I would like to see a study where random non-gamers are given a psych review and then given a month to play WoW or SC or CoD or such and then removed from game. All the while studing the effects, physical, mental, and emotional. I hypothesize that those with addictive personalities will become addicted. I also hypothesize that the games will effect all the subjects, in one way or another.
PS I also would like to see a study that looks at what happens when parents remove games from a gamer. (Not the morality, just the effects) I do think that this is a emotionally charged debate, and therefore it will take some time to get the whole picture...
Did you read the first link? Factcheck.org supposedly is a nonpartisan website. If I am wrong, please let me know. The numbers are very precise and as accurate as possible. The simplest way I can explain how I understand it is, "of the ~30,000 guns confiscated by Mexico over a two year period around 2006-2009, ~11,000 were given to the US ATF to trace. Of those that were traceable, 93% were traced to American sources." ~38% of total guns were traced. 36% of total guns were definitively traced to USA. Any other supposition is just that.
I seem to have googled for the 'vietnam mexico m16' link and didn't find an article within the first 10 results. Maybe you could send me the article? I will retract if you are correct.
Hey, to me, the second amendment means a US citizen can own any armament that a militia could field. Such as Javelin, M203, M1A3 (Abrams), F16, M60, Cruiser, maybe even a destroyer, Howitzer, etc.
Answer me this, if there were no controls on arm types sold to US citizens, would that make it easier or harder for Mexican drug runners to get RPGs and M19s? (also which a militia (well-regulated) could field.)
First you say "Gun control wankery" and then you use the difficulty to get guns as a defense for your position. Which way is it?
When does it become wankery? Honestly, If you answer no other question, I would like that one answered, I am curious on what your viewpoint is.
I agree that a gun in and of itself is not necessarily extremely dangerous to human life.
The way I was thinking of it is there can be an infinite number of squares in a cube and they will never interact. If the physical realm is measured in four dimensions only, then is it possible that a 5 or 6 dimensioned object can be really close to us in the four that we understand, but far in the fifth or sixth, so much that we never perceive it?
That's why the statement, "No scientific study has demonstrated homeopathic preparations to have an effect greater than a placebo," cannot be factual if it's been studied 20 times. But like I said before, I am disinclined to believe homeopathy's efficacy also. Just don't overstate the facts, that's all. What could be said accurately is that all meta-analyses of double-blind randomized studies show no benefit of homeopathy over placebo.
No scientific study has demonstrated homeopathic preparations to have an effect greater than a placebo.
can mean two things.
Namely, this has been studied x times and every time the result was the same. where x => 0
So the catch here is that with your phrasing it sounds like there is definite scientific consensus, where there may or may not be.
There are scientific studies that show greater effect than placebo, but they questionable. Maybe what you meant is randomized double-blind studies. Search Google "homeopathy double blind randomized", from what I did find, none of them showed clear benefits, but read the abstracts of a few of them. Interesting. Some of them show some effects greater than placebo. The ones I looked at the benefit was not statistically significant, but hey, that would be a more accurate nuanced answer than
No scientific study has demonstrated homeopathic preparations to have an effect greater than a placebo.
If you want my personal predisposition, I was given homeopathy when young, but as an adult looking at the principle of it, I am moderately predisposed to disbelief.
I have always understood sex (even consensual)to be mentally, emotionally, and physically dangerous. (Not that all sex is necessarily damaging) That is why I always understood pedophilia is viewed as wrong, to protect kids from danger they don't understand. Not that sex is mysteriously no longer dangerous at 18.
So to say 'you can't have sex with kids because it's dangerous for them' doesn't mean the rough converse, 'sex with adults is safe' is true. But it seems to be Conventional Wisdom...
I see where you fall on the issue. I said I take no opinion.
To play along though, (and I am talking about male circumcision, not female, which I do have an issue with) both irrevocably change the future of the child, and no pain is remembered. And they both make life a little less dangerous (long hair gets caught in stuff and uncircumcised men get more STDs)
Nice turn. What I meant is that if you ask an oilfield worker that has spent time in the Middle East around the locals, and they are honest with you, they could tell you many Muslim men are gay, and it's not that secret.
It's my fault for replying seriously to a funny post.
There is one glaring fault with claiming pedophilia is as wrong as it is because it fails the 'consenting adults' test. pedophilia is so wrong simply because it is so damaging to the psyche of children. To a lesser extent it is because it harms them physically.
To say sex between an Adult and a child is wrong only because the child can't consent makes circumcision equally deplorable (I am aware that there are some that have the view it is evil/bad, I take no opinion) Really it also would be equal to piercing ears of a minor or cutting a kid's hair, they can't 'consent' to what is done to their bodies.
Let me explain something. If you don't respect someone, you can't really love them. Therefore, in a group of people where all the males are taught to actively not respect women men will not be able to love women. So the love will be going to who they respect, other men. And with that love comes sex.
It's no real secret that there are a lot of 'gay' men in Muslim countries, just ask anyone who has spent time really embedded with them.
The same would be true of any group, such as those fundie 'Christians' that also teach no respect for women.
No, No, and No.
NYC is New York City, New York, USA, and there are no Walmarts in the five boroughs. There are a few out of the actual city limits, but not inside. We are talking about the "Walmart" that Sam Walton started and and now has gone so far from his ideal. None in NYC
I thumped a bible, and I liked it,
The feel of its firm paper,
I thumped a bible just to try it,
I hope slashdot don't mind it,
It felt so wrong
It felt so right
Don't mean I'm in love tonight
I thumped a bible and I liked it
I liked it
This reminds me of the "Telephone" game. Start by saying something in one person's ear and go in a circle. What do you get at the end? Not the same story. Now, let's try a variation of this with something modern. Like JFK's assassination. Most people agree he was shot and killed, but that is where the agreement ends. But it still happened. So if you have 200+ different stories, but they all agree on flood and humans survive, 1)expect differences and 2) they might be onto something.
Or another way, 200 people run out of a building and tell you, "there's a fire" and then you get 4 or 5 different basic scenarios from the 200.... It's highly likely that there is a fire.
Slashdot Mirror
I would like to see a study where random non-gamers are given a psych review and then given a month to play WoW or SC or CoD or such and then removed from game. All the while studing the effects, physical, mental, and emotional. I hypothesize that those with addictive personalities will become addicted. I also hypothesize that the games will effect all the subjects, in one way or another.
PS I also would like to see a study that looks at what happens when parents remove games from a gamer. (Not the morality, just the effects) I do think that this is a emotionally charged debate, and therefore it will take some time to get the whole picture...
In addition to smoking alcohol or drinking alcohol, I hear you can inject it...
Did you read the first link? Factcheck.org supposedly is a nonpartisan website. If I am wrong, please let me know. The numbers are very precise and as accurate as possible. The simplest way I can explain how I understand it is, "of the ~30,000 guns confiscated by Mexico over a two year period around 2006-2009, ~11,000 were given to the US ATF to trace. Of those that were traceable, 93% were traced to American sources." ~38% of total guns were traced. 36% of total guns were definitively traced to USA. Any other supposition is just that.
I seem to have googled for the 'vietnam mexico m16' link and didn't find an article within the first 10 results. Maybe you could send me the article? I will retract if you are correct.
Hey, to me, the second amendment means a US citizen can own any armament that a militia could field. Such as Javelin, M203, M1A3 (Abrams), F16, M60, Cruiser, maybe even a destroyer, Howitzer, etc.
Answer me this, if there were no controls on arm types sold to US citizens, would that make it easier or harder for Mexican drug runners to get RPGs and M19s? (also which a militia (well-regulated) could field.)
First you say "Gun control wankery" and then you use the difficulty to get guns as a defense for your position. Which way is it?
When does it become wankery? Honestly, If you answer no other question, I would like that one answered, I am curious on what your viewpoint is.
I agree that a gun in and of itself is not necessarily extremely dangerous to human life.
http://www.factcheck.org/2009/04/counting-mexicos-guns/ Between 36% and 93% of guns recovered by Mexican LE are traced to US sources.
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20081116211345AAiwdoQ How to make a AR15 into a M16. Seems to be pretty easy.
http://www.brownsvilleherald.com/news/charged-121070-connection-grenade.html Does this mean there were successful attempts? IDK, but it's been tried in USA...
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-mexico-arms-race15-2009mar15,0,229992.story This article says that many of the grenade launchers and rocket launchers come from south of the (Mexican) border, but note the gem in par. 5: "Some of the weapons are left over from the wars that the United States helped fight in Central America, U.S. officials said."
1)Where do Mexicans get their guns from? 2)What causes the (gun) violence?
1)The USA. 2)Illegal drug exports to USA.
I am neutral regarding gun control, but I do like truth. And I'm not too fond of murder.
Or am I misunderstanding completely?
Just some questions. Maybe dumb ones, but one I wanted to ask somewhere in this thread.
According to M-Theory there are 11 dimensions. Are we in four of them? (Space-Time?) What are in the other seven?
Is it possible for them to interact in "weird" ways?
Ha, you may have a point. *gets the .22 for the ingrown beard hair*
Thanks, Interesting reading 10 year old stuff and seeing what actually has happened...
I googled "Clinton accord" and got nothing like what you describe. Could you please direct me to the proper references?
Thanks in advance.
You are so close to understanding the past two years' "housing crisis"
/sarcasm... I think
s/two-bedroom apartments/mom and dad's house
A friend of mine said once, "Whatever the bill's/law's title is, it actually accomplishes the opposite."
I am no longer sure if he is a cynic.
That's why the statement, "No scientific study has demonstrated homeopathic preparations to have an effect greater than a placebo," cannot be factual if it's been studied 20 times.
But like I said before, I am disinclined to believe homeopathy's efficacy also. Just don't overstate the facts, that's all.
What could be said accurately is that all meta-analyses of double-blind randomized studies show no benefit of homeopathy over placebo.
No scientific study has demonstrated homeopathic preparations to have an effect greater than a placebo.
can mean two things.
Namely, this has been studied x times and every time the result was the same. where x => 0
So the catch here is that with your phrasing it sounds like there is definite scientific consensus, where there may or may not be.
There are scientific studies that show greater effect than placebo, but they questionable. Maybe what you meant is randomized double-blind studies. Search Google "homeopathy double blind randomized", from what I did find, none of them showed clear benefits, but read the abstracts of a few of them. Interesting. Some of them show some effects greater than placebo. The ones I looked at the benefit was not statistically significant, but hey, that would be a more accurate nuanced answer than
No scientific study has demonstrated homeopathic preparations to have an effect greater than a placebo.
If you want my personal predisposition, I was given homeopathy when young, but as an adult looking at the principle of it, I am moderately predisposed to disbelief.
I have always understood sex (even consensual)to be mentally, emotionally, and physically dangerous. (Not that all sex is necessarily damaging) That is why I always understood pedophilia is viewed as wrong, to protect kids from danger they don't understand. Not that sex is mysteriously no longer dangerous at 18.
So to say 'you can't have sex with kids because it's dangerous for them' doesn't mean the rough converse, 'sex with adults is safe' is true. But it seems to be Conventional Wisdom...
I see where you fall on the issue. I said I take no opinion.
To play along though, (and I am talking about male circumcision, not female, which I do have an issue with) both irrevocably change the future of the child, and no pain is remembered. And they both make life a little less dangerous (long hair gets caught in stuff and uncircumcised men get more STDs)
To be honest, my first comment was hyperbole.
Nice turn. What I meant is that if you ask an oilfield worker that has spent time in the Middle East around the locals, and they are honest with you, they could tell you many Muslim men are gay, and it's not that secret.
It's my fault for replying seriously to a funny post.
To say sex between an Adult and a child is wrong only because the child can't consent makes circumcision equally deplorable (I am aware that there are some that have the view it is evil/bad, I take no opinion) Really it also would be equal to piercing ears of a minor or cutting a kid's hair, they can't 'consent' to what is done to their bodies.
Let me explain something. If you don't respect someone, you can't really love them. Therefore, in a group of people where all the males are taught to actively not respect women men will not be able to love women. So the love will be going to who they respect, other men. And with that love comes sex.
It's no real secret that there are a lot of 'gay' men in Muslim countries, just ask anyone who has spent time really embedded with them.
The same would be true of any group, such as those fundie 'Christians' that also teach no respect for women.
Two words: Facebook
No, No, and No. NYC is New York City, New York, USA, and there are no Walmarts in the five boroughs. There are a few out of the actual city limits, but not inside. We are talking about the "Walmart" that Sam Walton started and and now has gone so far from his ideal. None in NYC
HEB? That's a good store. I like it because nowhere else have I found such a selection of beers.
Just for you:
I thumped a bible, and I liked it,
The feel of its firm paper,
I thumped a bible just to try it,
I hope slashdot don't mind it,
It felt so wrong
It felt so right
Don't mean I'm in love tonight
I thumped a bible and I liked it
I liked it
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ragnar%C3%B6k Sorry about the wait, but here it is.
This reminds me of the "Telephone" game. Start by saying something in one person's ear and go in a circle. What do you get at the end? Not the same story. Now, let's try a variation of this with something modern. Like JFK's assassination. Most people agree he was shot and killed, but that is where the agreement ends. But it still happened. So if you have 200+ different stories, but they all agree on flood and humans survive, 1)expect differences and 2) they might be onto something.
Or another way, 200 people run out of a building and tell you, "there's a fire" and then you get 4 or 5 different basic scenarios from the 200.... It's highly likely that there is a fire.