There are larger uses of the term that do end up with the limitations you're talking about and I'm all for calling that out, but I do think there is a place in culture to choose to use new definitions for groups/ideas/whatever that try to peel away hurtful histories that make free and open discussion more difficult, specifically for the historically denigrated groups/ideas.

Having an unpopular opinion is not un-PC, even when it's crazy racist or bigotted. We have words that define those things already. PC is simply about acknowledging that language has history and there are times, if for nothing else than for expediency, when certain terms have to be collectively chosen which allow people to reference things without immediate negative connotations. Now, my PC definition may not be what you were talking about at all, but I wanted to point out there is a concept of PC that does not limit what you can talk about it. Its intention is merely to create a framework whereby everyone feels comfortable participating. I would call this Democratically Correct rather than political, as its intention is to give access to every individual to a larger discourse, but Political is fine. This too can be taken too far and I'm the first one to point that out 'cause my language choices are not always unoffensive to everyone (I'll say fuck as much as I like god damn it!). Stll, where there is an extremely sensitive subject, I am more than willing to at least attempt to find the terms that no group involved will be instantly put-off by so that everyone can access the ideas.

Now this has nothing to do with college kids or any kids making fun of each other, so I'll shut up now.

It seems to me that apart from the headline the only objectionable sentence is this:

The rest of TFA is speculative and, to my mind anyway, worth the 30 seconds it took to read. Without this one definitive sentence claiming this as more than a new thread to follow, it's just a piece about a potential new avenue into cellulose batteries.

While I definitely agree that bold claims do hurt their industries with unreal expectations, I know I usually am more forgiving than I would be to large industries like pharma or oil. It's not a fair or educated position, but I often attribute that kind of overzealousness in these articles to optimism and enthusiasm, whereas if it's a press release from a huge corp. I see it as manipulative and marketed. That's probably an unfair ideological position and I try to stay aware that I have that bias, but I don't feel I'm totally out to lunch feeling that way in general.

I always appreciate it when people point out these discrepancies, but I think there is a legitimate reason why it occurs. We should make note where it happens, but I don't feel like getting angry at the people who may have overstated how far along they are in achieving some of these goals. If it takes an outlook that makes them feel they're closer than they are to keep plugging away so they, or the scientists after them finally do make a breakthrough, I'm more than willing to tolerate the fact they tend to minimize the difficulties between where they currently are and where they claim they are heading.

My answer to this is it's time to re-think your scale. Absolutely everything that goes sub 6 on your current scale should get an automatic 0. 0 means too far below industry standards to be considered a viable option. After that re-orient your 6-10 on a 1-10 scale. Nobody reading reviews gives a crap about the differences between a current 1 and a current 4. they are both equally unbuyable products and I see no reason for a reviewer to differentiate between them. However, there are lots of reasons to make small distinctions between a 6, a 6.5, and a 7 and I'd much rather have those difference given more weight so they exist on a 3-6 or 3-7 plane. It's all the little things reviewers know about that would help people make decisions. Are there other similar titles that do it better? Graphics subtleties, small control issues, bugs etc...

Now it's frustrating because if you're the only one using a scale like this your reviews sound incredibly harsh, but to me there's no reason to give a spectrum at the bottom of the scale where the threshold for even considering buying it is way more like 4-5 at the lowest. To me a 1 should be the generic genre game that super fanboys will play and enjoy, but if you don't play like 20 games of the same style every year, then buy a different one. Then work your way up from there. There's no reason anything lower on the scale deserves it's own spot. It shouldn't be paid for under any circumstances and the fact that people can make games even worse than it doesn't mean the've accomplished anything either.

Why do people assume the teacher quit because he thought he'd get fired? If I had a boss come to me at the end of the day and say the IT department has spent all day stalking someone who anonymously used the word "p*ssy" as a joke about eating and now it's been discovered that I am the culprit with any kind of incriminating tone I would quit too.

Not if you're trying to pass a bill they aren't. Uses technology (including the wheel, the stick, or straw) in any way to carry out your daily activities: that's high tech jobs for the economy!

That's 75 new high tech jobs created just in surveillance using existing infrastructure. Vote for the big brother stimulus package today!

I think there's a very strange attitude towards FOSS with some business managers or small business owners. I have mentioned these alternatives to people (it's not my job, but you meet people in these situations) who complain about the cost of upgrading windows software and always encountered a weird resistance. They don't usually say flat out no, but they always hedge around it so you get the idea they aren't the slightest bit interested. I think it's about a fear for their image (at least that's the only way I can make sense of it). They're imagining having to call a client and ask for a word document saved in some weird format, basically outing them as too cheap for "professional" applications. Maybe that's not it, but it's certainly the impression I've gotten over the years whenever I try to broach the subject. IMO saving a couple grand (at least, the larger the company the larger the savings) annually on readily available free software without any concerns for piracy makes such incredible sense for so many small business, it's really a shame people aren't willing to do the hour or two of research finding out about the alternatives and getting rid of their own misperceptions.

Having a place for comments is good. If it's moderated effectively that's even better. Turning your comments into a significant portion of your on-air broadcasts for a news network is terrible. The only reason is if you're too lazy to generate content, or your trying to pump up your website's traffic. Either way it's not worthy of being on the air, CNN knows it, but does it anyway 'cause they're working on revenue generation, not news delivery. If there was a once a week, heavily edited and researched half-hour show finding the most insightful stuff posted on their comments, that might be an interesting show, but using the comments section in every news story for a "here's what you have to say" moment is beyond atrocious.

Interesting! Thanks for the real world fact. I'm sure it's a matter of time before there's a work-around, but that is supposition on my part, while you have provided verifiable data.