I am not for any legislation into the child rearing habits of parents. It is just ridiculous that the toys are banned when the toys are not the problem, its the parenting. I am not advocating more legislation, but I am just critiquing the ridiculousness of the current slew of dumbness.
While this may work from a pure operant conditioning standpoint, but they fail to realize the problem. THE PARENTS. The kid screams and moans for McDonalds, so the give him McDonalds. The fatty foods lipids are the real addictive, so once hooked, Micky D's has got their childish love. It is the parents that are the problem. Who is the government to say that a piece of plastic in a bag can't be given away with a meal? Its the damn bad parents that allow their lardsacks children to accumulate mass that should be punished. So now when little Johnny screams for a happy meal and a toy, what are the parents going to do, "sorry johnny, but the county officials have made it illegal, no toys for you". So instead they still go get the happy meal (since there aren't any ramifications for that, yet) and then just buy the kid a damn toy elsewhere, completely sidestepping the actual problem.
And California wonders why their state is ready to self-implode. Treating the symptoms, not the problems. And really, is this a problem? If the parents choose to give their kids fast food, then its their choice! GTFOML. But there are a 1000 better things they could do with the taxpayers time to curb obesity other than just straight banning stuff. Reminds me of the salt ban that could be coming.
If Gail is a luscious 20-something, color me brown and call me Fernando. (Sorry, need some good 'ole racist humor, because, yes, political correctness and insensitivity aside, it is funny and relevant, and much needed in this flame war.)
Coming to a municipality near you. Welcome to 2010. Age of the guilty until proven innocent, malicious until proven benign, privatized profits, socialized losses. And more ridiculous, pointless, noneducational, and downright fucktarded news stories perpetuating the mass media every day. Hatemongering, blatant flaming with red this blue that labels, and social backtracking. Man I can't wait for the future! What wonderful things will the world bring us next!
Apparently these researchers never interviewed your average/. user.
But on a serious note, this is about self-control. The internet does not promote it. The internet makes it easy to access data instantly, and people get used to this 'instant-gratification' that the online world provides. Then when they hop out of their second-life into their first-life, they find themselves bored, for they can't keep that continual flow of information coupled with interaction going.
It is physiological really. Along the same lines as Television addiction. Our brain is evolved to focus on moving stimuli as a defense mechanism, and that at is core is the basis of why television can seem so addicting. Your mind is drawn to moving images, dynamic content, new information.
Now we can constantly flood these receptors with changing stimuli, and the 'fuzzy feelings' of social interactions intertwined with these basic reactions create and addicting experience. It could be classified as a psychological addiction, but then what. Prescribe drugs? Send to rehab? Treating the symptoms, not the problem.
American's are terrible when it comes to passing down traits like self-control, and if the parents are preaching it, in partial to their understanding of the digital beast, or lack of care, and the kids are consuming consuming consuming, we are going to end of a with a generation of kids with the internet feeding their addiction. And they psycs will just prescribe more pills, the pharmas will make more money, the legislators will try to pass more laws, vendors will produce more parental-control software to remedy the content producers making more content, the ISP making it arrive faster, and the OS and UI designers making it present better. The industry the content and internetworked connections will make more money as the industry that fights the side-effects of this digital age makes more money, while the industry that litigates against all of this will make more money.
This is the beast of capitalism, society, and techno-social evolution at its finest. And it will continue to flourish as long as younger generations are not instilled with base values like self-control, instead of blame displacement and causal avoidance.
If the whole rest of the planet isn't using it, what's the point? Windows is what we're stuck with. Get over it.
So its ok to just bend over and take it since it is popular? What if Torvalds had this attitude? If nobody challenges the leader, then we are stuck with their mediocrity; the lack of competition will yield sub-par satisfaction. Having that kind of attitude is completely nullifies any incentive for innovation and new ideas, and stifles the chance for competition to improve what the [insert mainstream platform here] offers.
It gets straight to the point, for isn't that what Facebook is really about? Why else are half the the female pictures scantily clad and half the male pictures shirtless? Lets just be adults and cut straight through the Facebullshit.
I fear the day when the singularity occurs and we peons are forced to play machine generated levels like this this for the amusement of our robotic overlords.
So it's not illegle to to brake the copyright unless you break the copyright.
Firstly, there are so many things grammatically wrong with that statequestionment-sentence-rhetorical-grammarfuck. Secondly, what about accelerating it?
I think it would be hilarious for criminals to just wear Halloween masks of celebrities. Did Justin Bieber rob 62 banks last week? Did Britney Spears steal a carton of Newports in 8 different states in two days? Sure would put new meaning on the american people being robbed. CNN: "Did President Obama rob 1000 people today? Facial recognition technology tips off authorities."
Hey, I am just a guy asking questions. What were we talking about again?
Possible use in fighter jets, video games, or controlled environments, perhaps say a UAV pilot locked in a room. An interesting idea, but a terrible initial application.
Not sure, but the geeks may already be up in digital arms. The site that issued the warning, http://www.revolutionmuslim.com/, is down. Perhaps they got a taste of nerd-rage-retaliation. Unfortunately, DDoS is nothing in comparison to they types of counter-retaliation the hardcore Jihadist tend to practice.
The problem with that metaphor is that in real-life, the victim can explicitly express their dislike towards the knife, preventing further knifing. On Facebook, you cannot dislike the 'knife' that represents incoherent babble without spending serious time navigating their draconian account settings. I am being facetious of course (no pun intended).
But in all seriousness, any attempt at eliminating the noise always eliminates any possibility of recieving quality signals on Zuckerberg's greedchild-cross-panopticon.
I know self-replies are not in good taste, but this has a hilariously different meaning than what I meant to type, but perhaps still relevant to my point in reference to types of people that do in fact care about Pookie's facial expressions during her bowel movements.
I find it easiest to not participate. When I was in high-school and Facebook was just a whisper, during the times in which the only allowed users had to have educational email addresses, it was a platform for communication. Now it has become a micro-blogging service on the public side, so people can quantitatively spew their opinions via 'like' or, well, frankly, 'like'. Facebook is a platform of subjective opinions, coalescing, as a previous poster states precisely, into a a very large amount of noise compared to a very small amount of signal.
In theory, a 'clean' social networking site would simple allow people to communicate with exactly who they want in a manner that is explicitly controllable, giving that user the ability to control the exact verbosity of their messages and their communication scope. Facebook is eliminating the paradigm of private opinions, and the more laymen that sign up, more noise pervades the wire.
The draw, the appeal have you, is simple. If you can quantize 'friendships' and social-connections, people now have a semi-definable metric that they sub-consciously always try to improve, this is human nature. People seek others to listen to their opinions, and therefore the underlying motivation on Facebook is that drives people to produce so much noise is this need to be heard, even if what they have to say is completely worthless from a societal contribution standpoint. Its easy. You just post, and Facebook does the rest. If I am giving a speech to room full of empty people, I know nobody will hear it. But if I am printing my speech on millions of fliers and jetting them all over the world, their is that chance that somebody will effectively 'hear' me. Facebook provides, the pen, the paper, the microphone, the jet, and fuel, they own the airlines, they own the airports, and now they want to connect their 'communication hub' to every-other preexisting communication hub so that you can see that Joe Schmoe just mowed his lawn or Pookie made a cute face while she crapped on the apartment floor.
Before somebody pedantically states "wah wah universe is too big look at the scale of things we will never find life... enormous cosmic distances...blah...blah", let me just state to everybody making this argument until they are red in the face, one must consider the fact that an advanced Type II or Type III civilization may have the ability to utilize nifty physical principles like relativistic space contraction.
Just because something seems astronomically and impractically far away from the standpoint of classical physics, stating bluntly "we will never find intelligent life due to cosmic distances" is a bit bold, considering the possibilities that unfold once relativistic speeds are taken into account. I know this doesn't apply for electromagnetic signals, but what if an extraterrestrial body travels from the outer another galaxy via 'hyper-space', or crossing dimensional planes, with the possibility that they 'contract' the distance they must travel to our solar system by travelling at relativistic speeds, and then once they are here they broadcast their signals within a reasonable space-time range for our detection equipment to gather data. Of course this sounds far fetched, but these concepts are not new. Space contraction is a real phenomena, and is the reason Muons make it to our detectors, even though classical physics states that the time it takes them to travel to the ground is longer than their theoretical lifetime.
Yes this is making the assumption that these civilizations haven't reduced themselves to smoldering rubble once they discovered the power of nuclear reactions, and also making the assumption that they have the technology to generate the energies needed to achieve those speeds comparable to C in order to really take advantage of space contraction, but look at our society. In 100 years, look how far technology has progressed. Imagine a civilization that is 2000 years advanced from our current state. It is vain and ignorant to use arguments of what we have now to what is possible as technology grows by a function of time. 100 years ago, who would have imagined particle accelerators, space-ships, MRI machines, invisibility-cloaking technology, night-vision goggles, electromagnetic projectile accelerators, etc...All developments of the past two centuries.
But then again, as mind-numbing brain-wasting entertainment permeates our culture, perhaps our technological advancement may stagnate. Why would anybody want to study quantum-physics when they have Farmville;)...
Slashdot Mirror
This is a load of crap. Those who knew in advance about the attacks were not fired afterward, they were promoted.
Yea...uh...system restore...yea. Better off using a full disk imaging utility, or using a 3rd party backup manager like Acronis or whatnot.
I am not for any legislation into the child rearing habits of parents. It is just ridiculous that the toys are banned when the toys are not the problem, its the parenting. I am not advocating more legislation, but I am just critiquing the ridiculousness of the current slew of dumbness.
And why can't the FCC do this? Do we need another agency's involvement? Perhaps I am a dolt buried under the bureaucracy.
While this may work from a pure operant conditioning standpoint, but they fail to realize the problem. THE PARENTS. The kid screams and moans for McDonalds, so the give him McDonalds. The fatty foods lipids are the real addictive, so once hooked, Micky D's has got their childish love. It is the parents that are the problem. Who is the government to say that a piece of plastic in a bag can't be given away with a meal? Its the damn bad parents that allow their lardsacks children to accumulate mass that should be punished. So now when little Johnny screams for a happy meal and a toy, what are the parents going to do, "sorry johnny, but the county officials have made it illegal, no toys for you". So instead they still go get the happy meal (since there aren't any ramifications for that, yet) and then just buy the kid a damn toy elsewhere, completely sidestepping the actual problem.
And California wonders why their state is ready to self-implode. Treating the symptoms, not the problems. And really, is this a problem? If the parents choose to give their kids fast food, then its their choice! GTFOML. But there are a 1000 better things they could do with the taxpayers time to curb obesity other than just straight banning stuff. Reminds me of the salt ban that could be coming.
If you do not provide it you can go to gail.
If Gail is a luscious 20-something, color me brown and call me Fernando. (Sorry, need some good 'ole racist humor, because, yes, political correctness and insensitivity aside, it is funny and relevant, and much needed in this flame war.)
Wie sagt man, ihre papiere bitte!
Coming to a municipality near you. Welcome to 2010. Age of the guilty until proven innocent, malicious until proven benign, privatized profits, socialized losses. And more ridiculous, pointless, noneducational, and downright fucktarded news stories perpetuating the mass media every day. Hatemongering, blatant flaming with red this blue that labels, and social backtracking. Man I can't wait for the future! What wonderful things will the world bring us next!
Imagine a robot version of charlie hit me, but with a Microsoft Sam voice.
the Bing results page feel like one of those typosquatter's "featured" results.
Apparently these researchers never interviewed your average /. user.
But on a serious note, this is about self-control. The internet does not promote it. The internet makes it easy to access data instantly, and people get used to this 'instant-gratification' that the online world provides. Then when they hop out of their second-life into their first-life, they find themselves bored, for they can't keep that continual flow of information coupled with interaction going.
It is physiological really. Along the same lines as Television addiction. Our brain is evolved to focus on moving stimuli as a defense mechanism, and that at is core is the basis of why television can seem so addicting. Your mind is drawn to moving images, dynamic content, new information.
Now we can constantly flood these receptors with changing stimuli, and the 'fuzzy feelings' of social interactions intertwined with these basic reactions create and addicting experience. It could be classified as a psychological addiction, but then what. Prescribe drugs? Send to rehab? Treating the symptoms, not the problem.
American's are terrible when it comes to passing down traits like self-control, and if the parents are preaching it, in partial to their understanding of the digital beast, or lack of care, and the kids are consuming consuming consuming, we are going to end of a with a generation of kids with the internet feeding their addiction. And they psycs will just prescribe more pills, the pharmas will make more money, the legislators will try to pass more laws, vendors will produce more parental-control software to remedy the content producers making more content, the ISP making it arrive faster, and the OS and UI designers making it present better. The industry the content and internetworked connections will make more money as the industry that fights the side-effects of this digital age makes more money, while the industry that litigates against all of this will make more money.
This is the beast of capitalism, society, and techno-social evolution at its finest. And it will continue to flourish as long as younger generations are not instilled with base values like self-control, instead of blame displacement and causal avoidance.
/end pointless rant.
It explains the constant need for coins.
If the whole rest of the planet isn't using it, what's the point? Windows is what we're stuck with. Get over it.
So its ok to just bend over and take it since it is popular? What if Torvalds had this attitude? If nobody challenges the leader, then we are stuck with their mediocrity; the lack of competition will yield sub-par satisfaction. Having that kind of attitude is completely nullifies any incentive for innovation and new ideas, and stifles the chance for competition to improve what the [insert mainstream platform here] offers.
It gets straight to the point, for isn't that what Facebook is really about? Why else are half the the female pictures scantily clad and half the male pictures shirtless? Lets just be adults and cut straight through the Facebullshit.
I fear the day when the singularity occurs and we peons are forced to play machine generated levels like this this for the amusement of our robotic overlords.
So it's not illegle to to brake the copyright unless you break the copyright.
Firstly, there are so many things grammatically wrong with that statequestionment-sentence-rhetorical-grammarfuck. Secondly, what about accelerating it?
I think it would be hilarious for criminals to just wear Halloween masks of celebrities. Did Justin Bieber rob 62 banks last week? Did Britney Spears steal a carton of Newports in 8 different states in two days? Sure would put new meaning on the american people being robbed. CNN: "Did President Obama rob 1000 people today? Facial recognition technology tips off authorities."
Hey, I am just a guy asking questions. What were we talking about again?
Possible use in fighter jets, video games, or controlled environments, perhaps say a UAV pilot locked in a room. An interesting idea, but a terrible initial application.
In other other new, bad looking women don't seem to notice the change.
cover up?
Not sure, but the geeks may already be up in digital arms. The site that issued the warning, http://www.revolutionmuslim.com/, is down. Perhaps they got a taste of nerd-rage-retaliation. Unfortunately, DDoS is nothing in comparison to they types of counter-retaliation the hardcore Jihadist tend to practice.
I was wondering the same thing. -1 Disagree perhaps?
The problem with that metaphor is that in real-life, the victim can explicitly express their dislike towards the knife, preventing further knifing. On Facebook, you cannot dislike the 'knife' that represents incoherent babble without spending serious time navigating their draconian account settings. I am being facetious of course (no pun intended) .
But in all seriousness, any attempt at eliminating the noise always eliminates any possibility of recieving quality signals on Zuckerberg's greedchild-cross-panopticon.
"room full of empty people"
I know self-replies are not in good taste, but this has a hilariously different meaning than what I meant to type, but perhaps still relevant to my point in reference to types of people that do in fact care about Pookie's facial expressions during her bowel movements.
I find it easiest to not participate. When I was in high-school and Facebook was just a whisper, during the times in which the only allowed users had to have educational email addresses, it was a platform for communication. Now it has become a micro-blogging service on the public side, so people can quantitatively spew their opinions via 'like' or, well, frankly, 'like'. Facebook is a platform of subjective opinions, coalescing, as a previous poster states precisely, into a a very large amount of noise compared to a very small amount of signal.
In theory, a 'clean' social networking site would simple allow people to communicate with exactly who they want in a manner that is explicitly controllable, giving that user the ability to control the exact verbosity of their messages and their communication scope. Facebook is eliminating the paradigm of private opinions, and the more laymen that sign up, more noise pervades the wire.
The draw, the appeal have you, is simple. If you can quantize 'friendships' and social-connections, people now have a semi-definable metric that they sub-consciously always try to improve, this is human nature. People seek others to listen to their opinions, and therefore the underlying motivation on Facebook is that drives people to produce so much noise is this need to be heard, even if what they have to say is completely worthless from a societal contribution standpoint. Its easy. You just post, and Facebook does the rest. If I am giving a speech to room full of empty people, I know nobody will hear it. But if I am printing my speech on millions of fliers and jetting them all over the world, their is that chance that somebody will effectively 'hear' me. Facebook provides, the pen, the paper, the microphone, the jet, and fuel, they own the airlines, they own the airports, and now they want to connect their 'communication hub' to every-other preexisting communication hub so that you can see that Joe Schmoe just mowed his lawn or Pookie made a cute face while she crapped on the apartment floor.
Fuck. That. Shit.
Before somebody pedantically states "wah wah universe is too big look at the scale of things we will never find life... enormous cosmic distances...blah...blah", let me just state to everybody making this argument until they are red in the face, one must consider the fact that an advanced Type II or Type III civilization may have the ability to utilize nifty physical principles like relativistic space contraction.
;)...
Just because something seems astronomically and impractically far away from the standpoint of classical physics, stating bluntly "we will never find intelligent life due to cosmic distances" is a bit bold, considering the possibilities that unfold once relativistic speeds are taken into account. I know this doesn't apply for electromagnetic signals, but what if an extraterrestrial body travels from the outer another galaxy via 'hyper-space', or crossing dimensional planes, with the possibility that they 'contract' the distance they must travel to our solar system by travelling at relativistic speeds, and then once they are here they broadcast their signals within a reasonable space-time range for our detection equipment to gather data. Of course this sounds far fetched, but these concepts are not new. Space contraction is a real phenomena, and is the reason Muons make it to our detectors, even though classical physics states that the time it takes them to travel to the ground is longer than their theoretical lifetime.
Yes this is making the assumption that these civilizations haven't reduced themselves to smoldering rubble once they discovered the power of nuclear reactions, and also making the assumption that they have the technology to generate the energies needed to achieve those speeds comparable to C in order to really take advantage of space contraction, but look at our society. In 100 years, look how far technology has progressed. Imagine a civilization that is 2000 years advanced from our current state. It is vain and ignorant to use arguments of what we have now to what is possible as technology grows by a function of time. 100 years ago, who would have imagined particle accelerators, space-ships, MRI machines, invisibility-cloaking technology, night-vision goggles, electromagnetic projectile accelerators, etc...All developments of the past two centuries.
But then again, as mind-numbing brain-wasting entertainment permeates our culture, perhaps our technological advancement may stagnate. Why would anybody want to study quantum-physics when they have Farmville