Most likely. On a similar note, it's interesting how in 50+ years of television, there is virtually no concept of television addiction (compare Television Addiction to Internet Addiction on Wikipedia). If kids are spending 30 hours a week watching corporate, main stream media there's no problem. But if these kids spend that same amount of time not being bombarded by advertisements playing WoW, or if there's a chance they're reading "liberal propaganda" or un-godly sites, well that's an addiction. Better send em in for treatment.
Now that this is banned, where will those parents send those kids to treat this "disorder"? How long before Pfizer creates Zinternex - a new drug used to help combat internet addiction? (Side effects may include nausea, vomiting, anal leakage, acne, etc... etc...)
I still can't tell from reading the article whether this means the sperm just leaves faster or if the sperm actually swim faster once they've landed. I wouldn't be too shocked if it just shot out faster - being more attracted to someone could easily result in a faster money shot. I can't understand how this would make a difference though, seems like they still have a long way to swim, and the vaginal walls probably would probably block most of the shot anyway, they still have a long way to swim. Other factors like length, or depth at time of ejaculation seem like they would be much bigger factors.
On the other hand, the sperm actually swimming faster seems remarkable. Maybe someone can clarify, does the amount of seminal fluid determine the rate the sperm swim or the velocity of the sperm leaving upon ejaculation, or both?
If someone can shouldersurf, 99% of the time they have physical access and all security is null. If they can see your ***ed password on the screen, than they can see your fingers type they characters of your password on the keyboard (again with 1% exceptions like keyboard covers and remote displays). If a malicious person can see your screen, than they are probably close enough that that can tap your cables, install hardware keyloggers, sniff your EMF, cold boot your RAM and grep it, do audio analysis of your typing and decipher your keystrokes, and etc.
***ing your passwords protects against a very small hole....the situation where someone is allowed to see your screen but is searched to make sure they have no monitoring equipment, has the keyboard kept out of site, and isn't allowed to touch anything.
Most desktop users in an office / cubicle / shouldersurf environment have no idea what a keylogger is, let alone perform any other techniques to access your password. Reading keyboard strokes isn't that easy either, it's pretty hard to determine the letters being typed
All those other alternatives here also require a very determined, pre-meditated effort to access your password. So in that case, the chances are the asterisks in the textbox won't make a difference. There may not be anyone in your workplace / campus that's after your password that bad. But if they happen to glance at your screen while you're logging into your webmail / social networking site and see the password in the textbox, or even enough of it to probably make out an un-secure password - that might be tempting enough to snoop around in your account, even though they had no previous intentions.
You could actually get there legitimately if you kept your jet pack for like several levels and didn't die, I remember doing it without cheating a long time ago.
But games and DVD's? I can't see higher priced games and dvds resulting is less play time / watch time. Once I've purchased a game or dvd I'm not going to watch it any less. If anything I'll just play the same game more. Someone that has to spend an extra $5 on their WoW subscription per month isn't going to play less or cancel their account, they're going to play more if anything to justify the increased cost. If they already spend 100 hours a month gaming or spend about 200 hours or something per game, the cost difference is negligible. Having to spend more on DVDs and movie tickets won't get people less active if they can't afford it, they'll probably just pirate it instead.
How about going the other way and giving tax breaks for gym memberships / people with a low BMI etc..? Without any sort of incentives or breaks included in this bill, it just seems like another money grab.
Even the medical costs for diabetics, strokes, liver disease, heart attacks etc and other "fat" related illnesses are still being paid by the people in the United States. High costs to health are being a motivator for this bill passing would make much more sense in Canada, Sweden, France etc.. as the government is the one actually absorbing the bulk (if not all) of the cost of the medical bills here. Even then, you'd still have to assume that a high tax will actually reduce consumption in these areas.
Comparing ethics from a time of total war is absurd beyond measure. Shall we get into the atrocities committed by all sides? There's plenty to go around. A nuke in a time of war is no more unethical than any other kind of massive scale bombing. FAR more people were killed with conventional bombing on both sides during WWII than by nukes and yet the nukes are somehow special? The nuke just has a bigger bang for the payload.
War is horrible but once there is a war the MOST unethical thing anyone can do is to prolong the war. It should be ended as quickly as possible and this is usually accomplished by using the most overwhelming force possible. Dropping two atomic weapons on Japan brought the war to an abrupt end and probably saved countless lives. Yes it was a horrible thing to do but there were NO options that were not horrible to consider. None.
The nuclear bombs on Japan definitely saved countless lives, probably far more than what a conventional war would have cost. The problem with that though, is the nukes didn't have to be dropped on the cities to end the war. They could have been detonated at a higher elevation, or in the countryside, at sea etc... but they were deliberately detonated in 2 cities. After seeing the carnage, they would have subsequently shit their pants and surrendered.
And 2 cities?!?!? Even assuming they wouldn't surrender if they only saw an explosion, is there a good reason it wasn't just used on one city? Was there a good chance one wouldn't go off, but not good enough so both wouldn't go off? Couldn't they just just blow up one? War is horrible, but this seems like a step above that.
Slashdot Mirror
Most likely. On a similar note, it's interesting how in 50+ years of television, there is virtually no concept of television addiction (compare Television Addiction to Internet Addiction on Wikipedia). If kids are spending 30 hours a week watching corporate, main stream media there's no problem. But if these kids spend that same amount of time not being bombarded by advertisements playing WoW, or if there's a chance they're reading "liberal propaganda" or un-godly sites, well that's an addiction. Better send em in for treatment.
Now that this is banned, where will those parents send those kids to treat this "disorder"? How long before Pfizer creates Zinternex - a new drug used to help combat internet addiction? (Side effects may include nausea, vomiting, anal leakage, acne, etc... etc...)
Questions answered by science: 853,523,002
Questions answered by religion: 420,000
Questions answered correctly by religion: 0
Fixed that for you
I still can't tell from reading the article whether this means the sperm just leaves faster or if the sperm actually swim faster once they've landed. I wouldn't be too shocked if it just shot out faster - being more attracted to someone could easily result in a faster money shot. I can't understand how this would make a difference though, seems like they still have a long way to swim, and the vaginal walls probably would probably block most of the shot anyway, they still have a long way to swim. Other factors like length, or depth at time of ejaculation seem like they would be much bigger factors.
On the other hand, the sperm actually swimming faster seems remarkable. Maybe someone can clarify, does the amount of seminal fluid determine the rate the sperm swim or the velocity of the sperm leaving upon ejaculation, or both?
If someone can shouldersurf, 99% of the time they have physical access and all security is null. If they can see your ***ed password on the screen, than they can see your fingers type they characters of your password on the keyboard (again with 1% exceptions like keyboard covers and remote displays). If a malicious person can see your screen, than they are probably close enough that that can tap your cables, install hardware keyloggers, sniff your EMF, cold boot your RAM and grep it, do audio analysis of your typing and decipher your keystrokes, and etc.
***ing your passwords protects against a very small hole....the situation where someone is allowed to see your screen but is searched to make sure they have no monitoring equipment, has the keyboard kept out of site, and isn't allowed to touch anything.
Most desktop users in an office / cubicle / shouldersurf environment have no idea what a keylogger is, let alone perform any other techniques to access your password. Reading keyboard strokes isn't that easy either, it's pretty hard to determine the letters being typed
All those other alternatives here also require a very determined, pre-meditated effort to access your password. So in that case, the chances are the asterisks in the textbox won't make a difference. There may not be anyone in your workplace / campus that's after your password that bad. But if they happen to glance at your screen while you're logging into your webmail / social networking site and see the password in the textbox, or even enough of it to probably make out an un-secure password - that might be tempting enough to snoop around in your account, even though they had no previous intentions.
Too long. Maybe something shorter and catchier, like McElement. Would also consider Cokium or Walmartium
You could actually get there legitimately if you kept your jet pack for like several levels and didn't die, I remember doing it without cheating a long time ago.
But games and DVD's? I can't see higher priced games and dvds resulting is less play time / watch time. Once I've purchased a game or dvd I'm not going to watch it any less. If anything I'll just play the same game more. Someone that has to spend an extra $5 on their WoW subscription per month isn't going to play less or cancel their account, they're going to play more if anything to justify the increased cost. If they already spend 100 hours a month gaming or spend about 200 hours or something per game, the cost difference is negligible. Having to spend more on DVDs and movie tickets won't get people less active if they can't afford it, they'll probably just pirate it instead. How about going the other way and giving tax breaks for gym memberships / people with a low BMI etc..? Without any sort of incentives or breaks included in this bill, it just seems like another money grab.
Even the medical costs for diabetics, strokes, liver disease, heart attacks etc and other "fat" related illnesses are still being paid by the people in the United States. High costs to health are being a motivator for this bill passing would make much more sense in Canada, Sweden, France etc.. as the government is the one actually absorbing the bulk (if not all) of the cost of the medical bills here. Even then, you'd still have to assume that a high tax will actually reduce consumption in these areas.
Comparing ethics from a time of total war is absurd beyond measure. Shall we get into the atrocities committed by all sides? There's plenty to go around. A nuke in a time of war is no more unethical than any other kind of massive scale bombing. FAR more people were killed with conventional bombing on both sides during WWII than by nukes and yet the nukes are somehow special? The nuke just has a bigger bang for the payload.
War is horrible but once there is a war the MOST unethical thing anyone can do is to prolong the war. It should be ended as quickly as possible and this is usually accomplished by using the most overwhelming force possible. Dropping two atomic weapons on Japan brought the war to an abrupt end and probably saved countless lives. Yes it was a horrible thing to do but there were NO options that were not horrible to consider. None.
The nuclear bombs on Japan definitely saved countless lives, probably far more than what a conventional war would have cost. The problem with that though, is the nukes didn't have to be dropped on the cities to end the war. They could have been detonated at a higher elevation, or in the countryside, at sea etc... but they were deliberately detonated in 2 cities. After seeing the carnage, they would have subsequently shit their pants and surrendered.
And 2 cities?!?!? Even assuming they wouldn't surrender if they only saw an explosion, is there a good reason it wasn't just used on one city? Was there a good chance one wouldn't go off, but not good enough so both wouldn't go off? Couldn't they just just blow up one? War is horrible, but this seems like a step above that.