violating the TOS should make you criminally or at least civilly liable
I agree with the "civilly" part, but violating the TOS of a website is a breach of contract, essentially. Are you saying breach of contract should be criminal offense?
I'd hate to sign up for any cell phone contract or install any piece of software...
50-50 split. Which as some have pointed out, that's the sorta results you'd expect if a lot of people didn't really think that either outcome would make any difference
Yes, but it is not a causative, but correlative, relationship.
A 50-50 split can be evidence of a "meh" attitude, or, as I think happened in 2000 and 2004, it can be evidence that half the country disagrees with the other half.
Upon this, your entire argument fails.
You should have just made the argument that 50% of eligible voters did not cast a ballot in 2000. That's a much more damning piece of evidence when making the argument that "most people don't care." It means 50% did not care who won AND chose not to vote. There are also people who voted what others told them rather than what they actually wanted.
Claim 1: When I said "gymnastics" I meant "artistic gymnastics." This is true, and I've repeatedly make this point, and I've explained why.
Claim 2: "Artistic gymnastics" does not include "rhythmic gymnastics." This is also true by definition.
Thus, when I said "gymnastics," I was not using a term that included "rhythmic gymnastics."
Claim A: You used "gymnastics" to mean "set of activities which has 'artistic gymnastics' as a proper subset." This is true, and I've acknowledged that.
Claim B: "Rhythmic gymnastics" is, in fact, a subset of what you meant by "gymnastics." Again, I acknowledged this in the post you just responded to.
Claim C: You asked me if "rhythmic gymnastics" is a subset of "gymnastics." This is also true.
Claim D: When you asked, I had been using "gymnastics" to mean "artistic gymnastics" (see conclusion above after Claim 2).
Claim E: When someone is using a term, and you start using a homograph of the term, the correct assumption is that the homograph is actually the original term the first speaker was using. Do we disagree on this? I think this is reasonable.
Therefore, when you started using "gymnastics" after I used "gymnastics," it was proper for me to assume that what you were asking about was the same "gymnastics" that I was referring to.
Therefore, I properly assumed you meant "artistic gymnastics" by "gymnastics."
Therefore I was correct when I said "rhythmic gymnastics" is not a subset of "gymnastics."
Now, where do we disagree? Then perhaps we can resolve this.
I only see us disagreeing at Claim E (and I think that would make you an unreasonable speaker of any language) or Claim 1 (which means I'm a liar).
To counter your argument against Claim 1, I ask you to look at my history on Digg (KyleGoetz), Slashdot, or anywhere else on the net, and you will find that I have a history of veracity (when I'm not joking or shouting memes). Ask people who know me on Slashdot. See my positive karma. Investigate.
When my character is impugned I respond. And you have repeatedly verbally assaulted me, impugning my character by calling me a "fuckwit" because you don't seem to understand that "gymnastics" doesn't always mean "set of activities including rhythmic gymnastics and artistic gymnastics."
For Christ's sake, I studied gymnastics, I'd think I know.
And they're not already going after them for encouraging belief in evolution (note that there are no pieces in the cereal where a human is riding a dinosaur)?
I don't know where you live, but they do in the US. I'd suggest your country never do business with the US, because it would take any first-year law student here about 10 seconds to find loopholes.
If a word has more than one meaning in common parlance, then it is ripe for manipulation and in the US it might even be subject to nullification for vagueness.
The same thing that any referee judges. We just call them "judges" in gymnastics.
Besides, even refs in basketball do more than scorekeep. They judge whether conduct has risen to the level of "unsportsmanlike" for giving technicals. This is subjective, and under your definition disqualifies basketball from being labeled a "sport." The same follows for many other sports with this term. Thus, I'd say you have a useless definition of sport.
How can there be challenges if a machine does the judging?
Bugs, bugs, bugs.
the moment you start giving out points for artistic merit, or style, it is no longer a sport.
Judo in the olympics has this (I forget the term, but it's something like "not sufficiently martial"), weightlifting has this (are his legs fully in position? etc.), and boxing has this. Basketball has this (technical fouls anyone?).
The list goes on and on.
If basketball, judo, and weightlifting are not sports, then I'd say you have a definition of "sport" that is too restrictive for practical use.
I don't know, but I'd imagine it is something like "when a judge can see they're not touching."
Otherwise, we'll just say the same about tennis: How do we know the ball bounced in? We can't see at the subatomic level whether the electrons or nuclei of the ball atoms ever touched the electrons or nuclei of the ground atoms.
it isnt. for first, he doesnt see it, he doesnt have the means to watch it, second, he will wake up to the same poverty as the last day. so it doesnt make a zit of a difference for him.
Clearly hope and love for one's countrymen doesn't exist./sarcasm
It may not make life any easier economically, but a poor eight-year-old seeing a (formerly) poor twenty-five-year-old from his local village winning gold and prize money generates hope and inspiration. Life becomes at least bearable. Many who have the internet have "transcended" pride in one's country, but that's not the same for those less fortunate than we.
I know that when I'm happy about something non-work-related, my work becomes easier.
Really? They're 12-years-old or less? I guess you'd better report that to the IOC, since the minimum age is fifteen.
Beyond that, in 2005 the silver medalist at the World Championships was a thirty-year-old mother, and many more were in their twenties (of course, the average was mid- to late-teens). So there are at least a few who are "legal" in gymnastics competitions.
No, but while modern school children are in school seven hours a day, their predecessors were spending seven hours a day farming to frigging feed themselves and their families.
Then, when training time start, they make use of highly efficient and perfected methods of training.
Excluding juicing some athletes partake in, compare the training techniques of weightlifters now and then. Then: lift a rock a bunch. Now: To build useful strength efficiently, do high weight, low reps, X number of times, or doing 50% one set, 70% one set, 90% one set, and back down for a pyramid workout, etc.
Face it: kinesthiology has gotten much better over the past 2-3000 years.
For athletes, nutrition is better now. Training techniques are better now.
The first African gold medalist in the Summer Olympics won the marathon barefoot. You can't claim that was because of superior equipment or anything like that.
Either someone from a poor-as-all-hell country was somehow affording HGH, or he had access to training methods superior to those of ancient Greece (possibly by running in the Ethiopian Highlands at low-oxygen altitudes).
And I doubt he was spending seven hours a day in school, as Ethiopia had hardly any schools in the country when he was a kid. Heck, from the mid-30s to the mid-40s, Spain had shut down the entire education system.
Is or is not rhythmic gymnastics a subset of gymnastics?
It is.
YOU are wrong, and a douche to boot.
When Taco said "gymnastics" he either (1) meant "artistic gymnastics" because regular people (as he has evidenced himself to be with his lack of understanding of anything related to gymnastics) use "gymnastics" to mean "artistic gymnastics", or (2) might as well have said it because 100% of the people here on Slashdot (minus you, of course) took him to mean "artistic gymnastics."
When I said "gymnastics," I definitely meant "artistic gymnastics." If I had said "artistic gymnastics," uninformed Slashdotters (of which there seem to be quite a few today) would have said "WHAT IS ARTISTIC GYMNASTICS."
So look, Turd Ferguson, "no" is the correct answer to your question about whether "rhythmic gymnastics" is a subset of "gymnastics" [as understood to mean "artistic gymnastics"].
You can be a pedant and ask if "rhythmic gymnastics" is a subset of the group "gymnastics" [as understood to NOT mean merely "artistic gymnastics] all you want, but that doesn't change the fact that no one here but you was treating "gymnastics" to mean anything but "artistic gymnastics."
Because someone can win a gymnastics competition for intangible subjective reasons some people don't consider it a sport.
Except that it's not as subjective as you're saying. There's a set list of values (double twisting layout is worth X points) and deductions (legs not together is minus Y points). This is just like in tennis, where "hitting a shot in bounds that your opponent doesn't return" is worth one step along the 4-step love-15-30-40-Game progression).
The judges don't sit back and say, "Humm...Shannon Miller...butt too big, minus seven. Oh, I don't like layouts because my wife was a victim of layoffs, minus two. Oh, China, plus three."
If they have rhythmic gymnastics, they should have professional dance. Seriously.
Well, if we're going to attack IOC sports, let's attack equestrian as well: dressage is one of the competitions, and it is very akin to agility, a dog-show event.
Is rhythmic gymnastics a subset of gymnastics or not? IT IS? Hmm...
"Gymnastics" is the common term for the non-rhythmic competition (also known as "artistic gymnastics"), so, no, you're wrong.
Of course, there are no cars in racing, that's auto racing...
It looks like you're supporting my point right there. My argument is that X is not a subset of Y even if the word Y appears in the word X, because Y is merely a short form of another term.
I wish there was a legitimate method of dealing with stupid moderation, like the one on your post.
Well, seeing as how I'm right on the primary criticism you've leveled, I guess moderation worked perfectly well.
Most likely because there would be never-ending challenges to any competition, and the judges would be swamped for months resolving disputes. Awards would be given out via mail because the awards ceremony would be months after the competition is over.
And if the goal of reforming scoring is to improve an athlete's experience and satisfaction that fairness has been dealt, then I posit that not holding awards ceremonies for the athletes to enjoy the adulation of the crowd would be a step in the wrong direction.
I think you don't understand gymnastics. Here's a brief intro to gymnastics scoring. There are point values assigned to different maneuvers and deductions assigned to various mistakes.
It's not like judging a painting subjectively--there are standards just like what counts as a hit to the face in boxing.
Is boxing not a sport? It uses judges for scoring. And, because there is no tape watched after the judging to verify their accuracy, it is functionally subjective in nature. Tennis refereeing, until line judges were allowed to "go to the tape" a couple years ago, was also functionally subjective in nature.
I'm sorry, I didn't mean to attack you - though I must also admit that I didn't detect a coherent argument in your "cynical cynical cynical" post
No apology needed then (although calling me "part of the problem" sounds like a personal attack); I apologize. It was eight in the morning and I'm at work reading administrative regulations regarding credit reports right now--not my ideal morning. So I was a bit snappy in my response.
I just get tired of people talking about how terrible the world is now; it may not be as good as it was eight years ago (OK, it's definitely not as good as it was eight years ago), but being cynical about things doesn't help solve problems. It's merely a coping mechanism people employ (I admit I use it sometimes, as well).
in the vast majority of cases, are not truth, justice, or the righteous, it's the lawyers that win
I disagree for two reasons.
First, your quote is accurate if you say that the winners of the most publicized cases are not truth and justice. However, having seen our court system function first hand, I believe it by-and-large works nigh perfectly. It may be a little slow at times, but the right decision is arrived at about 90% of the time.
Second, since lawyers' jobs are partly to present cases, they can hardly be criticized for doing their jobs well. It's like me complaining that it's not right that "in civil engineering, engineers always win." Well, duh. "Win," in both statements, is a substitute for "make money." I should hope that lawyers and civil engineers make money in their fields!
So, congratulations for choosing a lucrative field. I hope your idealism lasts beyond law school and you can actually do something to improve the system, instead of merely profiting from it.
Thanks. And me, too. This summer I averaged about $6/hr working 40 hours a week for the federal government and the Texas government doing a variety of what I consider "good" things. This fall I'm going to be in a clinic helping defend Guantanamo detainees' rights. Then I want to work for the Texas Supreme Court.
However, I recognize that at some point I'm going to have to get a lucrative job if I ever want to (1) pay off my massive student loans, (2) change the political systems in this country, or (3) send my kids to really good universities.
I'm going to chime in, too. I find Taco's comments offensive. I suppose the code obfuscation contests are worthless as well, since there are judges for that event, too?
Also, there are no ribbons in gymnastics. That's rhythmic gymnastics, sir.
Put your frigging cynicism aside for one second and look at things objectively.
Are things perfect in the US? No. Are things bad? Pretty much.
Are they as bad as a court system that absolutely does not work at all? No. Are they as bad as an anarchic state? No.
There are definitely problems with the US, but you have food, entertainment, a relatively comfortable way-of-life, etc. Under the proposed path of getting rid of sovereign immunity, we would literally have a non-functioning court system, incapable of resolving any civil suit, and, because most court systems handle both civil and criminal cases, a non-functioning criminal system, in which the accused either sit in jail for years until their day in court (it is not like this today, Mr. Cynicism) or they would roam free for years until their day in court (it is not like this today, Mr. Cynicism).
You may want to complain about the state of affairs in the US (don't get me wrong, I do too!), but you do a great disservice to those of us who are trying to make things better by conflating the current system with complete and total anarchy.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree with the "civilly" part, but violating the TOS of a website is a breach of contract, essentially. Are you saying breach of contract should be criminal offense?
I'd hate to sign up for any cell phone contract or install any piece of software...
Yes, but it is not a causative, but correlative, relationship.
A 50-50 split can be evidence of a "meh" attitude, or, as I think happened in 2000 and 2004, it can be evidence that half the country disagrees with the other half.
Upon this, your entire argument fails.
You should have just made the argument that 50% of eligible voters did not cast a ballot in 2000. That's a much more damning piece of evidence when making the argument that "most people don't care." It means 50% did not care who won AND chose not to vote. There are also people who voted what others told them rather than what they actually wanted.
OK.
Claim 1: When I said "gymnastics" I meant "artistic gymnastics." This is true, and I've repeatedly make this point, and I've explained why.
Claim 2: "Artistic gymnastics" does not include "rhythmic gymnastics." This is also true by definition.
Thus, when I said "gymnastics," I was not using a term that included "rhythmic gymnastics."
Claim A: You used "gymnastics" to mean "set of activities which has 'artistic gymnastics' as a proper subset." This is true, and I've acknowledged that.
Claim B: "Rhythmic gymnastics" is, in fact, a subset of what you meant by "gymnastics." Again, I acknowledged this in the post you just responded to.
Claim C: You asked me if "rhythmic gymnastics" is a subset of "gymnastics." This is also true.
Claim D: When you asked, I had been using "gymnastics" to mean "artistic gymnastics" (see conclusion above after Claim 2).
Claim E: When someone is using a term, and you start using a homograph of the term, the correct assumption is that the homograph is actually the original term the first speaker was using. Do we disagree on this? I think this is reasonable.
Therefore, when you started using "gymnastics" after I used "gymnastics," it was proper for me to assume that what you were asking about was the same "gymnastics" that I was referring to.
Therefore, I properly assumed you meant "artistic gymnastics" by "gymnastics."
Therefore I was correct when I said "rhythmic gymnastics" is not a subset of "gymnastics."
Now, where do we disagree? Then perhaps we can resolve this.
I only see us disagreeing at Claim E (and I think that would make you an unreasonable speaker of any language) or Claim 1 (which means I'm a liar).
To counter your argument against Claim 1, I ask you to look at my history on Digg (KyleGoetz), Slashdot, or anywhere else on the net, and you will find that I have a history of veracity (when I'm not joking or shouting memes). Ask people who know me on Slashdot. See my positive karma. Investigate.
When my character is impugned I respond. And you have repeatedly verbally assaulted me, impugning my character by calling me a "fuckwit" because you don't seem to understand that "gymnastics" doesn't always mean "set of activities including rhythmic gymnastics and artistic gymnastics."
For Christ's sake, I studied gymnastics, I'd think I know.
And they're not already going after them for encouraging belief in evolution (note that there are no pieces in the cereal where a human is riding a dinosaur)?
;)
I don't know where you live, but they do in the US. I'd suggest your country never do business with the US, because it would take any first-year law student here about 10 seconds to find loopholes.
If a word has more than one meaning in common parlance, then it is ripe for manipulation and in the US it might even be subject to nullification for vagueness.
The same thing that any referee judges. We just call them "judges" in gymnastics.
Besides, even refs in basketball do more than scorekeep. They judge whether conduct has risen to the level of "unsportsmanlike" for giving technicals. This is subjective, and under your definition disqualifies basketball from being labeled a "sport." The same follows for many other sports with this term. Thus, I'd say you have a useless definition of sport.
Bugs, bugs, bugs.
Judo in the olympics has this (I forget the term, but it's something like "not sufficiently martial"), weightlifting has this (are his legs fully in position? etc.), and boxing has this. Basketball has this (technical fouls anyone?).
The list goes on and on.
If basketball, judo, and weightlifting are not sports, then I'd say you have a definition of "sport" that is too restrictive for practical use.
Can I get some Schrute Bucks to go with that? That should be an (Office) Olympic award.
I don't know, but I'd imagine it is something like "when a judge can see they're not touching."
Otherwise, we'll just say the same about tennis: How do we know the ball bounced in? We can't see at the subatomic level whether the electrons or nuclei of the ball atoms ever touched the electrons or nuclei of the ground atoms.
I'm not denying that "gymnastics as a set that has a proper subset 'artistic gymnastics'" also has a proper subset "rhythmic gymnastics."
I'm saying that until you came and started dicking around, everyone was using "gymnastics" to mean "artistic gymnastics."
Then you came and started playing word games.
Clearly hope and love for one's countrymen doesn't exist. /sarcasm
It may not make life any easier economically, but a poor eight-year-old seeing a (formerly) poor twenty-five-year-old from his local village winning gold and prize money generates hope and inspiration. Life becomes at least bearable. Many who have the internet have "transcended" pride in one's country, but that's not the same for those less fortunate than we.
I know that when I'm happy about something non-work-related, my work becomes easier.
Really? They're 12-years-old or less? I guess you'd better report that to the IOC, since the minimum age is fifteen.
Beyond that, in 2005 the silver medalist at the World Championships was a thirty-year-old mother, and many more were in their twenties (of course, the average was mid- to late-teens). So there are at least a few who are "legal" in gymnastics competitions.
No, but while modern school children are in school seven hours a day, their predecessors were spending seven hours a day farming to frigging feed themselves and their families.
Then, when training time start, they make use of highly efficient and perfected methods of training.
Excluding juicing some athletes partake in, compare the training techniques of weightlifters now and then. Then: lift a rock a bunch. Now: To build useful strength efficiently, do high weight, low reps, X number of times, or doing 50% one set, 70% one set, 90% one set, and back down for a pyramid workout, etc.
Face it: kinesthiology has gotten much better over the past 2-3000 years.
For athletes, nutrition is better now. Training techniques are better now.
The first African gold medalist in the Summer Olympics won the marathon barefoot. You can't claim that was because of superior equipment or anything like that.
Either someone from a poor-as-all-hell country was somehow affording HGH, or he had access to training methods superior to those of ancient Greece (possibly by running in the Ethiopian Highlands at low-oxygen altitudes).
And I doubt he was spending seven hours a day in school, as Ethiopia had hardly any schools in the country when he was a kid. Heck, from the mid-30s to the mid-40s, Spain had shut down the entire education system.
When Taco said "gymnastics" he either (1) meant "artistic gymnastics" because regular people (as he has evidenced himself to be with his lack of understanding of anything related to gymnastics) use "gymnastics" to mean "artistic gymnastics", or (2) might as well have said it because 100% of the people here on Slashdot (minus you, of course) took him to mean "artistic gymnastics."
When I said "gymnastics," I definitely meant "artistic gymnastics." If I had said "artistic gymnastics," uninformed Slashdotters (of which there seem to be quite a few today) would have said "WHAT IS ARTISTIC GYMNASTICS."
So look, Turd Ferguson, "no" is the correct answer to your question about whether "rhythmic gymnastics" is a subset of "gymnastics" [as understood to mean "artistic gymnastics"].
You can be a pedant and ask if "rhythmic gymnastics" is a subset of the group "gymnastics" [as understood to NOT mean merely "artistic gymnastics] all you want, but that doesn't change the fact that no one here but you was treating "gymnastics" to mean anything but "artistic gymnastics."
Except that it's not as subjective as you're saying. There's a set list of values (double twisting layout is worth X points) and deductions (legs not together is minus Y points). This is just like in tennis, where "hitting a shot in bounds that your opponent doesn't return" is worth one step along the 4-step love-15-30-40-Game progression).
The judges don't sit back and say, "Humm...Shannon Miller...butt too big, minus seven. Oh, I don't like layouts because my wife was a victim of layoffs, minus two. Oh, China, plus three."
Interestingly enough, gymnastics does have such criteria. As does figure skating.
It's not as subjective as you would have Slashdotters believe.
Well, if we're going to attack IOC sports, let's attack equestrian as well: dressage is one of the competitions, and it is very akin to agility, a dog-show event.
"Gymnastics" is the common term for the non-rhythmic competition (also known as "artistic gymnastics"), so, no, you're wrong.
It looks like you're supporting my point right there. My argument is that X is not a subset of Y even if the word Y appears in the word X, because Y is merely a short form of another term.
Well, seeing as how I'm right on the primary criticism you've leveled, I guess moderation worked perfectly well.
Most likely because there would be never-ending challenges to any competition, and the judges would be swamped for months resolving disputes. Awards would be given out via mail because the awards ceremony would be months after the competition is over.
And if the goal of reforming scoring is to improve an athlete's experience and satisfaction that fairness has been dealt, then I posit that not holding awards ceremonies for the athletes to enjoy the adulation of the crowd would be a step in the wrong direction.
Utilitarianism strikes again!
I think you don't understand gymnastics. Here's a brief intro to gymnastics scoring. There are point values assigned to different maneuvers and deductions assigned to various mistakes.
It's not like judging a painting subjectively--there are standards just like what counts as a hit to the face in boxing.
Is boxing not a sport? It uses judges for scoring. And, because there is no tape watched after the judging to verify their accuracy, it is functionally subjective in nature. Tennis refereeing, until line judges were allowed to "go to the tape" a couple years ago, was also functionally subjective in nature.
No apology needed then (although calling me "part of the problem" sounds like a personal attack); I apologize. It was eight in the morning and I'm at work reading administrative regulations regarding credit reports right now--not my ideal morning. So I was a bit snappy in my response.
I just get tired of people talking about how terrible the world is now; it may not be as good as it was eight years ago (OK, it's definitely not as good as it was eight years ago), but being cynical about things doesn't help solve problems. It's merely a coping mechanism people employ (I admit I use it sometimes, as well).
I disagree for two reasons.
First, your quote is accurate if you say that the winners of the most publicized cases are not truth and justice. However, having seen our court system function first hand, I believe it by-and-large works nigh perfectly. It may be a little slow at times, but the right decision is arrived at about 90% of the time.
Second, since lawyers' jobs are partly to present cases, they can hardly be criticized for doing their jobs well. It's like me complaining that it's not right that "in civil engineering, engineers always win." Well, duh. "Win," in both statements, is a substitute for "make money." I should hope that lawyers and civil engineers make money in their fields!
Thanks. And me, too. This summer I averaged about $6/hr working 40 hours a week for the federal government and the Texas government doing a variety of what I consider "good" things. This fall I'm going to be in a clinic helping defend Guantanamo detainees' rights. Then I want to work for the Texas Supreme Court.
However, I recognize that at some point I'm going to have to get a lucrative job if I ever want to (1) pay off my massive student loans, (2) change the political systems in this country, or (3) send my kids to really good universities.
Here's to keeping my soul!
I'm going to chime in, too. I find Taco's comments offensive. I suppose the code obfuscation contests are worthless as well, since there are judges for that event, too?
Also, there are no ribbons in gymnastics. That's rhythmic gymnastics, sir.
I wish I could mod down the editorialization.
Yes, attack my chosen profession instead of my arguments. That will win you the day.
Put your frigging cynicism aside for one second and look at things objectively.
Are things perfect in the US? No. Are things bad? Pretty much.
Are they as bad as a court system that absolutely does not work at all? No. Are they as bad as an anarchic state? No.
There are definitely problems with the US, but you have food, entertainment, a relatively comfortable way-of-life, etc. Under the proposed path of getting rid of sovereign immunity, we would literally have a non-functioning court system, incapable of resolving any civil suit, and, because most court systems handle both civil and criminal cases, a non-functioning criminal system, in which the accused either sit in jail for years until their day in court (it is not like this today, Mr. Cynicism) or they would roam free for years until their day in court (it is not like this today, Mr. Cynicism).
You may want to complain about the state of affairs in the US (don't get me wrong, I do too!), but you do a great disservice to those of us who are trying to make things better by conflating the current system with complete and total anarchy.