When environmentalists talk about cattle being destructive to the environment, they're talking about the Brazilian rainforest that's being eradicated to create more land to raise cattle on.
Ever been to Riverside or San Bernardino Counties, in California? Just east of LA? The air is think with the smell of large animals that shit on themselves for a large portion of their lives in small, densely populated feed lots. There is a good deal of environmental damage right there. And there's the land right here in the US that is converted to agriculture to grow the grains to feed the cows that are standing in their shit. I'm not just talking about the rainforests in South America;)
growing up in almost-small-town Texas, almost *every meal* (which was at least 3, if not 4) that everyone around me ate had beef, pork, or both. My parents, after all these years of me now being vegetarian (and then vegan), are still confused as to how a meal is even possible if it doesn't have meat somewhere.
humans (sans perhaps Eskimos and such) also weren't meant to eat the amount of low-quality meat that the average American eats these days, either. There is a middle ground. That being said, eating meat isn't necessary anymore; I haven't for 7 years (and vegan for 3), yet I still run 7 miles regularly, work out, get sick once a year if that, etc.
uh, yeah, have never had a problem with that. And by "never" I mean that I've been authing linux systems to AD since...well...many years, can't even remember at the moment. But haven't had this problem.
As the other poster pointed out, you probably just don't know how to set up PAM.
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...
the burden of proof is on you, as Webster Backs me up.
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.
You need to work on your reading comprehension.
Your quote (which I gave right before mine...):
So, it seems that you are barking up the wrong tree. The way forward is not to try and convince people that gymnastics don't have subjective components (such as by bring up the technical scoring) but to try and convince them that their idea of what a sport is is outdated or wrong.
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
why? After all the arguments (that you can't refute) that say it should, do you still stick to the one argument you give against the idea, despite that argument being completely obliterated? Why are you so offended by the idea of competitive ballet being just as much a sport as American Football? Or heck, why does the idea of a guy going out and playing frisbee with his dog being a "sport" bother you so much?
Again - the fact that you don't understand the objectivity of how it is judge doesn't make it arbitrary or subjective.
The way forward is not to try and convince people that gymnastics don't have subjective components (such as by bring up the technical scoring) but to try and convince them that their idea of what a sport is is outdated or wrong.
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.
And as someone else has already gone into more detail to explain, your idea of the subjectivity of the judging is very wrong; that you don't understand the judging doesn't make it a non-sport either. One achieves X points for doing a particular move. If you follow it up by another particular move, you get Y points. On the artistic side, points are deducted if you didn't do it with, well, grace...though that grace is really just something achieved with control and strength.
Let me explain it in a way more people have a knowledge base for: a weak man stuggles and wobbles trying to do a bench press. Any competent trainer will tell them, however, to not increase the weights if those will be wobbled up as well; one should stay at a reasonable weight and continue using that weight until they can do a bench press that is straight up, straight down, with no shakes, wobbles, or hesitation. Once they can do X reps perfectly, then the weight is increased. That they can do the weight with grace then is an athletic accomplishment too, to distinguish them from the people who can merely press the weight.
If I can, then, bench press 200lbs with perfect artistic "grace"...and I don't even attempt to press 210lbs, and then someone else comes up and strains and wobbles up 210lbs...your definition of "true sport" would have that person win. However, for people who have actually done a bench press, it is well accepted that the graceful 200 is much more difficult than the awkward 210. Much the same, a graceful, beautiful double pirouette should be awarded more points than an awkward, clumsy triple pirouette.
Olympic sports shouldn't be trivialized to some sort of RPG-style grinding, where you have some X thing you obtain, without regard for how, and the style with which, it was accomplished.
I came in to comment on runoff into oceans as well. There's a huge area in the Gulf of Mexico that is dead - no oxygen, and thus no life, in the water. Now, I don't want to be so simple as to think all nitrates are created equal, but...
another note: an additional bit of info that one finds if they don't pull definitions out of their ass is that it isn't necessary for an activity to be judged at all, be it either subjectively or objectively, ie actually involving a competition of any sort, to be a sport.
sport/sprt, sport/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[spawrt, spohrt] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
-noun
1. an athletic activity requiring skill or physical prowess and often of a competitive nature, as racing, baseball, tennis, golf, bowling, wrestling, boxing, hunting, fishing, etc.
2. a particular form of this, esp. in the out of doors.
3. diversion; recreation; pleasant pastime.
4. jest; fun; mirth; pleasantry: What he said in sport was taken seriously.
5. mockery; ridicule; derision: They made sport of him.
6. an object of derision; laughingstock.
7. something treated lightly or tossed about like a plaything.
8. something or someone subject to the whims or vicissitudes of fate, circumstances, etc.
9. a sportsman.
10. Informal. a person who behaves in a sportsmanlike, fair, or admirable manner; an accommodating person: He was a sport and took his defeat well.
11. Informal. a person who is interested in sports as an occasion for gambling; gambler.
12. Informal. a flashy person; one who wears showy clothes, affects smart manners, pursues pleasurable pastimes, or the like; a bon vivant.
13. Biology. an organism or part that shows an unusual or singular deviation from the normal or parent type; mutation.
bullshit.
I'm not saying that there is anything wrong with judged competitions, I'm just saying that they aren't sports.
I'm not putting words into your mouth. You're claiming that the competitions are subjective due to involvement of judges, and are claiming that therefore they aren't sports. Your words.
Own what you say. Don't make shallow, elitist comments and then try to paint them as roses. You weren't trying to offer a definition, you were stating things as facts.
clearly then you do not know how these things are judged. Particular moves get a certain number of points (see: technical judges. did you RTFA? obviously not). Those judges are there to recognize and tabulate those moves.
Sorry however that you are offended by the idea that some sport competitions have an artistic component. Be that as it may, I've just spend a bit of time looking through dictionaries at the word "sport" and I don't see any that suggest some sort of mutual exclusiveness between "sport" and "art."
Yes, it is no secret that figure skating, gymnastics, and many other sports in the Olympics have an artistic component. But they are still athletic feats involving exceptional strength and endurance. Further, in order to actually achieve the art, one has to have perfected the physical aspect.
interaction with the higgs? Electrons having as part of their fundamental nature a bond of some static nature with an explicit number of higgs?
Hell, I dunno - not a physics person:)
it's annoying...you tried closing it...
Did you try simply not checking it anymore? Or does that not win you enough martyr points for the pain and suffering you go through from your free email?
I've had yahoo mail for many years, as well as even hotmail (since long before it was with MS). I can go a week with either account, log in, and will have a dozen spam email in my inbox. Sure, there's lots in the spam box, but...so what. And I even use these accounts to sign up for things; hell, that's half the point of the accounts, is to be used for trivial crap like signing up for whatever registration of blah crap.
Hardly an annoyance - hell, hardly something worth complaining about at all. Either you don't flag the right things to flag, you respond with "unsubscribe" to the wrong things, or you've subscribed yourself to way too many seedy sites.
oh wow, when that new posting mether came around, I told it to stay with old, then one day it was back to new with no option while posting. But sure enough, right there in preferences....the old, don't-have-to-preview-first, method. Teh awesome.
So I have to use old methods to not be annoyed, I guess;)
dramatic reduction, but I still come by when I have very little else worth doing. Like when I'm sitting in a hotel room waiting for a site to figure out what it wants me to do...
how about not forcing us to preview a few lines of bloody text? I've generally got better things to do with my time than clicking preview, waiting, blah, etc. Hell I don't even remember now, been so long since I bothered. Understand that there is a troll problem (see above comments), but those set of changes weren't the way to fix it - they were really just the way to make non-trolls not want to bother as much anymore.
cars have these things at your fingertips on the steering wheel in newer models; one doesn't need to look away from the road to find a knob, or even take their hands off the wheel. Check out a showroom for details;)
Slashdot Mirror
When environmentalists talk about cattle being destructive to the environment, they're talking about the Brazilian rainforest that's being eradicated to create more land to raise cattle on. Ever been to Riverside or San Bernardino Counties, in California? Just east of LA? The air is think with the smell of large animals that shit on themselves for a large portion of their lives in small, densely populated feed lots. There is a good deal of environmental damage right there. And there's the land right here in the US that is converted to agriculture to grow the grains to feed the cows that are standing in their shit. I'm not just talking about the rainforests in South America ;)
oh noes, a plant would go uneaten? That would be horrible! ....?
growing up in almost-small-town Texas, almost *every meal* (which was at least 3, if not 4) that everyone around me ate had beef, pork, or both. My parents, after all these years of me now being vegetarian (and then vegan), are still confused as to how a meal is even possible if it doesn't have meat somewhere.
humans (sans perhaps Eskimos and such) also weren't meant to eat the amount of low-quality meat that the average American eats these days, either. There is a middle ground. That being said, eating meat isn't necessary anymore; I haven't for 7 years (and vegan for 3), yet I still run 7 miles regularly, work out, get sick once a year if that, etc.
become vegan, or at least vegetarian (the cattle industry is extraordinarily destructive to the planet
fix things, instead of replacing them
wear studier clothes, longer
uh, yeah, have never had a problem with that. And by "never" I mean that I've been authing linux systems to AD since...well...many years, can't even remember at the moment. But haven't had this problem. As the other poster pointed out, you probably just don't know how to set up PAM.
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
why? After all the arguments (that you can't refute) that say it should, do you still stick to the one argument you give against the idea, despite that argument being completely obliterated? Why are you so offended by the idea of competitive ballet being just as much a sport as American Football? Or heck, why does the idea of a guy going out and playing frisbee with his dog being a "sport" bother you so much? Again - the fact that you don't understand the objectivity of how it is judge doesn't make it arbitrary or subjective.
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.
And as someone else has already gone into more detail to explain, your idea of the subjectivity of the judging is very wrong; that you don't understand the judging doesn't make it a non-sport either. One achieves X points for doing a particular move. If you follow it up by another particular move, you get Y points. On the artistic side, points are deducted if you didn't do it with, well, grace...though that grace is really just something achieved with control and strength.
Let me explain it in a way more people have a knowledge base for: a weak man stuggles and wobbles trying to do a bench press. Any competent trainer will tell them, however, to not increase the weights if those will be wobbled up as well; one should stay at a reasonable weight and continue using that weight until they can do a bench press that is straight up, straight down, with no shakes, wobbles, or hesitation. Once they can do X reps perfectly, then the weight is increased. That they can do the weight with grace then is an athletic accomplishment too, to distinguish them from the people who can merely press the weight.
If I can, then, bench press 200lbs with perfect artistic "grace"...and I don't even attempt to press 210lbs, and then someone else comes up and strains and wobbles up 210lbs...your definition of "true sport" would have that person win. However, for people who have actually done a bench press, it is well accepted that the graceful 200 is much more difficult than the awkward 210. Much the same, a graceful, beautiful double pirouette should be awarded more points than an awkward, clumsy triple pirouette.
Olympic sports shouldn't be trivialized to some sort of RPG-style grinding, where you have some X thing you obtain, without regard for how, and the style with which, it was accomplished.
I came in to comment on runoff into oceans as well. There's a huge area in the Gulf of Mexico that is dead - no oxygen, and thus no life, in the water. Now, I don't want to be so simple as to think all nitrates are created equal, but...
another note: an additional bit of info that one finds if they don't pull definitions out of their ass is that it isn't necessary for an activity to be judged at all, be it either subjectively or objectively, ie actually involving a competition of any sort, to be a sport.
sport /sprt, sport/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[spawrt, spohrt] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
-noun
1. an athletic activity requiring skill or physical prowess and often of a competitive nature, as racing, baseball, tennis, golf, bowling, wrestling, boxing, hunting, fishing, etc.
2. a particular form of this, esp. in the out of doors.
3. diversion; recreation; pleasant pastime.
4. jest; fun; mirth; pleasantry: What he said in sport was taken seriously.
5. mockery; ridicule; derision: They made sport of him.
6. an object of derision; laughingstock.
7. something treated lightly or tossed about like a plaything.
8. something or someone subject to the whims or vicissitudes of fate, circumstances, etc.
9. a sportsman.
10. Informal. a person who behaves in a sportsmanlike, fair, or admirable manner; an accommodating person: He was a sport and took his defeat well.
11. Informal. a person who is interested in sports as an occasion for gambling; gambler.
12. Informal. a flashy person; one who wears showy clothes, affects smart manners, pursues pleasurable pastimes, or the like; a bon vivant.
13. Biology. an organism or part that shows an unusual or singular deviation from the normal or parent type; mutation.
14. Obsolete. amorous dalliance.
bullshit. I'm not saying that there is anything wrong with judged competitions, I'm just saying that they aren't sports. I'm not putting words into your mouth. You're claiming that the competitions are subjective due to involvement of judges, and are claiming that therefore they aren't sports. Your words. Own what you say. Don't make shallow, elitist comments and then try to paint them as roses. You weren't trying to offer a definition, you were stating things as facts.
clearly then you do not know how these things are judged. Particular moves get a certain number of points (see: technical judges. did you RTFA? obviously not). Those judges are there to recognize and tabulate those moves. Sorry however that you are offended by the idea that some sport competitions have an artistic component. Be that as it may, I've just spend a bit of time looking through dictionaries at the word "sport" and I don't see any that suggest some sort of mutual exclusiveness between "sport" and "art." Yes, it is no secret that figure skating, gymnastics, and many other sports in the Olympics have an artistic component. But they are still athletic feats involving exceptional strength and endurance. Further, in order to actually achieve the art, one has to have perfected the physical aspect.
interaction with the higgs? Electrons having as part of their fundamental nature a bond of some static nature with an explicit number of higgs? Hell, I dunno - not a physics person :)
water (like all matter) does indeed melt/boil at different temps depending upon pressure.
it's annoying...you tried closing it... Did you try simply not checking it anymore? Or does that not win you enough martyr points for the pain and suffering you go through from your free email? I've had yahoo mail for many years, as well as even hotmail (since long before it was with MS). I can go a week with either account, log in, and will have a dozen spam email in my inbox. Sure, there's lots in the spam box, but...so what. And I even use these accounts to sign up for things; hell, that's half the point of the accounts, is to be used for trivial crap like signing up for whatever registration of blah crap. Hardly an annoyance - hell, hardly something worth complaining about at all. Either you don't flag the right things to flag, you respond with "unsubscribe" to the wrong things, or you've subscribed yourself to way too many seedy sites.
Here: http://slashdot.org/my/comments Switch back to "Slashdot Classic Discussion System" and viola! less annoyance ;)
oh wow, when that new posting mether came around, I told it to stay with old, then one day it was back to new with no option while posting. But sure enough, right there in preferences....the old, don't-have-to-preview-first, method. Teh awesome. So I have to use old methods to not be annoyed, I guess ;)
...not want to bother as much anymore...
dramatic reduction, but I still come by when I have very little else worth doing. Like when I'm sitting in a hotel room waiting for a site to figure out what it wants me to do...
how about not forcing us to preview a few lines of bloody text? I've generally got better things to do with my time than clicking preview, waiting, blah, etc. Hell I don't even remember now, been so long since I bothered. Understand that there is a troll problem (see above comments), but those set of changes weren't the way to fix it - they were really just the way to make non-trolls not want to bother as much anymore.
anyone know of an ultra-rugged umpc out there? The sort of thing the military would use, or whatnot?
from my comment: "cars have these things at your fingertips on the steering wheel in newer models"
"lazers" you say? Ummm...no, I'm speaking to the controls on a steering wheel.
cars have these things at your fingertips on the steering wheel in newer models; one doesn't need to look away from the road to find a knob, or even take their hands off the wheel. Check out a showroom for details ;)