Who said they must collect tax for each and every local government? When you drive to center city, they don't ask you where you live, do they? Wayne? Bryn Mawr? The merchant applies the tax for the area they THEY are located in (to the best of my knowledge).
In any case, a 1% tax rate is pretty inconsequential, particularly when you consider that most shopping malls (e.g., KoP) and the like are located outside cities which impose such taxes. At the very least, internet firms should just apply the tax for the area (or state) they reside in. But, I do think it might be a bit more equitable and stable, to apply it based on customer state (and state alone) location.
Also, even if it were necessary to apply each and every localities sales tax, the federal government, or some other organization, could easily compile a free database and update it on a regular basis to apply the total tax rate (e.g., based on zip code), which would serve as the official measuring bar. In other words, the internet firm could only be held responsible for updates which make it into the database. I know if I had the necessary information, I could easily compile such a database and impliment it.
One final point: These overtaxing governments haven't gone bankrupt yet from more than 100 years of mail order, have they? And I've seen many sites asking residents of $STATE to add the sales tax.
Mail order firms don't comprise that large a part of our economy. Furthermore, mail order firms DO have to deal with state sales tax (they don't to my knowledge worry about city/county taxes...except for perhaps certain major cities).
Businesses recieve services from the state and should pay for these services. These services include Police and Fire protection, A court system to aid in collecting debts, and transportation services
Sure, businesses should pay for some of the services they collectively recieve. But, let us not forget, that, Dot-Coms are businesses too. Although you might argue that they utilize these services less, and, as such, should have to pay fewer taxes. This is just silly though. Should I, for example, only half to pay half the licensing fees on my car, because I only drive a half mile to work? Of course not, society can hardly afford to get wrapped up in such debates.
It costs me time and money to collect these taxes for another state. I recieve nothing in return.
I was not advocating that the dot-com attempt to collect sales tax for out-of-state citizens (Although, I do not think it too unreasonable...it would be difficult to correlate shipping addresses (not to mention credit card) with states, and merely tally them up at the end of the month); I was advocating taxes in a more general sense. Namely, that, at the very least, the dot-com would charge the sales tax for the state it is incorporated in on every sale (including out of state'ers). This would level the playing field in a way such that the firms compete on their own merits, not on the basis of some politicians or idealists that feel a particular business model is intrinsically superior, and deserves less tax.
You have it backwards. A subsidy is a payment.
From a financial point of view, it IS a subsidy. Not having to pay cash, that you otherwise would, is the same as recieving cash in the amount of the savings. Whether or not the government is directly giving you cash is totally irrelevant. Everything else being equal, you are enabled to sell your goods or services for less, yet profit more. It is a lose-lose situation for the brick and mortar.
I am the one expected to pay. The local merchant is recieving the subsidy by being able to pay less taxes than the cost of the services he wants from his goverment.
Huh? This is not coherant. You, the dot-com, are expected to pay what? Income taxes? We're talking about sales tax here. The Brick and mortar pays income taxes too, but also must accomodate sales tax pressures. I really don't see your reasoning for saying that the local merchant is recieving a subsidy.
You might expect a competitor and consequently increased efficiencies; it is not an entirely unreasonably proposition. However, if you look at the empirical evidence of many other subsidized industries this is not the case.
Please remember that many of these brick-and-mortars have been in business for a long time, and as a result have developed certain efficiencies and managerial skills. Many of these Dot-Coms do not yet have this kind of talent, and, even with, competition, may never (in the short run) achieve the same efficiencies. Particularly, when "e-commerce" appears to be more of an "all or nothing" game...which is (or will be) unfriendly to later competition, even if the competitor technically posesses the potential to compete in the same ways exhibited by more traditional businesses.
Also, in regards to your "other observation", my problem is less the "lack" of taxes, then it is with the differential. If the internet is really all that great, they shouldn't need an effective subsidy (over their brick-and-mortor counterparts)? Don't artificially put one at a disadvantage.
anyhow, I dont have time to get into this right now, maybe later tonight....
Not taxing internet businesses is effectively a subsidy. It can breed a less than efficient market place. For example, let us suppose that dot-com, company A, in PA has no sales tax to contend with. While brick-and-mortor, company B, has a 5% sales tax. This means that company A can sell for, say, 3% less even though they're enjoying 2% more profits (and perhaps 1% less efficient).
The fact of the matter is that sales taxes comprise approximately one third of state sales revenues. When, and if, internet sales replace brick-and-mortar sales, this is going to be a major issue. The state governments are either going to need to reduce services (and/or improve efficiency) by 30%, or increase other forms of tax revenues. They might decide to tax brick-and-mortars more to make up for the lost revenue. Meanwhile, the government is effectively GIVING that Dot-Com a little less than 5% on each sale it makes.
Put simply, not taxing the internet is asking for inefficiency. While you may be correct, that Dot-Coms have to contend with shipping costs on high-dollar/low bulk items, this is rather nominal. Furthermore, Brick-and-mortars have increased overhead (e.g., retail presence, real estate, liability, etc)...all which ARE higher than shipping costs on most items sold over the internet.
If Dot-Coms are offering a better service (e.g., lower prices as a result of lower overhead, better customer service, better inventory, etc) to customers under the same tax footing, I have no problem with dot-coms gaining market share (frankly, I think most are offering inferior service for the time being). But if you, the dot-com, have shipping lag-time, increased costs, and many other problems, you are offering your customers a worse service than those brick and mortars. If your only area of differentiation is price savings for the consumer, and this is strictly (or even mostly) the result of tax exempt status (read: subsidy), then YOU don't deserve to be in business (This has little to do with "fair", it has to do the aggregate economic effects).
in case you're not sure what I need to know. I'm not that familiar with these wireless networking technologies yet. Do I need one of those hubs/access points, or can I just plug the "client" PC card into my Linux box, and use that as my NAT. Also, where did you order it from... Any advice, problems, latency issues, speed, etc....
Hi, I'm planning on wireless networking my house. I'd like to use my Linux box for NAT/ipmasing, and connect wintel PCs and laptops. If I could use this, that would kick ass.
Which model of card do you use? (e.g. Aviator2.4, etc.)? If I locate the "hub" in my room, I'd need to cover atleast 50 feet horizontally through a couple walls/rooms, and up one floor too. Ideally, I'd like to locate it in my basement and network my entire house like that (2-3 floors). What kind of speed do you think I could expect in this situation? And are you using Linux as the hub (I need to run NAT/ipmasqing)? Had something else I wanted to ask, but I forget now....
I'm thinking about possibly wireless networking a few computers in my house. The trouble is that it is a rather large house with old fashion walls (e.g., thick and plaster) and i'm not too sure how capable these cards are in such an environment. Anyone have experience with this? I'd need to run the main card on my linux box (e.g., need linux support), and, say, 2 PC PCI cards, and one laptop card. What might this cost? What brand would you recommend? I'd like to get atleast 10mbps, if it doesn't cost too much.
Yet again, you dodge the bullet. Try PROVING it. The only thing you've got are your bullshit interpretations, which conflict with everything I've said.
You've made many statements as to what women are worse at, and why they are "not as able" to do certain things. Many of these things are related to CS/Engineering jobs.
I never said women are "worse" at anything. I said they're not nerds, and you carry this out to a point where it does not logically follow.
Once again, you run into your strange dichotomy. Women aren't nerds. Nerdy qualities are required for many, many aspects of the CS/Engineering world. Yet once again there's no correlation! Amazing.
Who said, that, "nerdy qualities are required"? Certainly not I. Nor do I believe this to be true. I, in fact, have experienced otherwise many times, my mom being a prime example. But I guess YOUR experience is the only thing that counts for anything, eh? Did it ever occur to you that I might know a hell of a lot more about the field than you? Did it ever occur to you that "nerd" carries much more of a specific definition for me? Of course not. You then follow YOUR OWN ASSUMPTIONS and purport them to be gospel, using this as the basis to call me a sexist (or to say that I think women engineers are necessarily lesser, which is the same damn thing). Furthermore, "nerdy qualities" do not necessarily make a nerd. Logic....anyone? What you are implying is that all good engineers/CS people must be nerds. In order to be consistent with my original quick definition of nerd (to maintain your accusation), you must also hold the opinion that all good engineers lack social skills and the like.
You heavily qualified what your mother's type of engineering was. Non-nerdy, not nuts and bolts, but some sort of more abstracted womanly sort of thing
I did? Where? Show me the proof. I, effectively, stated that my mom is president/CEO. No where do I say my mom is limited to this. I told you, in so many words, that she graduated TOP OF HER CLASS at one of the best EE schools in the country. I told you that she is able to solve problems that none of her engineering team is able to solve. I told you that she personally holds many patents. I told you that she has the ability to "see ANY problem through". I told you that she's "at the top of her game as an engineer and entreprenuer". Yet you manage to assume that all this mean's she's only capable of "soft" stuff. I simply never said anything to that effect. If anyone's bias is showing through here, it is yours. You, apparently, think that being a good president/CEO and being a good engineer are mutually exclusive. I, in fact, have MORE respect for my mom than any engineer. Not only is she an extremely talented engineer, but she also is an excellent entreprenuer. In my opinion, this is the highest calling...instead of building someone else's crap, you create something of use to the world, and MAKE it a reality through sheer force of will (not the only necessary quality, but it is what seperates the "men from the boys", so to speak).
Eh? We're having a two-way conversation here. I suppose you prefer to talk without listening or having to defend your points, but hey, that's not the way these boards work. You of course are not forced to debate (or reply to) anything. In fact I'd recommend against it in your case - you're better at eroding your own case than making it.
My comment about "third parties", is not that you don't have the right to speak or debate. Rather, that most people who are motivated to argue out of direct self-interest IN THE PROBLEM (not the argument itself) are, in my experience, far more pragmatic. They are interested in the solution or the conclusion, instead of arguing for the sake of arguing, or for the sake of effectively calling me a sexist. Although you can argue that these women are all just sexist (not that I could give a damn), it does not make my statement any less true.
Hahah - oh my. The more you talk, the more grave digging you do. Certainly you're not sexist now? Or pehaps you are, but you're acceptibly sexist (because you have women who agree with your viewpoint, and thus it must be correct/okay)? Women can't handle military roles. Is this the same "male only focus thing"? Or perhaps because women lack aggressive tendencies? Perhaps women just lack the balls to kill (HAR HAR HAR). What stereotype will we identify and rest assured from your personal experience it's biological? Apparently your amount of bigotry/stereotyping is not sexist. How much further would we need to go before you considered it bigoted/sexist?
First off, I never ACTUALLY said that women are not cut out for the military, that is yet another assumption of yours. I said, that, some women hold that to be true. I do happen to agree though, that women generally should not have a place in the military. The fact of the matter is that, in most every military context, men are vastly physically superior (a known and undebatable fact). Even if you hold that women are mentally and socially the same, this is a very significant fact. The military has always been about numbers, it is not supposed to be a place for social experiments. The costs of engaging in the training and screening necessary for women, exceed the benefits. Additionally, it has been shown many times that women do not have the same propensity for violence that men do. Whether, or not, you believe these causes to be social or biological is irrelevant. There are additional costs incurred here.
I think my cousin, a 2nd lieutenant graduated from the Air Force Academy would probably take exception to your assertion.
Since you seem to think that women who think otherwise are essentially irrelevant, you should also hold the view that your cousin's point of view and experience is just as questionable. Though I would disagree, you seem to think that we should just surrender all conclusions drawn from hard earned experience to the powers that be.
Actually no, you didn't hit the nail on the head. I'm not a grad student, I'm not leaning toward academia. I've never said that, you just flat made it all up.
I misread ONE of your comments, you never actually said you are a grad student. Although, I suspect you are something in that region...your general attititude is not afforded by people with things to accomplish. I am judging you based on your nickname, your words, and other such associations. Deal with it.
However if you'll read my first posts, you'll notice I never attack YOU, I attack your statements or ideas. Calling your point stupid is a fundamentally different thing from calling YOU stupid. This is called mature debating, I'm sorry you couldn't make the distinction and handle it.
You CLAIMED, that, I said things that I did not; that alone is sufficiently offensive. There is nothing mature about your style of "debating". Particularly, when you feel the need to fall back on your supposed "friends" as your rallying point.... The End.
Sure, these internet forums do provide some unique opportunities. However, the various negative aspects can not be ignored. Although it is difficult to quantify, I do feel that the aggregate effect on society as a whole is generally negative, even if most users limit themselves to, say, 2 hours a day.
I agree with you in that TV sucks. For me, atleast, most every show is so mindless that you couldn't pay me to watch more than a half hour a week. I can't just sit there and watch for more than a few minutes at a time; it is very much against my nature. I really do feel sorry for those kids brought up on television (e.g., come home from school, and watch till bedtime, ignoring a few interruptions such as dinner). I'm convinced that this lack of mental activity ultimately leads to a grossly underdeveloped intellect (not to mention intelligence itself).
While you are probably correct, in that 1 hour of IRC may indeed be better than 1 hour of TV, that does not mean that in present day terms IRC is a lesser threat. Most educated people have come to understand TV as a thing to be avoided; that is not the case with these internet chat forums, it's being sold as the best thing since sliced bread and with no understanding that internet addiction is very real. Also, IRC provides more entertainment relative to TV. This point is particularly crucial for the more educated/mobile groups...where neither TV would never attract them in droves.
Just going to jump in here quickly... If you assume that Adam's intentions are noble, it is quite likely the only way he could get his product out en masse, is if he uses his cartoon to promote it. Although the guy may have some money, from what I've studied about food marketing, it is quite a capital intensive effort. Not only do you need to manufacture and distribute the goods, but you need to get SHELF SPACE at each grocery store. And shelf space, to the best of my knowledge, is not easy to come by. In short, without a great deal money or widespread consumer recognition (or an existing relationship with these firms), this food would never see the light of day. That being said, I don't know enough about this person to make any judgements. I think it's quite likely that the author didn't come up with the idea at all, rather a marketdroid approached him who thought he'd be game.
Don't confuse the lack of willingess to engage in pointless discussions (and "arguments") with the lack of ability to argue. The fact of the matter is that you will (and have) arbitrarily "read", then criticise me for that interpretation ad nauseam. None the less, i'll repeat myself for the LAST time. My statements were quite clear and concise from the very beginning. The only thing that contradicts itself is your absurd interpretations of my comments ("read") with my other comments (which I intentionally made knowing people, such as yourself, would jump at the opportunity to call me a sexist). Thus I condensed and rendered my comments, in an attempt to get you to actually prove that I either: a) contradicted myself or b) outright said that women are not capable engineers. Instead, YOU, the great hypocrite, can do nothing other than say that you can't be bothered to "repeat" what i've ACTUALLY said.
Well, I'm glad I've helped show you that you painted yourself into a corner, because your above statement makes no sense. "All I've said about women's personality absolutely makes NO difference in their ability". Well then, it seems everything you've attempted to extrapolate means nothing. Women's inability to focus, or give up being mom, or whatever else are apparently absolutely trivial (how? Got me - sounded originally like you had something to say).
I said women are not nerds. But I never once said that all good engineers are nerds. It does NOT logically follow in any of my statements that ALL good engineers must be nerds, and therefore men. One would have to question your bias even more when considering that I repeatedly stated that my mom is one of the best in her field (as an engineer). You must either think that I'm incapable of even the most basic of logic (which is highly improbable), or you must think that all good engineers are nerds. What I did was mention an area in which women are different from men in. The fact that so many people, particularly liberals, insist that men and women are the exact same (ignoring strength, build, and the like) makes it relevant. It is simply bullshit. Differences have been shown time and time again, to varying degrees, by psychologists, sociologists, statisticians, and many other respect groups. There is also a strong evolutionary argument in support of that. (Despite your previous feeble argument comparing race to sex). However, I didn't wish to get entrenched in all of that (nor do I wish to at this time either), so I presented my own PERSONAL EXPERIENCE (ring a bell?)
Uh, right. Meddlesome third party. In the context of slashdot posting this means what? Nothing? Of course.
The dictionary defines "third party" as: "someone other than the principals who are involved in a transaction". Thus, given the fact that you lack certain organs, and the fact that you're not me, you are a third party. You do not have a direct interest in this (and please don't quote MLK Jr. or Buber, as it isn't terribly relevant). My experience is that most women, baring a few femi-nazis, are much cooler about my statements. In addition, this has been repeated by many women succesful women (in fields such as business, law, medicine, engineering, etc.)...women have have pushed through A LOT of bullshit, including my mother. However, they, like myself, do not have the same messed up thinking you do (e.g., difference == lesser). Likewise, many of them will even readily admit that women are not cut out for most military rolls (and others yet think, as such, should not even have some rolls which they could technically perform)...it goes beyond just the physical as well.
The sure sign you've won a debate is when the person you're arguing with gets personally hostile, attempts to provoke you, and resorts to attempting to personally attack an anonymous person. Funny, really.
You are obviously repeating this without thinking. You, from the very beginning, boxed me in, and called me, in so many words, a sexist, a moron, you name it. Those are offensive in and of themselves. Therefore, it does automatically follow that your superior intellect won the argument. The only time your opponent's anger is relevant is when you are having a purely intellectual discussion, free from name calling and the like. Only after you got "personal", by calling me a sexist, putting words in my mouth, etc, did I give you some of your own medicine.
Ahh yes, you the "wise old man" dismissing my arguments as that of an uh, crazy upstart middle class grad student. Unfortunately you're wrong, but we'll skip my biography as you'll realize it's not relevant (And by the way, who are you, great wisened one? I would bet the clippings from my left toe you are a white, suburban high school or very early college kid). It's unfortunate that you're so unable to defend your posistion the best you can do is attempt" (there's something to get your panties in an uproar)"
I am currently in business school full time and working part time, amongst other things; I am not some little frat boy despite your assertions to the contrary. I have made a couple moves, been to a few different schools, and seen and helped a few companies grow, and been through a suprising amount of shit. Although I do currently live in the suburbs, I lived in the city (various cities at that) extensively. As the result of my experiences, I can speak of the "real" world quite well. I know what it takes to startup a significant company, and I know what it takes to develop a usefull product. [You likely have no experience with either, and as such have little to no respect for either, as you seem to believe the highest calling must can't be to actually CREATE anything, such as a company. Although, this was not what I was arguing. Even if I asserted that women are lesser engineers than men (which I did not), or are only capable as highly technical managers/entreprenuers, that is no small task in and of itself...which I have TREMENDOUS respect for. Witness my career of choice.] With you, I evidently hit the nail right on the the head. The fact that you are a grad student, and likely leaning towards academia speaks volumes. That is...as long as you wish to play the name calling game. Anyhow, I have to go...bye
I know exactly what you're talking about, and I agree. It can be extremely valuable in keeping in touch with friends and family. I regard that kind of communication, however, as being substancially different from the typical IRC communication. In your scenario, you are communicating with people you already know. This, in my opinion, makes the social aspects far more significant, as you are using it more to bolster and facilitate your "real" social life, as opposed to substituting it. Another key difference is, your friends likely aren't "addicts", and as such, they have other things to do than stay online for hours on end...which makes it much more difficult for you the get into the habit of abusing.
ICQ and IM, don't, to my knowledge, provide much of a forum for people who don't know each other to discuss similar interests. However, it is similar enough to IRC, that I suspect similar problems may very well occur, if they haven't already. Likewise, I've SEEN evidence of many slashdot users repeatedly hitting refresh, and completely engrossing themselves in it for, what must be, many unproductive/non-social hours. I've even been guilty of it myself, to some extent...now?!? heh =)
Of course, I don't expect anyone to actually rival Shakespear himself. He's merely an example that came to mind, simply because he demonstrated such mastery.
My point is not so much that no ones' life CAN be enriched by IRC; rather, I think many people's lives have been, or are going to be, devastated as a result of IRC (and others). Additionally, I think most peoples' lives are not improved on the aggregate that use IRC moderately. Granted, there are a number of jobs, places, towns, etc. that have little to do. However, I feel the vast majority of them are not nearly as hopeless as initially percieved. One thing you can be sure of though, is that if EVERYONE is your podunk town were to take the same attitude and resort to a reclusive IRC lifestyle, there would be absolutely NOTHING. Is this a trend that society should encourage? I don't think so.
PS: My problem is not so much with the one-way informational side of the internet. It is with the more real-time interactive forums, particularly IRC, that have an incredible ability to draw users attention for hours on end. (Unlike any other socially accepted activity. e.g., TV (though idiots manage to do it))
While the consistent conveyance of emotion may not be strictly necessary for the bulk of human interaction, ask yourself if their might be any negative repercussions as the result of being denied the "unnecessary" emotional content. I, atleast, believe that we, humans, depend on a certain level of social interaction (which a life consisting mostly of IRC denies). If you do not believe this is the case, consider the possibility that most IRC interactions (devoid of emotional content) could be replicated by relatively primitive "AI" bots...at least in the short term. Though a bit out on the limb...I find the notion of a healthy social life that strictly (or even mostly) revolves around interaction with deterministic bots (although, to my knowledge, we don't yet have AI/computers that are quite convincing enough) to be extremely hard to swallow....
As for the rest, I agree with you, at least as long as you seem realize the necessity of real human interaction (at some point) as well. In moderation, IRC (and company) can contribute to an otherwise healthy lifestyle... My experience, though, is that many people don't use it in moderation.
While you may be right that text is a very powerfull tool in representing emotional content, it is only powerfull if put in the right hands in the right situation. Most people aren't Shakespear. Nor do most people try to write like Shakespear. Without using tools like the metaphor, even the english language is crippled. This is particularly true when the bulk of IRC users use only a small subset of the english language. Worse yet, they resort to certain non-word expressions out of force of habit (e.g., "haha", "ttyl", emoticons, etc.)...which unfortunately constitute the vast majority of IRC discussion. You combine all of these factors into what is strictly an abstraction, devoid of tone of voice, posture, expression, etc, and you begin to get some idea of just how naked IRC truely is.
If you want empirical proof, try visiting your average IRC channel. Or if you are more devious yet, try viewing some "private" conversations on IRC. You will discover what most truely consist of.
While I agree with you somewhat, in that applications like IRC CAN provide some unique opportunities that real life does not, I do not believe that the average person will benefit from it on the aggregate.
For certain forms of support, which lend themselves to "intellectual" (using the term loosly) support, IRC and newgroups may perform quite well. In other words, I believe 2% of the population, out of my ass, with problems (e.g., disfigurment, hearing, speach, you name it) may theoretically benefit. For example, those with body odor problems, can seek "intellectual" advice on cures, treatments, "work-arounds", you name it, free from "real life" social pressures. In reality though, I think that most (but not all such forums are poor...as those who respond frequently aren't qualified or experts by any stretch of the imagination). Additionally, as I've mentioned repeatedly, I think it presents a great, but underestimated, threat through overusage.
I'm not advocating government intervention. Rather, I believe the media, popular opinion, and, what I will call, the "slashdot consensus" has cosied up to this alternative form of communication too much. In doing this, it fails to recognize a danger that I percieve viscerally. This lack of respect, for the dangers, will lead to consequences for society down the road.
First, people find ways to express emotions in text-only media. Certainly, these are positive expressions of emotion, but not all emotions so expressed are positive. (Some emoticons, name-calling, and general intellectual disdain are all examples of positive expressions of negative emotions.)
When I was mentioned "positiveness", I was referring to the fact that emotional content frequently needs to be POSITIVELY asserted for it to come across, not the emotional content (e.g., happy, sad, etc). For example, if I were discussing the breakup with my girlfriend yesterday, and said that I was "fine" (a very common habit mind you). The only way you could KNOW that I was doing badly, would be if I explicitely stated that (Although you could argue that you could infer that based on other statements or the cicumstances which you are made aware of). Whereas, in real life, most people have a certain ear for the tone of voice used. Likewise, emoticons must be positively asserted, and are done out of rote all too often. In addition, the commonly used emoticons are essentially limited discrete expressions, woefully inadequate for the varying degrees of emotions (not to mention the mixing).
Second, what's so bad about people who don't like interacting like the "average" person? If we had no online chat, and everyone had to interact in "normal" ways, we'd all be the same: BORING.
I would hardly say that people 6+ years ago lead a boring existence. Although, you might argue that applications such as IRC have spiced up life to some degree, I'd mostly disagree.
Third, online chat is just an electronic, high-speed version of the personals pages in many newspapers. People put messages in personals columns, and wait for replies. More and more of this is moving on-line - especially for people who aren't desperately seeking sexual partners - but you still see ads in papers for people looking for roomates, selling cars, etc. It would be a total pain in the ass to sell a car or find a roommate by talking face-to-face with every person you meet.
I, respectfully, must disagree with this assertion. Speaking for myself, and I believe many others, these other forums don't provide ENOUGH interaction and enough involvment to compel most people to stay. There is a certain threshold of interaction, that these other forums just can't meet. Having used IRC for more years than I care to remember, I literally know of thousands of people who used IRC essentially all day long...to a point where a "real" social life is impossible (or atleast highly unlikely). Where are the thousands of people addicted to the personal ads, that do it most of their free waking hours?
Finally, the lab-rat analogy (or the exercise example, for that matter) are Old News (tm). Most truckers sit on their asses all day, but nobody conducts studies saying, "The shipping industry will lead to 'a whole new crop of addict, or social problems!'
There is a world of difference between these two...activities? The first issue is that sitting on your ass isn't anything new, per se. Secondly, you are talking about truckers...a class of society that the media cares little about. Thirdly, the media isn't selling "Sitting on Your Ass" TM as the best thing since sliced bread. The addiction, that I refer to, will hit people in many walks of life. It has the potential to reach people in upper, upper middle class, middle class, etc. social groups in a completely non-contiguous fashion. No, I don't believe everyone will have problems with it. But I do believe it preys (passively of course) on that ~2%, those experiencing problems, be they temporary or permanent. The 2% are the only ones likely to find IRC more rewarding than their previous existence (in the short term)...
Language has evolved over many thousands of years. We, humans, are social creatures. It is not too much of a stretch to assume that active personal communication is a fundamental element of mental health. When you hear a voice, that is a function of human evolution--it evokes emotions in the listener...many times, even if they don't understand the language. Whereas text based communication simply lacks this--it is a strictly intellectual abstraction.
These online chat methods are not merely the same human emotions and discussion over a different medium (text). One key difference is that, on all these online forums, the user only conveys the sentiments or emotions that he POSITIVELY asserts (e.g. types). Additionally, online communications are essentially one dimensional--it lacks the depth. Think of how many ways a simple word, such as "yes", when uttered in voice can be interpreted. It can convey depression, happiness, cluelessness, etc. It resonates in the human mind...internet/text based communications do not. Additionally, the very nature of discussion, and who you talk to online is vastly different. While online communication may be great for intellectual pursuits, there generally isn't that same emotional content there. You might talk about computers, your favorite sport, your job, your girlfriend, etc, but it is a generally a rather shallow coverage (despite what many will say). Nor are you talking to those whom really know you in person (e.g., family, friends, co-workers, etc).
The internet has both positive and negative potentials for society. I can easily see, how a person who is unable to communicate sufficiently in person (e.g., hearing problems, speach impediment, horribly disfigured, freshly moved, diseased, you name it), may find comfort online (I certainly did at one point...more of an intellectual/thrill seeking kind). But for the general population, I think the net effect of frequent online discussion (say, >2hours a day) is largely harmfull. Even those with problems, may be better advised to avoid online chat entirely. My reasoning is, that, most of these people are just partially "flawed" (you know what I mean), yet they have a hard time communicating with others in "real" life, due to lack of experience and confidence. What mediums such as IRC allow them, is an easy out. While IRC may not rise to the same heights of real interpersonal communication (they might not necessarily have much experience with this), it is EASY. It is a form of instantaneous gratification.
Any time, day or night, IRC is there...essentially the same any time. It is consistent. It is risk free (well, in the short term atleast). When one gets bored of one channel, or forum, they move on to the next, many times juggling more than one in an attempt to maximize pleasure. It is "sticky" in a way...enough to keep the user (addict?) on his console at odd hours. Unfortunately, enough to keep the user from going out, and trying to develop something of a social life.
I call this addiction--it ruins lives. What many people fail to realize, is that even though this behavior may ultimately result in being LESS happy/healthy, many users continue on. Much like the lab rat wired to recieve electric stimulation if they push one button, and food if they push the other,...the rat starves itself by focusing just on that stimulation. Or like, what i'm sure many of you are familiar with, in your approach to exercise. Most people understand on some level, that if they exercise enough, they feel much better throughout the day. Yet most people are too lazy to exercise regularly...exercise hurts...and sitting in your ass is, in the short run, much more appealing. Likewise, these people become socially sedentary, to the point where socializing is difficult, yet they continue on their same path.
I believe time will tell. In five to ten years, society is going to see a whole new crop of addict, of social problems, resulting from this kind of internet usage. People who're on IRC now, for 4+ years, are most likely going to be on IRC (or the equivalent) years later. Think about what kind of parents these people will be if they're still involved in IRC heavily. I wouldn't at all be suprised if it results in record numbers of sociopaths. Even though society may not initially identify heavy internet usage as an addiction, or an unhealthy thing (might possibly be equally enamored with the "geek" of today), it will feel its impact. While most people aren't going to have MAJOR problems, it'll be a HUGE jump relative to other forms of addiction (not to mention that these people will come from many different classes and cultures). I think it's impact will be perhaps more severe than television (though many think TV is harmless, I think it's had some very negative effects on certain portions of society), both in penetration, and in who it sucks in.
My initial statement(s), boiled down, was this: Although, I agree that 99% of the problems that women face are social, there are some genetic differences. To automatically blame all disproportions of men to women in any field on social causes is a bit naive. One such attribute I've noticed is the lack of female geeks. When I say geeks, I don't just mean a social outcast or a person who can "focus". I mean a person who is so utterly involved in his work that he loses sight of all else, to a fault. The kind of personality, that from 3rd grade on, they would lock themselves up in a room and lose themselves to some project, just "because".
Then you go and jump on my back, and say that this then must mean that I must think that women are lesser engineers than men. I simply never said anything to that effect--you put those words in my mouth. Then you start with your "read" games, which directly contradict many statements I've made to the contrary. For example, I said something to the effect that my mom is at the top of her game as an engineer. What part of that don't you understand? It is certainly not compatible with your "read": That women can't peform "...as capably as men". No, my mom outperformed men in virtually everything she's ever done, including engineering. The only exception to this is my father, who was unparalleled in his field. So if I had to quantify it, my dad would be #1, while my mom would be #2 in that particular field (while my mom would be #1 in many others combined), and thats out of however many thousands in the field. Traslation: Any EE school would be insane not to put her at the top of the list.
The lack of the ability to be the kind of nerd I was referring, is not equivelent to not being able to perform every bit as well as that nerd. PERIOD.
Rather than waste a great deal more time and energy on your petty "reads" and argue the obvious, I've come to the conclusion that you're just a meddlesome 3rd party. You are here to argue (rather then attempt understand, or reach a conclusion) above all else. I'd bet dollars to pesos that you're not a women, that you're white, and that you're middle class college aged (including grad school) kid...all this tends to breed a certain kind of liberalism that i've seen all too often (there's something to get your panties in an uproar)
this accusation might be true. However, I did watch some silly documentary on the filming (normally I would not) on HBO. Based on what I saw, I have my doubts about these accusations. They showed pictures of that same beach before they touched it, and it was literally COVERED in debris and trash, I'd be suprised if they could have left it much worse off. I'm not sure how much traveling many of you have done, but believe it or not, many 3rd world countries have an even worse problems with polution and depris than any US metropolis...even bummfuck Thailand. While it is quite likely that the transplanted trees and sand created some erosion, the area that they altered was quite small, and in the grand scheme of things it is NOTHING. I find it hard to believe that anyone on slashdot is qualified to really speak about what happened, other than 3rd and 4th hand knowledge. Furthermore, even if they did, most everyone who reads this, lives enough of a consumer lifestyle (which inevitably creates polution, like it or not), that they can easily be called a hypocrite and then some. In fact, I suspect if you looked at the value added (dollars added to their economy) relative to the damage, you'd discover that your shoes or shirt or even your computer parts manufactured in Thailand (and other similar locations) cause proportionately more damage.
That being said, wild horses couldn't drag me to this movie. I despise DiCaprio, and particularly any movie that would star him in a teen heart throb roll.
Since you love to generalize, why must liberals, such as yourself, put words in everyone's mouth, and generally overstate your case. That way no one can have any meaningfull discussion about anything.
I never ONCE said that women are incapable of doing engineering. Nor did I say they're just capable of attaining "decent" skills, or that consequently, they're only cut out for middle management. My mom is no middle manager. She holds multiple key patents, started up multiple multi-million dollar companies, made some excellent products, created hundreds of skilled jobs, and made a hell of a lot of money in the process. She is no light weight by any stetch of the imagination. I don't think you understand, if I could have anyone's capabilities and intelligence, it would be hers. You either don't understand this, or YOU are trying to double talk.
All I did was point to a few observations, that, I believe, are more than just social. I never said that any of these differences amount of incapability of performing the job. In fact, it would be ludicrous to believe that, given what I've told you about my mother.
You might not think my experience is sufficient, but that does not mean that I must ignore it. There is something called intuition, that any business person or scientist must rely on. You can't do a great deal in this world, if all your actions must first be based on concrete proof. You seem to realize this on some level, as you're proceeding on many similar unproven claims (e.g., social over genetic)
Oh...one other thing though...
on
LonelyNet
·
· Score: 2
I can see where certain social "outcasts" may find IRC rewarding, if taken in moderation. As it can provide an outlet that social norms may not allow to the same extent and frequencies.
But the IRC "lifestyle" (where the bulk of your "social" existence revolves around IRC) is not healthy.
I get on IRC, atleast I used to. I'm not gay, or any particular sort of freak by any means. I initially started out on IRC to get jaurez, music, hack, etc...but it evolved into sort of a form of distraction for me...a way to pass time in a new city, where I knew virtually no one. At some point, I realized that it was hurting me, and made various attempts to change (both my particular activities on IRC, and more recently, a complete ending of IRC alltogether)
Additionally, both gays and geeks manage to find more meaningfull forms of social interaction. I can't claim it's easy, because I have no experience with it. However, the fact of the matter is that many people do it. I don't believe IRC is healthy for most everyone in the long term, including your "geeks and gays".
Language has evolved over many thousands of years, we, humans, are social creatures. It is not too much of a stretch to assume that active personal communication is a fundamental element of mental health. When you hear a voice, that is a function of human evolution--it evokes emotions in the listener...many times, even if they don't understand the language. Whereas text based communication simply lacks this--it is a strictly intellectual abstraction.
These online chat methods are not merely the same human emotions and discussion over a different medium (text). One key difference is that, on all these online forums, the user only conveys the sentiments or emotions that he POSITIVELY asserts (e.g. types). Additionally, online communications are essentially one dimensional--it lacks the depth. Think of how many ways a simple word, such as "yes", when uttered in voice can be interpreted. It can convey depression, happiness, cluelessness, etc. It resonates in the human mind...internet/text based communications do not. Additionally, the very nature of discussion, and who you talk to online is vastly different. While online communication may be great for intellectual pursuits, there generally isn't that same emotional content there. You might talk about computers, your favorite sport, your job, your girlfriend, etc, but it is a generally a rather shallow coverage (despite what many will say). Nor are you talking to those whom really know you in person (e.g., family, friends, co-workers, etc).
The internet has both positive and negative potentials for society. I can easily see, how a person who is unable to communicate sufficiently in person (e.g., hearing problems, speach impediment, horribly disfigured, freshly moved, diseased, you name it), may find comfort online (I certainly did at one point...more of an intellectual/thrill seeking kind). But for the general population, I think the net effect of frequent online discussion (say, >2hours a day) is largely harmfull. Even those with problems, may be better advised to avoid online chat entirely. My reasoning is, that, most of these people are just partially "flawed" (you know what I mean), yet they have a hard time communicating with others in "real" life, due to lack of experience and confidence. What mediums such as IRC allow them, is an easy out. While IRC may not rise to the same heights of real interpersonal communication (they might not necessarily have much experience with this), it is EASY. It is a form of instantaneous gratification.
Any time, day or night, IRC is there...essentially the same any time. It is consistent. It is risk free (well, in the short term atleast). When one gets bored of one channel, or forum, they move on to the next, many times juggling more than one in an attempt to maximize pleasure. It is "sticky" in a way...enough to keep the user (addict?) on his console at odd hours. Unfortunately, enough to keep the user from going out, and trying to develop something of a social life.
I call this addiction--it ruins lives. What many people fail to realize, is that even though this behavior may ultimately result in being LESS happy/healthy, many users continue on. Much like the lab rat wired to recieve electric stimulation if they push one button, and food if they push the other,...the rat starves itself by focusing just on that stimulation. Or like, what i'm sure many of you are familiar with, in your approach to exercise. Most people understand on some level, that if they exercise enough, they feel much better throughout the day. Yet most people are too lazy to exercise regularly...exercise hurts...and sitting in your ass is, in the short run, much more appealing. Likewise, these people become socially sedentary, to the point where socializing is difficult, yet they continue on their same path.
I believe time will tell. In five to ten years, society is going to see a whole new crop of addict, of social problems, resulting from this kind of internet usage. People who're on IRC now, for 4+ years, are most likely going to be on IRC (or the equivalent) years later. Think about what kind of parents these people will be if they're still involved in IRC heavily. I wouldn't at all be suprised if it results in record numbers of sociopaths. Even though society may not initially identify heavy internet usage as an addiction, or an unhealthy thing (might possibly be equally enamored with the "geek" of today), it will feel its impact. While most people aren't going to have MAJOR problems, it'll be a HUGE jump relative to other forms of addiction (not to mention that these people will come from many different classes and cultures). I think it's impact will be perhaps more severe than television (though many think TV is harmless, I think it's had some very negative effects on certain portions of society), both in penetration, and in who it sucks in.
Slashdot Mirror
In any case, a 1% tax rate is pretty inconsequential, particularly when you consider that most shopping malls (e.g., KoP) and the like are located outside cities which impose such taxes. At the very least, internet firms should just apply the tax for the area (or state) they reside in. But, I do think it might be a bit more equitable and stable, to apply it based on customer state (and state alone) location.
Also, even if it were necessary to apply each and every localities sales tax, the federal government, or some other organization, could easily compile a free database and update it on a regular basis to apply the total tax rate (e.g., based on zip code), which would serve as the official measuring bar. In other words, the internet firm could only be held responsible for updates which make it into the database. I know if I had the necessary information, I could easily compile such a database and impliment it.
Mail order firms don't comprise that large a part of our economy. Furthermore, mail order firms DO have to deal with state sales tax (they don't to my knowledge worry about city/county taxes...except for perhaps certain major cities).
You might expect a competitor and consequently increased efficiencies; it is not an entirely unreasonably proposition. However, if you look at the empirical evidence of many other subsidized industries this is not the case.
Please remember that many of these brick-and-mortars have been in business for a long time, and as a result have developed certain efficiencies and managerial skills. Many of these Dot-Coms do not yet have this kind of talent, and, even with, competition, may never (in the short run) achieve the same efficiencies. Particularly, when "e-commerce" appears to be more of an "all or nothing" game...which is (or will be) unfriendly to later competition, even if the competitor technically posesses the potential to compete in the same ways exhibited by more traditional businesses.
Also, in regards to your "other observation", my problem is less the "lack" of taxes, then it is with the differential. If the internet is really all that great, they shouldn't need an effective subsidy (over their brick-and-mortor counterparts)? Don't artificially put one at a disadvantage.
anyhow, I dont have time to get into this right now, maybe later tonight....
Not taxing internet businesses is effectively a subsidy. It can breed a less than efficient market place. For example, let us suppose that dot-com, company A, in PA has no sales tax to contend with. While brick-and-mortor, company B, has a 5% sales tax. This means that company A can sell for, say, 3% less even though they're enjoying 2% more profits (and perhaps 1% less efficient).
The fact of the matter is that sales taxes comprise approximately one third of state sales revenues. When, and if, internet sales replace brick-and-mortar sales, this is going to be a major issue. The state governments are either going to need to reduce services (and/or improve efficiency) by 30%, or increase other forms of tax revenues. They might decide to tax brick-and-mortars more to make up for the lost revenue. Meanwhile, the government is effectively GIVING that Dot-Com a little less than 5% on each sale it makes.
Put simply, not taxing the internet is asking for inefficiency. While you may be correct, that Dot-Coms have to contend with shipping costs on high-dollar/low bulk items, this is rather nominal. Furthermore, Brick-and-mortars have increased overhead (e.g., retail presence, real estate, liability, etc)...all which ARE higher than shipping costs on most items sold over the internet.
If Dot-Coms are offering a better service (e.g., lower prices as a result of lower overhead, better customer service, better inventory, etc) to customers under the same tax footing, I have no problem with dot-coms gaining market share (frankly, I think most are offering inferior service for the time being). But if you, the dot-com, have shipping lag-time, increased costs, and many other problems, you are offering your customers a worse service than those brick and mortars. If your only area of differentiation is price savings for the consumer, and this is strictly (or even mostly) the result of tax exempt status (read: subsidy), then YOU don't deserve to be in business (This has little to do with "fair", it has to do the aggregate economic effects).
in case you're not sure what I need to know. I'm not that familiar with these wireless networking technologies yet. Do I need one of those hubs/access points, or can I just plug the "client" PC card into my Linux box, and use that as my NAT. Also, where did you order it from... Any advice, problems, latency issues, speed, etc....
Thanks
Hi, I'm planning on wireless networking my house. I'd like to use my Linux box for NAT/ipmasing, and connect wintel PCs and laptops. If I could use this, that would kick ass.
Which model of card do you use? (e.g. Aviator2.4, etc.)? If I locate the "hub" in my room, I'd need to cover atleast 50 feet horizontally through a couple walls/rooms, and up one floor too. Ideally, I'd like to locate it in my basement and network my entire house like that (2-3 floors). What kind of speed do you think I could expect in this situation? And are you using Linux as the hub (I need to run NAT/ipmasqing)? Had something else I wanted to ask, but I forget now....
thanks
Hello,
I'm thinking about possibly wireless networking a few computers in my house. The trouble is that it is a rather large house with old fashion walls (e.g., thick and plaster) and i'm not too sure how capable these cards are in such an environment. Anyone have experience with this? I'd need to run the main card on my linux box (e.g., need linux support), and, say, 2 PC PCI cards, and one laptop card. What might this cost? What brand would you recommend? I'd like to get atleast 10mbps, if it doesn't cost too much.
I'd appreciate any advice. Thanks
Sure, these internet forums do provide some unique opportunities. However, the various negative aspects can not be ignored. Although it is difficult to quantify, I do feel that the aggregate effect on society as a whole is generally negative, even if most users limit themselves to, say, 2 hours a day.
I agree with you in that TV sucks. For me, atleast, most every show is so mindless that you couldn't pay me to watch more than a half hour a week. I can't just sit there and watch for more than a few minutes at a time; it is very much against my nature. I really do feel sorry for those kids brought up on television (e.g., come home from school, and watch till bedtime, ignoring a few interruptions such as dinner). I'm convinced that this lack of mental activity ultimately leads to a grossly underdeveloped intellect (not to mention intelligence itself).
While you are probably correct, in that 1 hour of IRC may indeed be better than 1 hour of TV, that does not mean that in present day terms IRC is a lesser threat. Most educated people have come to understand TV as a thing to be avoided; that is not the case with these internet chat forums, it's being sold as the best thing since sliced bread and with no understanding that internet addiction is very real. Also, IRC provides more entertainment relative to TV. This point is particularly crucial for the more educated/mobile groups...where neither TV would never attract them in droves.
Just going to jump in here quickly... If you assume that Adam's intentions are noble, it is quite likely the only way he could get his product out en masse, is if he uses his cartoon to promote it. Although the guy may have some money, from what I've studied about food marketing, it is quite a capital intensive effort. Not only do you need to manufacture and distribute the goods, but you need to get SHELF SPACE at each grocery store. And shelf space, to the best of my knowledge, is not easy to come by. In short, without a great deal money or widespread consumer recognition (or an existing relationship with these firms), this food would never see the light of day. That being said, I don't know enough about this person to make any judgements. I think it's quite likely that the author didn't come up with the idea at all, rather a marketdroid approached him who thought he'd be game.
I know exactly what you're talking about, and I agree. It can be extremely valuable in keeping in touch with friends and family. I regard that kind of communication, however, as being substancially different from the typical IRC communication. In your scenario, you are communicating with people you already know. This, in my opinion, makes the social aspects far more significant, as you are using it more to bolster and facilitate your "real" social life, as opposed to substituting it. Another key difference is, your friends likely aren't "addicts", and as such, they have other things to do than stay online for hours on end...which makes it much more difficult for you the get into the habit of abusing.
ICQ and IM, don't, to my knowledge, provide much of a forum for people who don't know each other to discuss similar interests. However, it is similar enough to IRC, that I suspect similar problems may very well occur, if they haven't already. Likewise, I've SEEN evidence of many slashdot users repeatedly hitting refresh, and completely engrossing themselves in it for, what must be, many unproductive/non-social hours. I've even been guilty of it myself, to some extent...now?!? heh =)
Of course, I don't expect anyone to actually rival Shakespear himself. He's merely an example that came to mind, simply because he demonstrated such mastery.
My point is not so much that no ones' life CAN be enriched by IRC; rather, I think many people's lives have been, or are going to be, devastated as a result of IRC (and others). Additionally, I think most peoples' lives are not improved on the aggregate that use IRC moderately. Granted, there are a number of jobs, places, towns, etc. that have little to do. However, I feel the vast majority of them are not nearly as hopeless as initially percieved. One thing you can be sure of though, is that if EVERYONE is your podunk town were to take the same attitude and resort to a reclusive IRC lifestyle, there would be absolutely NOTHING. Is this a trend that society should encourage? I don't think so.
PS: My problem is not so much with the one-way informational side of the internet. It is with the more real-time interactive forums, particularly IRC, that have an incredible ability to draw users attention for hours on end. (Unlike any other socially accepted activity. e.g., TV (though idiots manage to do it))
While the consistent conveyance of emotion may not be strictly necessary for the bulk of human interaction, ask yourself if their might be any negative repercussions as the result of being denied the "unnecessary" emotional content. I, atleast, believe that we, humans, depend on a certain level of social interaction (which a life consisting mostly of IRC denies). If you do not believe this is the case, consider the possibility that most IRC interactions (devoid of emotional content) could be replicated by relatively primitive "AI" bots...at least in the short term. Though a bit out on the limb...I find the notion of a healthy social life that strictly (or even mostly) revolves around interaction with deterministic bots (although, to my knowledge, we don't yet have AI/computers that are quite convincing enough) to be extremely hard to swallow....
As for the rest, I agree with you, at least as long as you seem realize the necessity of real human interaction (at some point) as well. In moderation, IRC (and company) can contribute to an otherwise healthy lifestyle... My experience, though, is that many people don't use it in moderation.
While you may be right that text is a very powerfull tool in representing emotional content, it is only powerfull if put in the right hands in the right situation. Most people aren't Shakespear. Nor do most people try to write like Shakespear. Without using tools like the metaphor, even the english language is crippled. This is particularly true when the bulk of IRC users use only a small subset of the english language. Worse yet, they resort to certain non-word expressions out of force of habit (e.g., "haha", "ttyl", emoticons, etc.)...which unfortunately constitute the vast majority of IRC discussion. You combine all of these factors into what is strictly an abstraction, devoid of tone of voice, posture, expression, etc, and you begin to get some idea of just how naked IRC truely is.
If you want empirical proof, try visiting your average IRC channel. Or if you are more devious yet, try viewing some "private" conversations on IRC. You will discover what most truely consist of.
While I agree with you somewhat, in that applications like IRC CAN provide some unique opportunities that real life does not, I do not believe that the average person will benefit from it on the aggregate.
For certain forms of support, which lend themselves to "intellectual" (using the term loosly) support, IRC and newgroups may perform quite well. In other words, I believe 2% of the population, out of my ass, with problems (e.g., disfigurment, hearing, speach, you name it) may theoretically benefit. For example, those with body odor problems, can seek "intellectual" advice on cures, treatments, "work-arounds", you name it, free from "real life" social pressures. In reality though, I think that most (but not all such forums are poor...as those who respond frequently aren't qualified or experts by any stretch of the imagination). Additionally, as I've mentioned repeatedly, I think it presents a great, but underestimated, threat through overusage.
Language has evolved over many thousands of years. We, humans, are social creatures. It is not too much of a stretch to assume that active personal communication is a fundamental element of mental health. When you hear a voice, that is a function of human evolution--it evokes emotions in the listener...many times, even if they don't understand the language. Whereas text based communication simply lacks this--it is a strictly intellectual abstraction.
These online chat methods are not merely the same human emotions and discussion over a different medium (text). One key difference is that, on all these online forums, the user only conveys the sentiments or emotions that he POSITIVELY asserts (e.g. types). Additionally, online communications are essentially one dimensional--it lacks the depth. Think of how many ways a simple word, such as "yes", when uttered in voice can be interpreted. It can convey depression, happiness, cluelessness, etc. It resonates in the human mind...internet/text based communications do not. Additionally, the very nature of discussion, and who you talk to online is vastly different. While online communication may be great for intellectual pursuits, there generally isn't that same emotional content there. You might talk about computers, your favorite sport, your job, your girlfriend, etc, but it is a generally a rather shallow coverage (despite what many will say). Nor are you talking to those whom really know you in person (e.g., family, friends, co-workers, etc).
The internet has both positive and negative potentials for society. I can easily see, how a person who is unable to communicate sufficiently in person (e.g., hearing problems, speach impediment, horribly disfigured, freshly moved, diseased, you name it), may find comfort online (I certainly did at one point...more of an intellectual/thrill seeking kind). But for the general population, I think the net effect of frequent online discussion (say, >2hours a day) is largely harmfull. Even those with problems, may be better advised to avoid online chat entirely. My reasoning is, that, most of these people are just partially "flawed" (you know what I mean), yet they have a hard time communicating with others in "real" life, due to lack of experience and confidence. What mediums such as IRC allow them, is an easy out. While IRC may not rise to the same heights of real interpersonal communication (they might not necessarily have much experience with this), it is EASY. It is a form of instantaneous gratification.
Any time, day or night, IRC is there...essentially the same any time. It is consistent. It is risk free (well, in the short term atleast). When one gets bored of one channel, or forum, they move on to the next, many times juggling more than one in an attempt to maximize pleasure. It is "sticky" in a way...enough to keep the user (addict?) on his console at odd hours. Unfortunately, enough to keep the user from going out, and trying to develop something of a social life.
I call this addiction--it ruins lives. What many people fail to realize, is that even though this behavior may ultimately result in being LESS happy/healthy, many users continue on. Much like the lab rat wired to recieve electric stimulation if they push one button, and food if they push the other,...the rat starves itself by focusing just on that stimulation. Or like, what i'm sure many of you are familiar with, in your approach to exercise. Most people understand on some level, that if they exercise enough, they feel much better throughout the day. Yet most people are too lazy to exercise regularly...exercise hurts...and sitting in your ass is, in the short run, much more appealing. Likewise, these people become socially sedentary, to the point where socializing is difficult, yet they continue on their same path.
I believe time will tell. In five to ten years, society is going to see a whole new crop of addict, of social problems, resulting from this kind of internet usage. People who're on IRC now, for 4+ years, are most likely going to be on IRC (or the equivalent) years later. Think about what kind of parents these people will be if they're still involved in IRC heavily. I wouldn't at all be suprised if it results in record numbers of sociopaths. Even though society may not initially identify heavy internet usage as an addiction, or an unhealthy thing (might possibly be equally enamored with the "geek" of today), it will feel its impact. While most people aren't going to have MAJOR problems, it'll be a HUGE jump relative to other forms of addiction (not to mention that these people will come from many different classes and cultures). I think it's impact will be perhaps more severe than television (though many think TV is harmless, I think it's had some very negative effects on certain portions of society), both in penetration, and in who it sucks in.
Ahhha Funny! =)~
My initial statement(s), boiled down, was this: Although, I agree that 99% of the problems that women face are social, there are some genetic differences. To automatically blame all disproportions of men to women in any field on social causes is a bit naive. One such attribute I've noticed is the lack of female geeks. When I say geeks, I don't just mean a social outcast or a person who can "focus". I mean a person who is so utterly involved in his work that he loses sight of all else, to a fault. The kind of personality, that from 3rd grade on, they would lock themselves up in a room and lose themselves to some project, just "because".
Then you go and jump on my back, and say that this then must mean that I must think that women are lesser engineers than men. I simply never said anything to that effect--you put those words in my mouth. Then you start with your "read" games, which directly contradict many statements I've made to the contrary. For example, I said something to the effect that my mom is at the top of her game as an engineer. What part of that don't you understand? It is certainly not compatible with your "read": That women can't peform "...as capably as men". No, my mom outperformed men in virtually everything she's ever done, including engineering. The only exception to this is my father, who was unparalleled in his field. So if I had to quantify it, my dad would be #1, while my mom would be #2 in that particular field (while my mom would be #1 in many others combined), and thats out of however many thousands in the field. Traslation: Any EE school would be insane not to put her at the top of the list.
The lack of the ability to be the kind of nerd I was referring, is not equivelent to not being able to perform every bit as well as that nerd. PERIOD.
Rather than waste a great deal more time and energy on your petty "reads" and argue the obvious, I've come to the conclusion that you're just a meddlesome 3rd party. You are here to argue (rather then attempt understand, or reach a conclusion) above all else. I'd bet dollars to pesos that you're not a women, that you're white, and that you're middle class college aged (including grad school) kid...all this tends to breed a certain kind of liberalism that i've seen all too often (there's something to get your panties in an uproar)
Good bye
this accusation might be true. However, I did watch some silly documentary on the filming (normally I would not) on HBO. Based on what I saw, I have my doubts about these accusations. They showed pictures of that same beach before they touched it, and it was literally COVERED in debris and trash, I'd be suprised if they could have left it much worse off. I'm not sure how much traveling many of you have done, but believe it or not, many 3rd world countries have an even worse problems with polution and depris than any US metropolis...even bummfuck Thailand. While it is quite likely that the transplanted trees and sand created some erosion, the area that they altered was quite small, and in the grand scheme of things it is NOTHING. I find it hard to believe that anyone on slashdot is qualified to really speak about what happened, other than 3rd and 4th hand knowledge. Furthermore, even if they did, most everyone who reads this, lives enough of a consumer lifestyle (which inevitably creates polution, like it or not), that they can easily be called a hypocrite and then some. In fact, I suspect if you looked at the value added (dollars added to their economy) relative to the damage, you'd discover that your shoes or shirt or even your computer parts manufactured in Thailand (and other similar locations) cause proportionately more damage.
That being said, wild horses couldn't drag me to this movie. I despise DiCaprio, and
particularly any movie that would star him in a teen heart throb roll.
Since you love to generalize, why must liberals, such as yourself, put words in everyone's mouth, and generally overstate your case. That way no one can have any meaningfull discussion about anything.
I never ONCE said that women are incapable of doing engineering. Nor did I say they're just capable of attaining "decent" skills, or that consequently, they're only cut out for middle management. My mom is no middle manager. She holds multiple key patents, started up multiple multi-million dollar companies, made some excellent products, created hundreds of skilled jobs, and made a hell of a lot of money in the process. She is no light weight by any stetch of the imagination. I don't think you understand, if I could have anyone's capabilities and intelligence, it would be hers. You either don't understand this, or YOU are trying to double talk.
All I did was point to a few observations, that, I believe, are more than just social. I never said that any of these differences amount of incapability of performing the job. In fact, it would be ludicrous to believe that, given what I've told you about my mother.
You might not think my experience is sufficient, but that does not mean that I must ignore it. There is something called intuition, that any business person or scientist must rely on. You can't do a great deal in this world, if all your actions must first be based on concrete proof. You seem to realize this on some level, as you're proceeding on many similar unproven claims (e.g., social over genetic)
I can see where certain social "outcasts" may find IRC rewarding, if taken in moderation. As it can provide an outlet that social norms may not allow to the same extent and frequencies.
But the IRC "lifestyle" (where the bulk of your "social" existence revolves around IRC) is not healthy.
I get on IRC, atleast I used to. I'm not gay, or any particular sort of freak by any means. I initially started out on IRC to get jaurez, music, hack, etc...but it evolved into sort of a form of distraction for me...a way to pass time in a new city, where I knew virtually no one. At some point, I realized that it was hurting me, and made various attempts to change (both my particular activities on IRC, and more recently, a complete ending of IRC alltogether)
Additionally, both gays and geeks manage to find more meaningfull forms of social interaction. I can't claim it's easy, because I have no experience with it. However, the fact of the matter is that many people do it. I don't believe IRC is healthy for most everyone in the long term, including your "geeks and gays".
Language has evolved over many thousands of years, we, humans, are social creatures. It is not too much of a stretch to assume that active personal communication is a fundamental element of mental health. When you hear a voice, that is a function of human evolution--it evokes emotions in the listener...many times, even if they don't understand the language. Whereas text based communication simply lacks this--it is a strictly intellectual abstraction.
These online chat methods are not merely the same human emotions and discussion over a different medium (text). One key difference is that, on all these online forums, the user only conveys the sentiments or emotions that he POSITIVELY asserts (e.g. types). Additionally, online communications are essentially one dimensional--it lacks the depth. Think of how many ways a simple word, such as "yes", when uttered in voice can be interpreted. It can convey depression, happiness, cluelessness, etc. It resonates in the human mind...internet/text based communications do not. Additionally, the very nature of discussion, and who you talk to online is vastly different. While online communication may be great for intellectual pursuits, there generally isn't that same emotional content there. You might talk about computers, your favorite sport, your job, your girlfriend, etc, but it is a generally a rather shallow coverage (despite what many will say). Nor are you talking to those whom really know you in person (e.g., family, friends, co-workers, etc).
The internet has both positive and negative potentials for society. I can easily see, how a person who is unable to communicate sufficiently in person (e.g., hearing problems, speach impediment, horribly disfigured, freshly moved, diseased, you name it), may find comfort online (I certainly did at one point...more of an intellectual/thrill seeking kind). But for the general population, I think the net effect of frequent online discussion (say, >2hours a day) is largely harmfull. Even those with problems, may be better advised to avoid online chat entirely. My reasoning is, that, most of these people are just partially "flawed" (you know what I mean), yet they have a hard time communicating with others in "real" life, due to lack of experience and confidence. What mediums such as IRC allow them, is an easy out. While IRC may not rise to the same heights of real interpersonal communication (they might not necessarily have much experience with this), it is EASY. It is a form of instantaneous gratification.
Any time, day or night, IRC is there...essentially the same any time. It is consistent. It is risk free (well, in the short term atleast). When one gets bored of one channel, or forum, they move on to the next, many times juggling more than one in an attempt to maximize pleasure. It is "sticky" in a way...enough to keep the user (addict?) on his console at odd hours. Unfortunately, enough to keep the user from going out, and trying to develop something of a social life.
I call this addiction--it ruins lives. What many people fail to realize, is that even though this behavior may ultimately result in being LESS happy/healthy, many users continue on. Much like the lab rat wired to recieve electric stimulation if they push one button, and food if they push the other,...the rat starves itself by focusing just on that stimulation. Or like, what i'm sure many of you are familiar with, in your approach to exercise. Most people understand on some level, that if they exercise enough, they feel much better throughout the day. Yet most people are too lazy to exercise regularly...exercise hurts...and sitting in your ass is, in the short run, much more appealing. Likewise, these people become socially sedentary, to the point where socializing is difficult, yet they continue on their same path.
I believe time will tell. In five to ten years, society is going to see a whole new crop of addict, of social problems, resulting from this kind of internet usage. People who're on IRC now, for 4+ years, are most likely going to be on IRC (or the equivalent) years later. Think about what kind of parents these people will be if they're still involved in IRC heavily. I wouldn't at all be suprised if it results in record numbers of sociopaths. Even though society may not initially identify heavy internet usage as an addiction, or an unhealthy thing (might possibly be equally enamored with the "geek" of today), it will feel its impact. While most people aren't going to have MAJOR problems, it'll be a HUGE jump relative to other forms of addiction (not to mention that these people will come from many different classes and cultures). I think it's impact will be perhaps more severe than television (though many think TV is harmless, I think it's had some very negative effects on certain portions of society), both in penetration, and in who it sucks in.