Slashdot Mirror

8
>> Yes, I'm insane if you redefine sanity

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sanity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanity
http://www.amazon.com/Science-Sanity-Introduction-Non-Aristotelian-International/dp/0937298018/
http://www.amazon.com/Drive-Yourself-Sane-Uncommon-Semantics/dp/0970066465/
http://generalsemantics.org/

=
>> Yes, taxation is robbery if you redefine robbery.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/rob
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/theft
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/steal
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/graft

=
>> And really, stop talking about mental health. It is very clear that you have no idea what you are talking about.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/delusion
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hallucination
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/projection
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/neurosis
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/schizophrenia
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/psychosis
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sociopathy
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/psychopathy

http://www.amazon.com/Madness-Explained-Psychosis-Human-Nature/dp/0713992492/
http://www.amazon.com/Models-Madness-Psychological-Biological-Schizophrenia/dp/1583919066/
http://www.amazon.com/Diagnostic-Statistical-Disorders-DSM-IV-TR-Revision/dp/0890420254/
http://www.amazon.com/Overcoming-Destructive-Beliefs-Feelings-Behaviors/dp/1573928798/
http://www.amazon.com/Guide-Rational-Living-Albert-Ellis/dp/0879800429/

=
>> That's fine if you believe it, but you still don't have the right to undo what a democratic society has decided to do by force.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/warrant
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/freedom
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-defense
http://www.amazon.com/Ethics-Liberty-Murray-N-Rothbard/dp/0814775594/

D

8
>> Yes, I'm insane if you redefine sanity

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sanity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanity
http://www.amazon.com/Science-Sanity-Introduction-Non-Aristotelian-International/dp/0937298018/
http://www.amazon.com/Drive-Yourself-Sane-Uncommon-Semantics/dp/0970066465/
http://generalsemantics.org/

=
>> Yes, taxation is robbery if you redefine robbery.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/rob
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/theft
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/steal
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/graft

=
>> And really, stop talking about mental health. It is very clear that you have no idea what you are talking about.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/delusion
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hallucination
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/projection
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/neurosis
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/schizophrenia
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/psychosis
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sociopathy
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/psychopathy

http://www.amazon.com/Madness-Explained-Psychosis-Human-Nature/dp/0713992492/
http://www.amazon.com/Models-Madness-Psychological-Biological-Schizophrenia/dp/1583919066/
http://www.amazon.com/Diagnostic-Statistical-Disorders-DSM-IV-TR-Revision/dp/0890420254/
http://www.amazon.com/Overcoming-Destructive-Beliefs-Feelings-Behaviors/dp/1573928798/
http://www.amazon.com/Guide-Rational-Living-Albert-Ellis/dp/0879800429/

=
>> That's fine if you believe it, but you still don't have the right to undo what a democratic society has decided to do by force.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/warrant
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/freedom
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-defense
http://www.amazon.com/Ethics-Liberty-Murray-N-Rothbard/dp/0814775594/

D

8
>> Yes, I'm insane if you redefine sanity

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sanity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanity
http://www.amazon.com/Science-Sanity-Introduction-Non-Aristotelian-International/dp/0937298018/
http://www.amazon.com/Drive-Yourself-Sane-Uncommon-Semantics/dp/0970066465/
http://generalsemantics.org/

=
>> Yes, taxation is robbery if you redefine robbery.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/rob
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/theft
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/steal
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/graft

=
>> And really, stop talking about mental health. It is very clear that you have no idea what you are talking about.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/delusion
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hallucination
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/projection
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/neurosis
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/schizophrenia
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/psychosis
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sociopathy
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/psychopathy

http://www.amazon.com/Madness-Explained-Psychosis-Human-Nature/dp/0713992492/
http://www.amazon.com/Models-Madness-Psychological-Biological-Schizophrenia/dp/1583919066/
http://www.amazon.com/Diagnostic-Statistical-Disorders-DSM-IV-TR-Revision/dp/0890420254/
http://www.amazon.com/Overcoming-Destructive-Beliefs-Feelings-Behaviors/dp/1573928798/
http://www.amazon.com/Guide-Rational-Living-Albert-Ellis/dp/0879800429/

=
>> That's fine if you believe it, but you still don't have the right to undo what a democratic society has decided to do by force.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/warrant
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/freedom
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-defense
http://www.amazon.com/Ethics-Liberty-Murray-N-Rothbard/dp/0814775594/

D

No, the OP had it right, its just an "outbreak"... saying a sudden outbreak is redundant.

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

Main Entry:
outbreak
Function:
noun
Date:
1602

1 a: a sudden or violent increase in activity or currency
b: a sudden rise in the incidence of a disease
c: a sudden increase in numbers of a harmful organism and especially an insect within a particular area

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=define%3A+outbreak

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/outbreak

etc, etc...

Only at slashdot would the first post be modded "redundant". Mods, please consult a dictionary, there are several on the internet. That was offtopic, not redundant.

As this comment will now directly address the parent, it is not offtopic. Mod it -1, lame.

Dude, robots are going to have to come a long, long way before... oops, bad choice of words.

Robots are going to have to, erm, get a lot more high tech before they'll satisfy. But at any rate, girlfriends go for twenty bucks here in Springfield. See A Nerd's Guide to Getting Laid. Unfortunately, there's nothing in that journal about robotics or the internet, although it does mention porn.

What was I talking about again?

On an insect?
The synecdoche no worky-worky.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=expanding

To determine that something is expanding you must first know its dimensions. Since we don't know the dimensions of the universe, we can't really tell if it is expanding or not. There is movement within the observed portion of the universe that is compatible with the concept of an expanding universe.

You might want to look up 'semantic' in a dictionary.

You might want to link a dictionary when you accuse someone of ignorance, and quote it as well.

semantic Audio Help /smæntk/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[si-man-tik] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
-adjective 1. of, pertaining to, or arising from the different meanings of words or other symbols: semantic change; semantic confusion.
2. of or pertaining to semantics.

Also, semantical.

[Origin: 1655-65; Gk sémantikós having meaning, equiv. to sémant(ós) marked (séman-, base of sémaínein to show, mark + -tos verbal adj. suffix; akin to sêma sign) + -ikos -ic]

--Related forms
semantically, adverb

semantic Audio Help (s-mn'tk) Pronunciation Key
adj.
Of or relating to meaning, especially meaning in language.
Of, relating to, or according to the science of semantics.

[French sémantique, from Greek smantikos, significant, from smantos, marked, from smainein, sman-, to signify, from sma, sign.]

seman'tically adv.

semantic

1894, from Fr. sémantique, applied by Michel Bréal (1883) to the psychology of language, from Gk. semantikos "significant," from semainein "to show, signify, indicate by a sign," from sema "sign" (Doric sama). Semantics "the study of the relationship between linguistic symbols and their meanings" is recorded from 1893. Earlier this was called semasiology (1847, from Ger. Semasiologie, 1829).

I believe he used the term correctly, and said exactly what he meant. There is no real difference; only wordplay.

So... you're making fun of him based on your own ignorance?

You don't seem to understand "wealth" verses "high salary". Wealthy people are those who don't think of money in terms of how much they make per year because it's irrelevant. They're the guys who track their "net worth", not their yearly income.

Bill Gates is "wealthy". Warren Buffett is "wealthy". The trader down the hall may have a nice house, car, and some money in the bank account, but he's not wealthy. If he was wealthy, his job would be optional, much like Gates' and Buffett's has been for years. They do that stuff cuz they like it and they chose to, not because they have to. That trader would be in dire straights after 6 months of unemployment. That's not wealthy.

You're defining people with nice salaries as wealthy, but I'm telling you that if they're living on their salary, they're not wealthy. The people who are wealthy you probably know by name.

Take a look here:

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=wealthy&x=0&y=0

The word "wealthy" carries with it the idea of overabundance, "not merely rich, but loaded", to quote the dictionary.com page.

The people you are talking about might be considered "rich", but you'd be surprised how fast they can tumble because they're still dependent on their jobs for income. The "wealthy" have money coming in through no action of their own, many times old money. Think Paris Hilton and the other trust fund types.

Do you see the distinction I'm trying to make? You're saying you want to tax the wealthy, but then take away from someone's salary. The two statements don't jive.

i had no idea that "funnest" wasn't a word.

actually, i'm still not quite sure. a search on reference.com yields:

No results found for funnest.
Did you mean funnest (in dictionary) or Fingest (in encyclopedia)?

Dictionary suggestions:
funnest
fun nest
fun-nest
funniest
...

i'll just go with funniest.

Perhaps you should go and look up the term metaphor?

Java's an entire ecosystem unto itself these days.

ecosystem = ecological system
What is so ecological about Java?

Actually, cited from the American Heritage Dictionary, forego means "To abstain from; relinquish". What was that about checking a dictionary first? http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/forego

you are antropomorphizing abstract legal entities...

Go search for antropo and see...

Maybe this is what is throwing him off. The word that you are looking for is anthropomorphizing. That's probably why he couldn't find it.

Regarding your usage of the word gregarious, I do not think that word means what you think it means.

Here is the dictionary definition, http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=gregarious
while your usage seems to imply an opposite meaning (as the most gregarious would seemingly be among the first to get cabin fever).

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=moot

You are correct, of course, that in the context of the FSF or GPL, "Free software" acquires a different meaning, but that's only within that context.

The ugly truth though is that it still falls under the umbrella of newspeak (which somebody else in the comments for this story called GNU-speak, which I find entirely appropriate):

newspeak: an official or semiofficial style of writing or saying one thing in the guise of its opposite, esp. in order to serve a political or ideological cause while pretending to be objective, as in referring to "increased taxation" as "revenue enhancement."

Requiring a person to give source is the very opposite of freedom. What Stallman is arguing for is a consumer protection obligation. Good or bad, it isn't freedom, and to label it as such is politics as usual.

I'm not a GPL hater, per se. What I do hate is the use of dishonest tactics. It's even worse when it's done by somebody as principled as Stallman, who if he saw these kinds of dirty tactics used by others would be the first to point them out. This is the guy who complains about Linux not being called GNU/Linux, and he completely perverts the definition of freedom to suit his ideology.

"It's an incremental expense, not a linear function. It's cheaper to separate them.""

Here is one area in which NVIDIA clearly has the upper hand over Intel. They apparently have figured out how to perform incremental functions in a non-linear fashion!

Great. Just 13 years after finally proving Fermat's Last Theorem, NVIDIA throws a new challenge at the Mathematicians! Now they'll never get any real work done ...

Please point out a theory in religion. I gave my examples - in evolution and gravity - they simply explain the natural phenomena of evolutionary mutation and gravity. you give yours. The first challenge, that I'm interested in is finding the natural phenomena.

Definition of faith

Definition of theory

The same? I think not. Let me know when you come up with proof that one religion overpowers the rest in factual evidence that supports it. Again, you don't know what the hell a scientific theory is at all.

No, I'm no science student. I simply follow specific definitions, and I remain a skeptic to everything. I don't believe or have faith in evolution. I simply accept evidence. It may morph in the future as more evidence comes in, but it will never make it "wrong" - for according to the concept of a scientific theory - hypotheses are supposed to evolve. The same with quantum mechanics - I am no believer in it, so I simply follow what has been proven in the physical world. Can a man walk on water? I sure would like to see it. Is there an immortal being for who I am a servant to? I sure as hell would like to see this person in the physical world, then existence of immortal creators will be an obvious fact.

Not to get too off-topic, but I find the Bible, Torah, and Koran the best collection of moral tales (moral as in the morality 2000 years ago) that have ever been discovered. The immoral concepts you learn from them show that YHWH, God, and Alah did not create man in their own image, but in fact man created YHWH, God, and Alah in their own image.

Personally, I would pick a woman goddess to worship. They seem to know how to take care of things pretty damn well.

Please point out a theory in religion. I gave my examples - in evolution and gravity - they simply explain the natural phenomena of evolutionary mutation and gravity. you give yours. The first challenge, that I'm interested in is finding the natural phenomena.

Definition of faith

Definition of theory

The same? I think not. Let me know when you come up with proof that one religion overpowers the rest in factual evidence that supports it. Again, you don't know what the hell a scientific theory is at all.

No, I'm no science student. I simply follow specific definitions, and I remain a skeptic to everything. I don't believe or have faith in evolution. I simply accept evidence. It may morph in the future as more evidence comes in, but it will never make it "wrong" - for according to the concept of a scientific theory - hypotheses are supposed to evolve. The same with quantum mechanics - I am no believer in it, so I simply follow what has been proven in the physical world. Can a man walk on water? I sure would like to see it. Is there an immortal being for who I am a servant to? I sure as hell would like to see this person in the physical world, then existence of immortal creators will be an obvious fact.

Not to get too off-topic, but I find the Bible, Torah, and Koran the best collection of moral tales (moral as in the morality 2000 years ago) that have ever been discovered. The immoral concepts you learn from them show that YHWH, God, and Alah did not create man in their own image, but in fact man created YHWH, God, and Alah in their own image.

Personally, I would pick a woman goddess to worship. They seem to know how to take care of things pretty damn well.

I don't care what you do for a living, as long as you don't work for us. :-)

http://www.rucharacter.org/page/ea_glossary/
http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=average
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/average
http://www.bartleby.com/61/53/A0545300.html
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/average

Even the ones that don't explicitly mention mean, median, and mode say that an average typically typifies a list of numbers. It can also be mean, of course, and that's the common definition, but I'm amazed that a statistician does not know this. What school did you go to?

Taking the typical scam and assuming the scammer is not law enforcement, then there is no entrapment defense. Entrapment cannot be committed by non-law enforcement or non-government officials.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entrapment
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/entrapment
http://www.grayarea.com/entrap.htm

IANAL,
--
Nathan

Not sure why wet vibrations would be better than dry ones. Unless, of course, you're confusing the verb to damp with to dampen.

Sorry, but the dictionary disagrees with you. I would like to quote the Firesign Theater (I think from the "Bozos" record, I got stoned a lot back then and it was thirty or more years ago):

There's micks and wops and niggers and kikes with noses as long as your arm, and honkeys who never left the farm. THAT'S America, buddy!

My ancestors were called "micks" and it was spewed back then like "nigger" is now. Have you seen the movie Blazing Saddles? "Ok, we'll even take the niggers, but NOT the Irish!" We got past it, so should you.

I heard a man once say that when black people would stop using the word "nigger", he would too. Although I personally dislike the word, I think he has a valid point.

The reason the word is so distasteful is that "nigger" means "slave"; back when slavery was legal, a slave was considered just another farm animal, a subhuman. You had "field niggers" and "house niggers", like a house cat or an alley cat.

A "nigger rig" was a mechanical device meant for the slaves to use, usually junk, that was hastily repaired by a white slave owner or his white employees with the least amount of effort and expense. It was not "Afro-American Engineering".

If a word terrorizes you, you are indeed a cowardly wimp. Grow up and grow a spine.

Hmm... not sure about that one (cf. dictionary.com).

This looks to be yet another Republican professing high fallooting morals but who by his deeds is shown to believe that morality is for the populace and doesn't apply to him.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/highfalutin

Yes, but you're resorting to definition 8 of a dictionary which sets out to be comprehensively documentary rather than prescriptive, which it means it's down in the "encountered usage, not correct English" department.

Well, I find the notion that the OED citation is somehow less acceptable because it'd descriptive rather than prescriptive to be a bit bizarre, but I found the same citation from a more "mainstream dictionary":

4. be comprised of, to consist of; be composed of: The sales network is comprised of independent outlets and chain stores

Regarding the supposed superiority of prescriptive grammar and lexicography - why is it better to have a self-appointed someone make an arbitrary decision about acceptability than to report the actual definitions and usage of terms in living language? Do you also hold to that foolishness about the supposed unacceptability of split infinitives or ending sentence with prepositions, despite the fact that these usages are perfectly acceptable in common use and are attested (at least in the written language) for hundreds of years?

Sorry, kiddo. Your "correction" is nothing but a baseless prejudice drilled into you by an anal retentive schoolmarm or some bullshit culled from a cranky old curmudgeon's compendium of grammatical nonsense. You may not prefer the usage, but that fact makes it no less acceptable.

"...setting a video game in slough amuses me. Almost all video game heroes start out in New York or Tokyo. Sloughs time has come"

Sorry, I'm not familiar with the game in question. But I have to ask, what exactly are the grammatical errors with the word "slough?" Checking it's definitions, this one seems to fit pretty well with what I presume him to be talking about:

1. an area of soft, muddy ground; swamp or swamplike region.

At the risk of sounding dumb, what exactly is the grammatical error? I mean, aside from not using an apostrophe in the quote "...Slough's time has come." How's it being misused?

Maybe what they really mean by excellent is graduates who know the difference between alot and a lot.

By attempting to disagree, you totally agreed with the GP. That's precisely what he said: by selling the hardware for MORE, they can charge LESS for the software. That is, the hardware subsidizes the software.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/subsidize (see #1)
and
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/subsidy (see #3)

-G

By attempting to disagree, you totally agreed with the GP. That's precisely what he said: by selling the hardware for MORE, they can charge LESS for the software. That is, the hardware subsidizes the software.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/subsidize (see #1)
and
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/subsidy (see #3)

-G

You know what I love about Slashdot? When people post snarky grammar corrections that are themselves incorrect. So someone should go ahead and fire up their response to me now.

I do not think the word 'objective' means what you think it means. It doesn't mean 'rigorous scientific study'. It means

ob jec tive
5. not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased: an objective opinion.

So, for example, if you were to turn on an FPS display (for example, by pressing CTRL-R in WoW), then run once in linux and run the same scene in Windows, then reported the framerate the display told you, that would be objective.

If instead, you just ran around in the game on both platforms and said 'this one feels slower than that one', that would be subjective.

Of course, don't let silly things like 'facts' get in the way of being snarky to an anonymous person on the internet. I sure didn't. :)

Odd how a completely wrong comment can be modded informative. From the dictionary:

democrat
-noun
1. an advocate of democracy.
2. a person who believes in the political or social equality of all people.
3. (initial capital letter) Politics.
  a. a member of the Democratic party.
  b. a member of the Democratic-Republican party.
4. Also called democrat wagon. a high, lightweight, horse-drawn wagon, usually having two seats.
[Origin: 1780-90; democratic
-adjective
1. pertaining to or of the nature of democracy or a democracy.
2. pertaining to or characterized by the principle of political or social equality for all: democratic treatment.
3. advocating or upholding democracy.
4. (initial capital letter) Politics.
  a. of, pertaining to, or characteristic of the Democratic party.
  b. of, pertaining to, or belonging to the Democratic-Republican party.
Also, democratical.
[Origin: 1595-1605;

How can voters be informed when the media aren't? It seem that whenever I see anything whatever about science on the TV news, they get something wrong, usually badly wrong and backwards.

It's more than the media... Some people refuse to believe legitimate science. Half the students in that study answered a question incorrectly even after being explicitly told the scientifically correct answer.

The average American (at least the ones I talk to) don't think that scientific consensis is that the globe is heatihng and we are responsible.

And irony or ironies, now you're telling us you're a member of the Cult of Climate Change. Don't you think if it were true, you'd have scientific proof instead of a scientific consensus. It's right there in your own words. You're presenting your opinion, not scientific fact.

Here's how real science works. You publish something and other scientists review it. Your peers try their best to tear it down. If it stands up to the harshest scrutiny, it's considered pretty solid scientific research.

Here's how the "science" of climate change works. One paper is published.... The One True Paper... and everyone is expected to fall in line. Peer review of The One True Paper is not allowed. If you attempt to review The One True Paper you are shouted down as a non-believer. Questioning The One True Paper diverts your efforts and money away from the Cult of Climate Change and puts us all in Grave Danger! There isn't time to question The One True Paper. We must "come together" now! We must convert all non-believers immediately or else we are all in Grave Danger! As a member of the Cult of Climate Change, it is your moral duty to save these non-believers from themselves before the damage is irreparable!!! It is the only way to escape the Grave Danger! that we all face. We know this because The One True Paper tells us so.

But I'm wasting my breath. You're clearly a believer. I could present you with a mountain of scientific evidence and it wouldn't make a dent. Your brain shuts down and your religion kicks in the second you realize I'm disagreeing with your religious beliefs. There are a lot of CCC members reading here too, so I'm sure I'll be modded into the ground. That will certainly reaffirm your beliefs. But just in case... keep chanting it to yourself with cult-like repetition, "There is no dispute. There is a consensus. I believe!!!"

You clearly don't understand the meanings of the words "art" or "science". http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/science/ http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/art/

You clearly don't understand the meanings of the words "art" or "science". http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/science/ http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/art/

Apparently you have trouble with the idiomatic use of the English language. If you read the dictionary entry you'll discover that it also means "Deceptive or delusive nonsense."

Moile is an archaic form of footwear. I think the term you meant to use is mohel.

Hmmm..."moile" and "mohel" are homophones, and "shoe and "Jew" are nearly homophones. Coincidence?

Moile is an archaic form of footwear. I think the term you meant to use is mohel.

Hmmm..."moile" and "mohel" are homophones, and "shoe and "Jew" are nearly homophones. Coincidence?

Exactly. A total bullshit statement, pardon my Anglo-Saxon.

fix'd

I can think of few crimes worse than tampering with our system of government.

Technically, it can constitute treason.

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

Your second comment is appropriate. I could care less. It doesn't mean that I do care more. If you were to assign a scoring system of 1 to 10 to my level of care, where 1 is absolute lack of care, and 10 is absolute care, the Olympics may rate a 3, at which point there is room in the scale to raise or lower my level of care. I could care less, but it wouldn't even matter, because it's lower than a neutral level of care (5), and has no direct impact on myself.

    If there were to be a direct impact upon myself by the event, then that level of care would be more significant. Take the scenario "There's a truck coming down the road". If I were not in the road, I could care less, at a care level of 3, and it wouldn't matter. If I were standing in the road in front of the truck, at a care level of 3, and I did care less, that would definitely be a sign of deep depression, which would be resolved rather quickly, assuming the truck does it's job appropriately and runs me over. :)

    It becomes a moot point, as the phrase "I could care less" entered colloquial English approximately 40 years, and it is already commonly understood to mean the same, either in the positive or negative syntax. It is found in print as far back as 1966. I'm only 35 years old, and I started speaking at 1 year old, so both versions of the phrase were already in common usage for 8 years.

http://incompetech.com/gallimaufry/care_less.html
http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/couldcare.html
http://dictionary.reference.com/help/faq/language/g09.html
http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-ico1.htm

Thanks, but it truly is a word. Check the dictionary.

Woohoo, grammar wars!

If you're going to prove me wrong you could at least link to the proper page. :-)

Thanks, but it truly is a word. Check the dictionary.

Woohoo, grammar wars!

If you're going to prove me wrong you could at least link to the proper page. :-)

Thanks, but it truly is a word. Check the dictionary.

Please explain how job description also assures ignorance.

Should be article in sentence somewhere.

What proof do you have that a given career equates to being able to automatically assume someone's cluefulness level about a give subject?

Even if you insert "having" before "a given career", it's ambiguous as to exactly whose career you mean. And that should be "given", not "give".

You mean, after he reads the radioactive waste YOU post?

At least I confine myself to using words that actually exist.

If I post total shit, then what's the rest of Slashdot?

False dichotomy. Logically, your posts being shit and the rest of slashdot being shit are not mutually exclusive. Empirically, both appear to be true. Epigrammatically, 90% of anything is shit.

I've gotten compliments on what I've written before

5th grade doesn't count, no matter how many years you spent in it.

These guys innovated by bringing a popular game to an entirely new format, and thereby to an entirely new audience.

What Hasbro hasn't done is innovate; They've remained with their 60 year old design.

All good - but I can't follow the "hole" -> "cowl" jump. Does cowl mean what you think it means?

Maar Nederlands is een goeie taal. Even if I'm not very good at it. :)