Indeed, if I understood it correctly he is essentially suggesting that technically challenged parents challenge their 12, 14, 16 yo children to a cyberwar. Good luck with that.
Actually checking the movie you can see that Wikileaks claims to have decrypted it, which is probably why this is on/. now. My guess is they got the video and the decryption key together, but to make it just a tad more convenient for users they modified the video by just decrypting it. Perhaps this took so long time for the guy doing it that he thought it deserved recognition or they felt it was a non-obvious modification of the source that needed pointing out. Or Cowboy Neal put the message there to fuck with you all.
Cheap shot, couldn't stop myself, know there actually was a similar instance some time ago with M$. Anyway, yes, I would say the same thing. Maybe I even did. M$ has nothing to do with it.
X slights Y, apologizes. Y accepts apology. Isn't it a rather depressing thought that this kind of upright behaviour apparently is unusual enough that it makes news?
Is this a medical concern, or are you trying to improve speed?
If you work in a data entry job, I guess it makes sense, but if you're actually spewing out so much code or documentation that typing speed is becoming an issue.. you're either a mad genius or producing some very poor quality code!
I honestly think when it comes to most non-data entry jobs.. quality is generally better than quantity. A few slowly typed but well thought out lines are always going to be better than a page of garbage.
That's a silly comment - code documentation or whatever, obviously he does a lot of typing. If he increases typing speed by 30% he reduces the time spent on typing by 30% and so can do something more important with that time. If this is only 20 min per day that may still be enough to make improving relevant. I'm pretty much in the same position, I write emails, comments (on/.), papers and various things on the net - it adds up.
Why? First of all this is as much statistics as psychology, if not more; and if there's anything particularily wrong with it it's nothing that has been pointed out in the threads I've read on \. It's often a necessarry and non-trivial task to aggregate results from different studies - why would that be something shameful?
It's popularily called a meta-analysis.
If you want to criticise this work you have to study it carefully and dig into details. Probably look up references and check the validity of other results. Basically a task that only other devoted scientists in the field would consider doing.
That's because the article you are reading is NOT written by a scientist-slash-researcher but by some idiot journalist who (I hope) interviewed a scientist-slash-researcher. I can't say I myself have bothered to read the whole paper
... but from the abstract: "The evidence strongly suggests that exposure to violent video games is a causal risk factor for increased aggressive behavior, aggressive cognition, and aggressive affect and for decreased empathy and prosocial behavior". This is a strong but not unusual kind of statement, meaning they are sure of themselves. The word "conclusive" is not used once (if Adobes search function is accurate). It also annoys me that the journalist turned "causal risk factor" into "causes", but then again perhaps people in general are just too stupid to understand anything more complicated than "A causes B".
What really bugs me though is how/. users eagerly discard scientists as having a "hidden agenda" based only on someone elses lay review, without having the decency to actually read the publication. Don't forget that there is often a distorting layer between what you read and the real stuff.
You can accept quantum mechanics as a valid standard, or you can base your understanding upon who provided the funding.
You are suggesting I should instead base my "understanding" on your narrowminded opinion of how the universe works. Personally I'm not stupid enogh to think I know half the answer here, but I can say that I'm pretty sure it is much more complicated than a question of whether a bloody photon can break a carbon bound. One thing I can do, however, is decide what "expert" I want to listen to based on observations such as the one about whether there is a strong correletion between their incentives and their findings. That makes sence.
Seems to be a developing condition amongst the young and ignorant.
Curious, why do you think that? Surely it is something of an attribut by definition among ignorant. And among the young it seems rather the opposite would be more accurate, what with more emailing, facebook, wikipedia, blogging etc. for every generation.
Unless of course, what you really mean is "allergic to pointless flamboyancy". Yes, that is probably what you mean if I translate your words into my own frame of reference. Well then, in a sence I agree (about youths, not the ignorant). When subjected to ever higher loads of information, people probably become less and less patient with words that don't really add anything (in case of the article in question, redundancy).
Or perhaps you are just exclaiming that the young are becoming ignorant, but I'll give you credit for more than that.
How very, very sad. How can anyone think for one second that his tweet was serious ? What a bunch of idiots. Not only the authorities but also the person who reported him.
It seems we're slowly moving to a state where only correct thinking is allowed. No joking, no sense of humour, irony or annoyance.
I can't remember ever having heard a funny threat. Ah well, maybe one involving panties - but definitely never of bombs. My humor seems to be acceptable in other areas, so I suppose it's just defective in this particular category. But seriously, any time I hear this kind of news story I just think "what an idiot", and feel no empathy whatsoever.
Men have more variance in IQ, that's why there's more very smart men than very smart women. Of course, there's more very stupid men, which is reflected in crime rates etc.
Precisely - and it is not unreasonable to think that we have a tendency to simply write off much of the bottom "dreg" as unimportant or people we at least want nothing to do with (perhaps likely to have a future in jail or on the street). In the reminder of the population, men are hence measurably smarter, so it is not strange that we are perceived as such by both men and women.
This reasoning can be taken to explain things further: Supposing you have any group of people drawn uniformly at random from the population but excluding much of the presumably least intelligent group (e.g. by jail time or lack of a degree) it will contain more women but the men will be markably more intelligent on average. This implies that certain "prejudices" are perfectly rational in many situations - such as if you meet a random person outside jail.
I'm all for equal rights etc. but we should reason sensibly about it. I'm somewhat tired of seeing things written off simply as male hubris. A higher variance in IQ among men has more implications than most people would think.
Kids have always been mean to one another, and always will, but online interaction raises it to a new level.
I don't particularly think it "raises the level", but I'm sure that it (the online-ness) makes things much more visible to adults - which is of course when they become horrible. (Mind, I for one think this is horrible in general but in particular cases I'm of course not horrified by things of which I'm unaware). Parents, guardians, schools, etc. must combat this problem exactly the same way as before - by taking time with their children, individually, not by spying or censoring public forums.
Slashdot Mirror
When would you need a nazi?
When you have a Yew infestation?
Number one priority is figure out the exit plan.
Indeed, if I understood it correctly he is essentially suggesting that technically challenged parents challenge their 12, 14, 16 yo children to a cyberwar. Good luck with that.
they got it unencrypted
Actually checking the movie you can see that Wikileaks claims to have decrypted it, which is probably why this is on /. now. My guess is they got the video and the decryption key together, but to make it just a tad more convenient for users they modified the video by just decrypting it. Perhaps this took so long time for the guy doing it that he thought it deserved recognition or they felt it was a non-obvious modification of the source that needed pointing out. Or Cowboy Neal put the message there to fuck with you all.
Cheap shot, couldn't stop myself, know there actually was a similar instance some time ago with M$. Anyway, yes, I would say the same thing. Maybe I even did. M$ has nothing to do with it.
M$ playing nice.. What have you been smoking?
X slights Y, apologizes. Y accepts apology. Isn't it a rather depressing thought that this kind of upright behaviour apparently is unusual enough that it makes news?
mod parent up, I too want a "shitcan" category for all the spammers.
So if he increases the speed of the typing, he will have more time for the thinking.
Is this a medical concern, or are you trying to improve speed?
If you work in a data entry job, I guess it makes sense, but if you're actually spewing out so much code or documentation that typing speed is becoming an issue.. you're either a mad genius or producing some very poor quality code!
I honestly think when it comes to most non-data entry jobs.. quality is generally better than quantity. A few slowly typed but well thought out lines are always going to be better than a page of garbage.
That's a silly comment - code documentation or whatever, obviously he does a lot of typing. If he increases typing speed by 30% he reduces the time spent on typing by 30% and so can do something more important with that time. If this is only 20 min per day that may still be enough to make improving relevant. I'm pretty much in the same position, I write emails, comments (on /.), papers and various things on the net - it adds up.
But from the direct quotes from Anderson show he obviously believes that. Which isn't scientific and shows he is bias.
You are saying that he is biased because he believes in his own conclusions. Well then I submit that you are either biased or troll.
Why? First of all this is as much statistics as psychology, if not more; and if there's anything particularily wrong with it it's nothing that has been pointed out in the threads I've read on \. It's often a necessarry and non-trivial task to aggregate results from different studies - why would that be something shameful? It's popularily called a meta-analysis.
If you want to criticise this work you have to study it carefully and dig into details. Probably look up references and check the validity of other results. Basically a task that only other devoted scientists in the field would consider doing.
That's because the article you are reading is NOT written by a scientist-slash-researcher but by some idiot journalist who (I hope) interviewed a scientist-slash-researcher. I can't say I myself have bothered to read the whole paper
http://www.psychology.iastate.edu/faculty/caa/abstracts/2010-2014/10ASISBSRS.pdf
... but from the abstract: "The evidence strongly suggests that exposure to violent video games is a causal risk factor for increased aggressive behavior, aggressive cognition, and aggressive affect and for decreased empathy and prosocial behavior". This is a strong but not unusual kind of statement, meaning they are sure of themselves. The word "conclusive" is not used once (if Adobes search function is accurate). It also annoys me that the journalist turned "causal risk factor" into "causes", but then again perhaps people in general are just too stupid to understand anything more complicated than "A causes B".
What really bugs me though is how /. users eagerly discard scientists as having a "hidden agenda" based only on someone elses lay review, without having the decency to actually read the publication. Don't forget that there is often a distorting layer between what you read and the real stuff.
on unmaned remote controled vehicles is ultimately the only thing that will deter shoplifters.
You can accept quantum mechanics as a valid standard, or you can base your understanding upon who provided the funding.
You are suggesting I should instead base my "understanding" on your narrowminded opinion of how the universe works. Personally I'm not stupid enogh to think I know half the answer here, but I can say that I'm pretty sure it is much more complicated than a question of whether a bloody photon can break a carbon bound. One thing I can do, however, is decide what "expert" I want to listen to based on observations such as the one about whether there is a strong correletion between their incentives and their findings. That makes sence.
Are you allergic to words?
Seems to be a developing condition amongst the young and ignorant.
Curious, why do you think that? Surely it is something of an attribut by definition among ignorant. And among the young it seems rather the opposite would be more accurate, what with more emailing, facebook, wikipedia, blogging etc. for every generation.
Unless of course, what you really mean is "allergic to pointless flamboyancy". Yes, that is probably what you mean if I translate your words into my own frame of reference. Well then, in a sence I agree (about youths, not the ignorant). When subjected to ever higher loads of information, people probably become less and less patient with words that don't really add anything (in case of the article in question, redundancy).
Or perhaps you are just exclaiming that the young are becoming ignorant, but I'll give you credit for more than that.
My, that was many words to say one thing over and over and over again. Pretty pictures though.
How very, very sad. How can anyone think for one second that his tweet was serious ? What a bunch of idiots. Not only the authorities but also the person who reported him.
It seems we're slowly moving to a state where only correct thinking is allowed. No joking, no sense of humour, irony or annoyance.
I can't remember ever having heard a funny threat. Ah well, maybe one involving panties - but definitely never of bombs. My humor seems to be acceptable in other areas, so I suppose it's just defective in this particular category. But seriously, any time I hear this kind of news story I just think "what an idiot", and feel no empathy whatsoever.
...browsing at full speed on the most JavaScript- and Flash-intensive websites and support a large amount of opened tabs?
Dude, my (rather powerfull) desktop comp. doesn't do that.
Not the same scale as M$-example but a very good observation nontheless - wish I had points to mod you up with.
Men have more variance in IQ, that's why there's more very smart men than very smart women. Of course, there's more very stupid men, which is reflected in crime rates etc.
Precisely - and it is not unreasonable to think that we have a tendency to simply write off much of the bottom "dreg" as unimportant or people we at least want nothing to do with (perhaps likely to have a future in jail or on the street). In the reminder of the population, men are hence measurably smarter, so it is not strange that we are perceived as such by both men and women.
This reasoning can be taken to explain things further: Supposing you have any group of people drawn uniformly at random from the population but excluding much of the presumably least intelligent group (e.g. by jail time or lack of a degree) it will contain more women but the men will be markably more intelligent on average. This implies that certain "prejudices" are perfectly rational in many situations - such as if you meet a random person outside jail.
I'm all for equal rights etc. but we should reason sensibly about it. I'm somewhat tired of seeing things written off simply as male hubris. A higher variance in IQ among men has more implications than most people would think.
...those were a) Disney movies and b) utterly ridiculous
don't be reduntant.
On a serious note though, I wonder how that "25 times" assumption stands if you include the effect of children playing indoor football etc.
We were talking about written, mostly anonymous, comments - beyond that of course there is a point where you cannot ignore things any longer.
Kids have always been mean to one another, and always will, but online interaction raises it to a new level.
I don't particularly think it "raises the level", but I'm sure that it (the online-ness) makes things much more visible to adults - which is of course when they become horrible. (Mind, I for one think this is horrible in general but in particular cases I'm of course not horrified by things of which I'm unaware). Parents, guardians, schools, etc. must combat this problem exactly the same way as before - by taking time with their children, individually, not by spying or censoring public forums.
seconded