I have to admit, I had to ignore years of experience with Internet forums to follow a link to "goatse.fr."

The difference here is that "blast processing" was a vague, nebulous term that was never really elaborated on, and this is a very specific technical specification (the iPhone 4's 326 ppi screen), and is being compared against a reasonably specific reference metric (the sensitivity of the human eye). The practical upshot of this is that once you have a display whose pixels are so small that at a normal viewing distance nearly all of the population will be unable to distinguish neighboring pixels from each other, there is very little use in further improving resolution without also increasing screen size.

Do the specs speak for themselves? No, they don't, because while 326ppi makes perfect sense to me, I don't know anything about the maximum sensitivity of the human eye, and I'm interested to hear where that bar is set, whether this display really exceeds that, and what caveats I should be aware of in taking this metric into consideration when selecting screens for my own use.

Whether or not the iPhone 4 in particular meets this goal only of mild interest; it's a case study of a device that literally claims to be designed to have a higher resolution than the eye can distinguish. If it doesn't hit the mark, there's going to be a display that will come closer soon, and I'd like to be able to talk more knowledgeably about what this means.

I hope you like working solo, because it won't be selling until June 24.

Probably because the way I act at parties is different from the way I act at industry trade shows.

This is the same outfit that thought it would be an amusing prank to show up at CES with a universal TV power-off remote, which they used to interrupt demonstrations, presentations and meetings. I wouldn't blame anyone for banning them from a trade show. Apple just has more specific reasons than most for barring them.

You are not required to use the most specific word on every occasion. I may describe you as wearing "pants" when you're wearing "jeans." I may say that "new financial reforms" are being discussed when we're talking about regulations specifically related to securities. I might refer to "gaming" regulations when we're talking specifically about gambling or video games. Sometimes, there's ambiguity in the language, and you just learn to sift through it by context.

The word "gaming" was a valid choice here, as I have repeatedly proven to you with citations and references.

If a word is so commonly accepted as meaning something that I can find examples of it being used as such for hundreds of years in formal and casual settings in multiple countries, and I can look it up in the dictionary and see that the first definition of it is that meaning, how on earth can you call it a euphemism?

I understand the point you are trying to make -- the issue is that this is not an appropriate example of a case where a word is hijacked. They are using the term correctly, as defined by the dictionary, and in a way that is consistent with not only modern usage but also historical usage dating back literally hundreds of years. You are attempting to shame them into complying with your political agenda by using only words that you deem appropriate, with what appears to be the aim of separating gambling from other forms of gaming to make it easier to push an anti-gambling agenda. If anyone's being Orwellian here, it's you.

You have misunderstood your Wikipedia excerpt. What the excerpt is saying is that in some areas, "gaming" is distinct from gambling in that "gaming" is something which is legally-approved. That is to say, "gambling" may or may not be legal, but "gaming" is. The article suggests that this distinction is not universally recognized, and I agree with that -- I sure as hell never thought of the word "gaming" as suggesting legality one way or another. The example provided for the UK shows that "gambling" may also refer to legal activity as well. This does not in any way suggest that they do not recognize "gaming" as a synonym, nor does the article suggest that it does. Indeed, the UK has a number of legal recognitions of "gaming" as referring to gambling -- for example, in 1960, the "Betting and Gaming" act legalized Bingo in the United Kingdom. This helped weaken a move away from gaming in the UK -- for example, parliament's Gaming Act of 1845 held that wagers were not enforceable contracts.

So, yes, the UK does use "gaming" in the same sense, and that sense goes back for literally hundreds of years. While "gambling" can be used in place (and since we usually discuss "gaming" in the sense of video games, I actually think that's appropriate here), it is by no means incorrect or unreasonably pro-industry to use the word "gaming." It literally means, according to the dictionary, "the practice of gambling." It has been used in this context for centuries. That is why people continue to use it. Because that's what the word means, has meant for a very long time, and that is the word which is used most frequently by people who discuss it regularly.

Gaming is objective, accurate terminology. It literally means, according to Merriam-Webster, "the practice of gambling." Going by that 1501 date, it has for centuries. You are inferring dishonesty in the submitter and the editors where there is none, and this is hardly conducive to the "rational discussion" that you're claiming that you want.

It is hardly doublespeak to use the word "gaming" to refer to the practice of gambling. Indeed, the first definition of the word "gaming" in every dictionary I check refers specifically to gambling.

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/gaming

1. (gambling) The business of offering games of chance for money.

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

Main Entry: gaming
Function: noun
Date: 1501
1 : the practice of gambling

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

gaming [gey-ming] Show IPA
–noun
1.
gambling.

http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=gaming

Noun

S: (n) gambling, gaming, play (the act of playing for stakes in the hope of winning (including the payment of a price for a chance to win a prize)) "his gambling cost him a fortune"; "there was heavy play at the blackjack table"

From TFA:

Once it was decided that I would share a writing credit, I wanted to use my pseudonym, Sir Nick Knack. I was told I couldn't do that, because if a writer gets paid over a certain amount of money, they can't.

This is a dangerous door that you're opening here. Let's take your assertion at face value. Let's say that the firewall is indeed defective by design; that Australians are meant to be able to bypass it should they have the desire; and there is no law punishing you for bypassing it. What makes you so sure that it will stay that way?

Do you really believe that no one will notice that the firewall doesn't work? When they do, do you think they'll a) say "whoops, this was a mistake" and tear it down, b) say "eh, shucks, leave it be," or c) say "GOOD HEAVENS THE CHILDREN" and try to "fix" it? If you said b), then you've just stalled. What will they do next year? Lather, rinse, repeat until they take one of the more conclusive options. It'll be a) or c), and once you have that damn firewall in place, a) will be political suicide. That leaves c).

On a technical level, secure Internet filtering for censorship does not work, and never will work. When the technical consultants come back and say this time and again, moralizing politicians will stop looking for technical solutions, and start looking to more traditional ones: fines and jail sentences. It will be a crime to visit certain websites, and the infrastructure will be in place for the government to find out that you did it. It won't be perfect. It will still be perfectly evil.

This seems like a mighty steep price tag for fast Internet and laptops for school kids.