I appreciate your skepticism, but any reasonably well-trained mental health professional is unlikely to suggest you remain on an antidepressant your whole life unless you refuse to, or are incapable of, therapeutic self-work. Of course, if you aren't willing to work on yourself, your situation doesn't magically stabilize just because you're on medication.
You're seriously ignorant if you think depression is a 'made up problem'.
I find it hard to believe he's anything but a troll, but I suppose there are plenty of ignorant people out there who know how to type.
The worst part about ignorance is that it doesn't correlate to intelligence. Even a mediocre mind gets value from knowledge, and the smartest people are a waste without it.
Slightly off-topic, but I think a *lot* of people wish they had never heard of Zoloft. I have known quite a few people who have been on it (including myself), and they all say the side effects were bad, and the direct effects made them totally loopy. IMHO it should be removed from the market for some rigorous studies and trials.
there should be accommodation made to include psychological dependency on such things as [...] video games
I guess we'll see what happens when the DSM V comes out, but I strongly believe habitual behavior without chemical addiction should be classified as a compulsive/anxiety disorder, distinct from OCD. Of course such a definition would include gambling addiction, and I don't know all the science behind that specific classification. (Wait, "gambling abuse" isn't in DSM IV-TR either, is it?)
It seems to me that/. folks have quite a lot of knowledge about anti-depressants and drugs in general. I'm not sure what that means, exactly.
Well, it's hard to say, but intelligent people are frequently prone to higher rates of depression, and the slashdot crowd - say what you will about their social skills or politics - seem to trend somewhat above the bell curve.
How do you spot a gay man in a crowd of people? They'll be carrying an IPhone.
Dude, if you need to see an iPhone to know if someone is gay you are in serious trouble! Have you noticed how your ass keeps being fondled every time you are in a crowd?
Hrm, I don't seem to have that problem. Maybe I should buy new pants.
Maybe as part of net neutrality, Congress will require cmpanies to alter their plans from "upto XXX" to "minimum XXX".
You would be guaranteed that level of speed (or get a pro-rated refund). But most times it would be faster.
I think that's a perfectly rational approach, but I suspect it's a little to "extreme" a measure for the US to actually adopt. In particular, prorated billing seems like a lose-lose, as the providers would need to invest in bandwidth tracking and consumers would have the monthly burden of bill scrutiny. I'm sure I'm not the only one who has wrestled with sales/customer service reps to get money refunded for one cock up or another. (Particularly Verizon, whose board surely have a special place waiting for them in hell...)
I find myself wondering if the creep of broadband expense may be intentional as part of a larger plan to implement metered bandwidth. Is metered bandwidth better for providers? For consumers? I guess it comes down to rates, but mandating fiber to homes (as one of the reports recommends) suggests there may be a mandated rate schedule too. And if there's a mandate, there will be outcry for Federal subsidy for a net meter in every home.
So which is it? The study is valid and therefore rape (and many other undesirable animalistic traits) is acceptable or the study is best ignored because both implied conclusions are bogus?
Your claim not to conflate homosexuality with rape are proved false by your remarks. In addition, the false dichotomy of "either rape is good or the study is invalid" demonstrates a logical fallacy and a bad faith argument.
I will no longer respond in this thread. Best of luck with... all that.
The problem with many animal studies which attempt to prove homosexuality is that in the animal kingdom, that behavior is frequently one of submissions, force, or just plane feels good.
I certainly take your point, although I find your suggestion that rape is somehow equivalent to homosexuality both a red herring and a pretty ugly sentiment. This quote is from the article describing the findings of the study:
"The work shows that rams that prefer male sexual partners had small but distinct differences in a part of the brain called the hypothalamus, when compared with rams that preferred to mate with ewes."
Note that we're talking about males who behave sexually with other males as a primary behavior. I think the study suggests more than a simple behavioral or social hypothesis. Although sheep may not be a perfect analog to humans, in terms of basic brain function and genetic traits we share more than we differ.
I'm not sure what you mean, but I have no inner turmoil over what seems obvious or possible to me
If you're referring to raising people from the dead, or walking on water, science cannot explain, but according to eyewitness accounts, someone once did just these things, but only one guy could pull that off and no other has since
To steal a line from fox news, "We report, you decide".. Whatever floats your boat
I have never seen any creditable study made up shit on pro gay sites but the truth is
A plethora of credible studies are available literally at the touch of a button, many of them suggesting a biological component to homosexuality. I suppose your findings are dependent on your definition of credible, and since you declare that you know "the truth", you may not be open to contradictory evidence.
Here are a few I found just now, but I'm sure you can let your fingers do their own walking if you are interested.
A male being gay is linked to having more fertile than average sisters. Its also linked to sexual abuse (though only in rarer cases). I suppose also a large part of it is masculinization or feminization in the womb depending on what chemicals the mother is polluted with. Humans carry record numbers of bad chemicals around in their bodies these days due to two hundred years of industrialization. It is also common for other animals to exhibit same-sex tendencies, so its a possibility its just part of human natures. Maybe some people just get along better with the same sex and have OR are capable of, attraction towards them as well. Too many people are raised into believing its not masculine, or feminine to do anything homosexual and thus possibly put up their own mental blocks.
I think modern medical science is coming to concensus that such spectrums of behavioral differences such as homosexuality are largely caused by both biological predispositions and environmental and developmental factors.
It is a shame that the layman is frequently unable to understand the concept of gradation that goes into these behaviors and styles of thinking. People often are not simply gay or straight, there are levels and layers, and we all lie on that spectrum somewhere. Explicit labels are much easier to handle, but as a result, anyone not proclaiming emphatic and absolute heterosexuality is labeled by the blanket term "gay". It is a perspective that I think will wane as the body of science contradicting it continues to grow.
It is somewhat troubling to me that the American mindset seems to cling to this style of black-and-white thinking. It seems symtomatic of a culture of psychopathology. Perhaps, if war veterans begin to get real treatment for PTSD, the science of psychology will start to take root in the minds of this culture. That is my sincere hope.
Wow.. You are defaming him with guilt by association. You have room to talk too, you are using the favorite tools of child molesters just to make that post (online message boards). See how that shit works, if it's ok to make someone guilting because of an association to others, you must be one sick pervert then. Seriously, grow up.
Come on, lets get original, is there something he has done or are you grasping at straws and just trolling here?
Hey there Dumass,
I think the point the above poster may have been trying to make (in his or her crude way) was that if a church is led by a man who willfully supported and even enabled the sexual exploitation of children over a period of decades, then perhaps members of that church, once the behavior is made public, do not have the moral high ground if they continue to support that church. Perhaps they should not denigrate less centralized religions either, as such entities by their very nature cannot have a top-down core practice of concealing a disgusting betrayal of its own congregation.
It really isn't a matter of guilt by association, but rather indirect complicity. This isn't a few instances of abuse after all, but a systematic conspiracy lasting decades, and perhaps a century or more. It speaks directly to the heart of the institution itself. By holding up his church as a standard for christian behavior, the GGP is defending that church's abhorrent practices.
It is simply the logical thing to do. Efficiency is the goal. And it will meet as much resistance as your random airport searches. So docile people have become that anyone who opposes the authorities is now looked down upon as a malcontent and a loon, or worse, an enemy collaborator. The mission has indeed been accomplished. Hearts and minds have been won over. The spirit has been dispatched. And complacency, the desire for convenience has become the routine.
What nonsense. Everyone knows the world is nothing more then a large disk on the back of three elephants riding a tortoise through space. Take your nonsense about the world rotating around the sun elsewhere.;D
You truly are one of the most dense posters whose comments I have ever had the displeasure of reading.
Any simple fool can see from my research data gathered with extensive study over the Edge in my bathysphere, the disc is supported on the backs of FOUR elephants. Please take your uninformed dribble somewhere else and don't comment on topics on which you are unqualified to speak.
What I have a hard time swallowing is that those claiming global warming is due to humans refrain from modifying THEIR behavior, while exclaiming its MY responsibility to change mine. Why is it acceptable for Al Gore to travel in his jet
Well, in response to your question, let me pose one of my own.
If you take an action that is demonstrably beneficial to a specific population, does it cease to benefit that population if someone else does not take that action?
I have a hard time swallowing the argument of "they don't, so why should I". It seems to be a way to put the responsibility of action on someone else - if they were doing it, then I would too, so it isn't my fault that I'm not doing it. Maybe we each need to take some responsibility and understand we're doing it because it seems the best choice, regardless of other people's actions.
No they are still wet. Wet plants don't burn well. That's why you don't see wildfires in southern Louisiana. Usually during busts marijuana plants are up rooted, put in a pile, and use some fire source.
Do you have any data supporting your statement that most of the games that try to be blockbusters, most will lose money?
I confess that I don't, and of course I haven't actually rtfa yet, but isn't that the point of this whole article?
Games off the shelf are generally $60, and a title with paid content add-ons can easily double in price. Compare this to some great titles from smaller developers which have narrower focus but only cost $20-30, or small-scale MMOs that are only $5-10 (hrm, actually I can't say I've seen any, but it's a good idea).
There are only so many families that can fork over $100 every month for a game, or $120 for two games. Hell, I'm single and I can't squeeze a new game into my budget every month. Yes, they aren't porches, but then there aren't any free flash hondas either. You can't download a car. (but yes, I would...)
Looking back, I have consistently been more satisfied longer with smaller games with sharper focus and vision. That satisfaction is what develops into brand loyalty.
I think the whole DLC thing is a bad idea on its face, and as a matter of principle I won't buy games built around this model - although I generally don't have an issue with expansions that feature new mechanics as well as content. Dragon Age was trying to squeeze users for money the way online games have done, say with WoW's virtual pets, or dofus's... hats? Or whatever. It's a model which some users resent, and the market for these games is small enough as it is.
It would be a good idea for the game industry to take a hard look at the movie industry right now and decide if "Cheaper by the Dozen 2" is a sustainable model.
Slashdot Mirror
many doctors love to prescribe those for life
I appreciate your skepticism, but any reasonably well-trained mental health professional is unlikely to suggest you remain on an antidepressant your whole life unless you refuse to, or are incapable of, therapeutic self-work. Of course, if you aren't willing to work on yourself, your situation doesn't magically stabilize just because you're on medication.
"Things fall apart, the center cannot hold."
You're seriously ignorant if you think depression is a 'made up problem'.
I find it hard to believe he's anything but a troll, but I suppose there are plenty of ignorant people out there who know how to type.
The worst part about ignorance is that it doesn't correlate to intelligence. Even a mediocre mind gets value from knowledge, and the smartest people are a waste without it.
he wished that he'd never heard of Zoloft.
Slightly off-topic, but I think a *lot* of people wish they had never heard of Zoloft. I have known quite a few people who have been on it (including myself), and they all say the side effects were bad, and the direct effects made them totally loopy. IMHO it should be removed from the market for some rigorous studies and trials.
Like that's going to happen...
there should be accommodation made to include psychological dependency on such things as [...] video games
I guess we'll see what happens when the DSM V comes out, but I strongly believe habitual behavior without chemical addiction should be classified as a compulsive/anxiety disorder, distinct from OCD. Of course such a definition would include gambling addiction, and I don't know all the science behind that specific classification. (Wait, "gambling abuse" isn't in DSM IV-TR either, is it?)
It seems to me that /. folks have quite a lot of knowledge about anti-depressants and drugs in general. I'm not sure what that means, exactly.
Well, it's hard to say, but intelligent people are frequently prone to higher rates of depression, and the slashdot crowd - say what you will about their social skills or politics - seem to trend somewhat above the bell curve.
Dude, if you need to see an iPhone to know if someone is gay you are in serious trouble! Have you noticed how your ass keeps being fondled every time you are in a crowd?
Hrm, I don't seem to have that problem. Maybe I should buy new pants.
Maybe as part of net neutrality, Congress will require cmpanies to alter their plans from "upto XXX" to "minimum XXX".
You would be guaranteed that level of speed (or get a pro-rated refund). But most times it would be faster.
I think that's a perfectly rational approach, but I suspect it's a little to "extreme" a measure for the US to actually adopt. In particular, prorated billing seems like a lose-lose, as the providers would need to invest in bandwidth tracking and consumers would have the monthly burden of bill scrutiny. I'm sure I'm not the only one who has wrestled with sales/customer service reps to get money refunded for one cock up or another. (Particularly Verizon, whose board surely have a special place waiting for them in hell...)
I find myself wondering if the creep of broadband expense may be intentional as part of a larger plan to implement metered bandwidth. Is metered bandwidth better for providers? For consumers? I guess it comes down to rates, but mandating fiber to homes (as one of the reports recommends) suggests there may be a mandated rate schedule too. And if there's a mandate, there will be outcry for Federal subsidy for a net meter in every home.
This is why I won't sign up for a slashdot account. No one reads the articles, and the summaries are just wrong.
True, but it's easier to bitch about it if you have an account.
So which is it? The study is valid and therefore rape (and many other undesirable animalistic traits) is acceptable or the study is best ignored because both implied conclusions are bogus?
Your claim not to conflate homosexuality with rape are proved false by your remarks. In addition, the false dichotomy of "either rape is good or the study is invalid" demonstrates a logical fallacy and a bad faith argument.
I will no longer respond in this thread. Best of luck with... all that.
The problem with many animal studies which attempt to prove homosexuality is that in the animal kingdom, that behavior is frequently one of submissions, force, or just plane feels good.
I certainly take your point, although I find your suggestion that rape is somehow equivalent to homosexuality both a red herring and a pretty ugly sentiment. This quote is from the article describing the findings of the study:
"The work shows that rams that prefer male sexual partners had small but distinct differences in a part of the brain called the hypothalamus, when compared with rams that preferred to mate with ewes."
Note that we're talking about males who behave sexually with other males as a primary behavior. I think the study suggests more than a simple behavioral or social hypothesis. Although sheep may not be a perfect analog to humans, in terms of basic brain function and genetic traits we share more than we differ.
I'm not sure what you mean, but I have no inner turmoil over what seems obvious or possible to me
If you're referring to raising people from the dead, or walking on water, science cannot explain, but according to eyewitness accounts, someone once did just these things, but only one guy could pull that off and no other has since
To steal a line from fox news, "We report, you decide" .. Whatever floats your boat
I have some reporting to do. Enjoy!
http://www.bible-researcher.com/kjvhist.html
I have never seen any creditable study
made up shit on pro gay sites
but the truth is
A plethora of credible studies are available literally at the touch of a button, many of them suggesting a biological component to homosexuality. I suppose your findings are dependent on your definition of credible, and since you declare that you know "the truth", you may not be open to contradictory evidence.
Here are a few I found just now, but I'm sure you can let your fingers do their own walking if you are interested.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn3008-homosexuality-is-biological-suggests-gay-sheep-study.html
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/usr/scotts/ftp/bulgarians/nih-ngltf.html
http://allpsych.com/journal/homosexuality.html
A male being gay is linked to having more fertile than average sisters. Its also linked to sexual abuse (though only in rarer cases). I suppose also a large part of it is masculinization or feminization in the womb depending on what chemicals the mother is polluted with. Humans carry record numbers of bad chemicals around in their bodies these days due to two hundred years of industrialization. It is also common for other animals to exhibit same-sex tendencies, so its a possibility its just part of human natures. Maybe some people just get along better with the same sex and have OR are capable of, attraction towards them as well. Too many people are raised into believing its not masculine, or feminine to do anything homosexual and thus possibly put up their own mental blocks.
I think modern medical science is coming to concensus that such spectrums of behavioral differences such as homosexuality are largely caused by both biological predispositions and environmental and developmental factors.
It is a shame that the layman is frequently unable to understand the concept of gradation that goes into these behaviors and styles of thinking. People often are not simply gay or straight, there are levels and layers, and we all lie on that spectrum somewhere. Explicit labels are much easier to handle, but as a result, anyone not proclaiming emphatic and absolute heterosexuality is labeled by the blanket term "gay". It is a perspective that I think will wane as the body of science contradicting it continues to grow.
It is somewhat troubling to me that the American mindset seems to cling to this style of black-and-white thinking. It seems symtomatic of a culture of psychopathology. Perhaps, if war veterans begin to get real treatment for PTSD, the science of psychology will start to take root in the minds of this culture. That is my sincere hope.
Wow.. You are defaming him with guilt by association. You have room to talk too, you are using the favorite tools of child molesters just to make that post (online message boards). See how that shit works, if it's ok to make someone guilting because of an association to others, you must be one sick pervert then. Seriously, grow up.
Come on, lets get original, is there something he has done or are you grasping at straws and just trolling here?
Hey there Dumass,
I think the point the above poster may have been trying to make (in his or her crude way) was that if a church is led by a man who willfully supported and even enabled the sexual exploitation of children over a period of decades, then perhaps members of that church, once the behavior is made public, do not have the moral high ground if they continue to support that church. Perhaps they should not denigrate less centralized religions either, as such entities by their very nature cannot have a top-down core practice of concealing a disgusting betrayal of its own congregation.
It really isn't a matter of guilt by association, but rather indirect complicity. This isn't a few instances of abuse after all, but a systematic conspiracy lasting decades, and perhaps a century or more. It speaks directly to the heart of the institution itself. By holding up his church as a standard for christian behavior, the GGP is defending that church's abhorrent practices.
The points obviously don't mean a damn thing anymore.
That's really a sad statement. I remember back when I started reading slashdot. I was a grad student, and my high karma helped keep food on the table.
Those were the days, eh?
Whedon is my master, any who wish to force 3d on him shall perish. Or something.
He tries to be his best.
TIME WITH THE BLOOD OF PATRIOTS
as long as the blood in question isn't mine I don't actually have a problem with that
It seems your blood would not meet the above criteria.
Once you fall into the wrong hands you are no longer a citizen or an enemy. You are completely outside of any law available to mankind.
Even those arrested in connection with 9/11 got trials! (Admittedly, the people of Iraq, Afghanistan, etc did not)
What the hell is worse than being an enemy?
Being well-informed.
It is simply the logical thing to do. Efficiency is the goal. And it will meet as much resistance as your random airport searches. So docile people have become that anyone who opposes the authorities is now looked down upon as a malcontent and a loon, or worse, an enemy collaborator. The mission has indeed been accomplished. Hearts and minds have been won over. The spirit has been dispatched. And complacency, the desire for convenience has become the routine.
tl; dr
What nonsense. Everyone knows the world is nothing more then a large disk on the back of three elephants riding a tortoise through space. Take your nonsense about the world rotating around the sun elsewhere. ;D
You truly are one of the most dense posters whose comments I have ever had the displeasure of reading.
Any simple fool can see from my research data gathered with extensive study over the Edge in my bathysphere, the disc is supported on the backs of FOUR elephants. Please take your uninformed dribble somewhere else and don't comment on topics on which you are unqualified to speak.
What I have a hard time swallowing is that those claiming global warming is due to humans refrain from modifying THEIR behavior, while exclaiming its MY responsibility to change mine. Why is it acceptable for Al Gore to travel in his jet
Well, in response to your question, let me pose one of my own.
If you take an action that is demonstrably beneficial to a specific population, does it cease to benefit that population if someone else does not take that action?
I have a hard time swallowing the argument of "they don't, so why should I". It seems to be a way to put the responsibility of action on someone else - if they were doing it, then I would too, so it isn't my fault that I'm not doing it. Maybe we each need to take some responsibility and understand we're doing it because it seems the best choice, regardless of other people's actions.
Bureau of alcohol, tobacco and firearms
If you add prostitution to the mix, that's the best Bureau *ever*!
In fact, forget the Bureau!
No they are still wet. Wet plants don't burn well. That's why you don't see wildfires in southern Louisiana. Usually during busts marijuana plants are up rooted, put in a pile, and use some fire source.
WHOOSH... bubble....
Do you have any data supporting your statement that most of the games that try to be blockbusters, most will lose money?
I confess that I don't, and of course I haven't actually rtfa yet, but isn't that the point of this whole article?
Games off the shelf are generally $60, and a title with paid content add-ons can easily double in price. Compare this to some great titles from smaller developers which have narrower focus but only cost $20-30, or small-scale MMOs that are only $5-10 (hrm, actually I can't say I've seen any, but it's a good idea).
There are only so many families that can fork over $100 every month for a game, or $120 for two games. Hell, I'm single and I can't squeeze a new game into my budget every month. Yes, they aren't porches, but then there aren't any free flash hondas either. You can't download a car. (but yes, I would...)
Looking back, I have consistently been more satisfied longer with smaller games with sharper focus and vision. That satisfaction is what develops into brand loyalty.
I think the whole DLC thing is a bad idea on its face, and as a matter of principle I won't buy games built around this model - although I generally don't have an issue with expansions that feature new mechanics as well as content. Dragon Age was trying to squeeze users for money the way online games have done, say with WoW's virtual pets, or dofus's... hats? Or whatever. It's a model which some users resent, and the market for these games is small enough as it is.
It would be a good idea for the game industry to take a hard look at the movie industry right now and decide if "Cheaper by the Dozen 2" is a sustainable model.
Sweet, so if we can eliminate dioxins, then we live forever?
Sure, just watch out for the sarlaccs...