I am using 'objective' and 'subjective' in the common sense way of 'mind-independent' or 'mind-dependent' and explained in what specific way I'm doing that (that is, the proper basis of terminal values, and thus the rational basis for moral judgments, are hard-wired facts of reality that exist prior to, and independent of, the rest of our knowledge and cognition - and that the proper basis of terminal values is not something that is invented later, as a product of, and dependent on, later acquired/invented knowledge and chains of cognition).
For what it's worth, not only is your usage a common one, I think it is consistent with the way some philosophers have discussed meta-ethics. Also, I particularly like the narrow way you construct 'mind-dependent'. It seems to me that the facts that I am capable of reason, that I understand English, and that I am not blind are all "objective" in common sense speak, even though they are, in the broadest possible sense of the phrase, mind-dependent. This illustrates the need for care about what kind of mind-dependence makes for subjectivity.
Do you believe in an objective morality capable of being scientifically investigated (a la Sam Harris *or others*), or are you a moral nihilist/relativist? There seems to be some division on this point. I would have thought Less Wrong to be well in the former camp.
Edit: There seems to be some confusion - when I say "an objective morality capable of being scientifically investigated (a la Sam Harris *or others*)" - I do NOT mean something like a "one true, universal, metaphysical morality for all mind-designs" like the Socratic/Platonic Form of Good or any such nonsense. I just mean something in reality that's mind-independent - in the sense that it is hard-wired, e.g. by evolution, and thus independent/prior to any later knowledge or cognitive content - and thus can be investigated scientifically. It is a definite "is" from which we can make true "ought" statements relative to that "is". See drethelin's comment and my analysis of Clippy.