right or leave and with intent to keep or make use of wrongfully

Bootlegging: to produce, reproduce, or distribute illicitly or without authorization

This helps to distinguish private copying from for-profit counterfeiting by organized crime.

Now that's a descriptive product name!

Comodo: flush those bad packets away!

*If you don't get why this is funny, see
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/commode
definitions 2c and 2d :)

I gave up on Webster's as an authoritative source on the English language after they added bling to its dictionary. Noah Webster would be angered by the himbos now in charge of his publication.

Oh, that recently. I gave up (not that I'd ever considered them an authority) back in the 80s when they included "irregardless" and had the shrublike "noocoolar" pronunciation for "nuclear".

I gave up on Webster's as an authoritative source on the English language after they added bling to its dictionary. Noah Webster would be angered by the himbos now in charge of his publication.

Oh, that recently. I gave up (not that I'd ever considered them an authority) back in the 80s when they included "irregardless" and had the shrublike "noocoolar" pronunciation for "nuclear".

This is just a guess with no etymological (or entomological) evidence to back it up, but I've always wondered if "bug" wasn't from "bugbear" -- unseen mischievous forces which screw with how your stuff works.

This would be as in the Merriam-Webster definition, particularly 2b: "a continuing source of irritation". Of course, 2a might sometimes fit: "an object or source of dread". Perhaps even definition 1 after along shift of maintenance work: "an imaginary goblin or specter used to excite fear".

Your justification of this fact is baseless claims. In the real world, I posit this never happens.

Citation needed.

No, it's not. Citation for why it's not.

A citation is needed though for the assertion that companies that practice censorship go out of business. There is a theoretical framework, but I question if it has ever really happened. Please justify your theory with evidence.

I think it's too late. Already common use and even listed in some dictionaries.

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

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/google (lists 5 references to google)

I gave up on Webster's as an authoritative source on the English language after they added bling to its dictionary.

What do you mean by "authoritative"? Do you think that the purpose of a dictionary is to tell you how the language should be used or to report how it actually is used? Most dictionary compilers see themselves as having the latter role, in which case "bling" certainly deserves a place.