Listen, I remember a show on Americans on television accusing Russia of having a weather altering device about 15 years ago (following a year we had a lot of reported weather activity. I don't recall what year or what weather events occurred, except that it was a year that many potatoes were ruined by floods in the Midwest.
If the kid doesn't have ADHD, the drugs will likely do the exact opposite.
Does it though?
I've also have read some who have said that the reason that a stimulant helps calm these kids down is because it actually fatigues them (due to the stimulation and resulting poorer sleep quality).
I definitely believe it's being over-prescribed, and I am not completely sure that this is an actual real diagnosis or not. I am at least skeptical and entertain some of the ideas of critics.
I grew up too late to be diagnosed with ADD, or I probably would have. Instead, I had teachers who recommended that I have my hearing checked and thought I might have had hearing impairment. I saw a doctor when I was a kid and he told my parents, "I think he's just bored in school."
Yeah, I have a much younger adopted brother who was diagnosed (much to my dismay) with ADD/ADHD. I honestly believe that most (if not all) of these diagnoses are simply a matter of some kids have different learning styles and different personalities that just don't mesh well with the assembly line educational system.
My little brother is strong willed and quite rambunctious. However, he certainly can concentrate when he wants to (certain subjects), and he can stay calm when he is dealt with in certain ways or when he is focused. He has a vivid imagination and he is very expressive, and it seems like teachers are more likely to try to get him drugged and sitting in a corner than to try to guide him or learn how to deal with him.
I think it's important for ADHD kids to learn to deal with their differences (note: imho ADHD is not a disorder, or a problem, or a deficiency, we're just a particular set of personality traits that do not do well in modern social norms that require most people to sit still and perform repetitive tasks all day every day) without medication.
There is at least one personality researcher that believes the same thing. I believe I heard David Keirsey refer to these types of medications as behavioral modification through narcotherapy, and claimed that there is a strong correlation between personality types and the diagnosis of ADD/ADHD.
This is basically what I was fishing for. If you don't like the product, don't buy it. Furthermore, you can feel free to say that it's bad taste.
But when he says it's not about freedom but sensitivity and taste, I wonder what he is really getting at. If he just wants to get that off his chest, fine. However if he feels that something should be done about it (aside from criticism and not buying it), then that's where we part company.
Hell, the criticism of it is probably just fueling interest anyway.
Except this has absolutely nothing to do with freedom, but rather good taste and a little sensitivity towards their target market (unless they're planning on selling this game in Afghanistan).
If everyone had the same opinions, had the same beliefs, were offended by the same things, agreed with everything that everyone else said, and had a universal sense of taste and sensitivity, we wouldn't need the First Amendment in the first place! Freedom of speech isn't the freedom for people to say things that you agree with and find palatable.
If it has nothing to do with freedom, then what are you suggesting should be done?
I've been involved with tech support, and have been asked for help from family and friends. Many non-computer savvy people see these registrations and think that they are *supposed* to use their email address password there. When people (including my mother) have asked me for help to setup for random online accounts where they give their Yahoo email address (for example), they frequently ask, "so I should put my yahoo password in here?"
Even if they realize it's a second password, they will often use the same one anyway, which is often something as simple as their own first name in all lowercase. I told one family member that this was a very bad idea, and that good passwords are a combination of letters and numbers, so she began adding 123 to the end of her passwords...
These people don't realize how some accounts *can* be abused. Sure, many of us take security for things like social media sites less seriously, but don't forget that having an insecure Facebook account opens the door for someone getting access to your account and bombarding everyone you know with things like porn spam, phishing schemes, links to infect people with malware, people posing as you to commit fraud (such as posing as you to ask people for financial assistance for some personal emergency), or social sabotage.
Passwords are a mess, in general. Only a small minority exercise proper password security practices, there are too many sites that require passwords, and even those that of us that want to practice good password security (and realize the importance of it) are burdened with the mess of having 30 different logins and passwords for different sites.
Why isn't the iPad designed for creating things, exactly? Who started this myth?
Apple?
I've always gotten the impression that they didn't "design" it for anything in particular, but rather just gave it some features, form factor, and their trendy phone OS, and hoped it would find a niche in the trendy gadgets market. It's worked pretty well for them.
Was it not true that initially there was much head-scratching, trying to figure out what role the IPod was supposed to fill? No matter what market (that it's form and function would suggest) was considered, it seemed the IPad came up lacking in every comparison, except in the trendy effect. From what I've seen, it was designed to be a cool gadget that hopefully users would figure out how to do something useful with, despite the (often intentional) limitations.
That isn't to say that there isn't a market for trendy gadgets, because obviously there is. That also isn't to say that people haven't managed to use it for creating things, they have.
However to suggest it was "designed" for creating, rather than consuming (within their walled garden), seems quite a stretch. I don't even recall Apple pitching that.
I'm glad to see more competition in this market place. I'm not too fond of the IPad, but more competition ultimately increases the likelihood of consumers getting products in general, whether they are from Apple or a competitor. There's a lot that the competition can learn from Apple, and I believe there will be a lot that Apple can learn from the competition as well.
Still, how many, if any, of the 82% who pirated World of Goo would have bought it on their own?
Well, at least one...
I pirated it, tried it, really liked it. I believe I ended up paying $10 or $15 once there was a special deal for it. I haven't even played (or even reinstalled) since I bought it again, but some of us definitely do buy games after trying them out.
On another note, I also pirated Civ 4 (during a time where I was having trouble finding a job and couldn't afford to buy it if I wanted to). I played it for a good year on the pirated version probably. Maybe two years.
However, once my financial situation improved, I bought Civ 4 and both expansions so I could be legitimate and give them a small bit of profit of deserved profit.
In addition, I even bought all these games a second time off of Steam, because it was on sale and I decided, "what the hell. This way I don't have to worry about finding the CDs when I play." In this case, not only did I buy a game that I pirated, I bought it twice.
So if I wrote a book about this, should I call it "The 129,864,880 Books That You Must Read Before You Die", or "The 129,864,881 Books That You Must Read Before You Die"?
It's been my observation that Civ4 helped reinvigorate the franchise, and I believe the customization and modability had a lot to do with it. I actually have purchased the entire Civ4 series (with the 2 expansions) twice. Once retail, and a 2nd time during a Steam Sale so I don't have to worry about finding the CDs.
Civ4 took a lot of ideas from Civ3, and really polished them. They also got rid of some of the blatant cheap exploits that were possible in Civ3, and included multiplayer right out of the gate (rather than requiring an expansion).
I had one of those cards when Civ4 came out 5 years ago... and it was awful even way back then. I bet you could find a much better card for less than $30 now.
I see. I was unaware of any "long-running religious flamewar" regarding anything that you wrote, and would have never have imagined that such ideas would be considered trolling...
However, I still don't necessarily see controversial ideas as being inherently trolling. Also, without being aware of any baggage regarding the ideas, I personally did find them very interesting.
I have learned my lesson today. Trolling on Slashdot apparently can be a lot more technical and subtle than I would have imagined.
Wait, what!? You are saying that the post before mine deserved being modded a troll, when it provides new ideas and arguments that apply to the side discussion, but then address moderators and tell them to not jump the gun and mod something as off topic when it provides new information on a side discussion?
Which is it?
This is the first time that I've seen someone claiming that space is curved and that some parts of the universe have effectively lost to us is modded as a troll... and defended as a troll.
Maybe astrophysicists have a difference sense of netiquette than the rest of us..
The idea of tracing lines in space is what got my attention as well. It's as if previous posters have forgotten that Euclidean geometry breaks down when you start talking about the universe.
First of all, didn't they say that the reputation would be determined by "cooperating good guys"? Since when has Comcast ever been described as "cooperative", or "good"?;-)
But seriously, reputations aren't usually vetoes where one person can blackball a server, are they? I would imagine that they would realize that it would be a waste of time, given that all of the other "good guys" would collectively carry too much weight for one entity to effectively sabotage.
I also imagine that they'd realize that this would be a good way to lose credibility as a "good guy", and maybe have it revoked.
Hopefully the same principal would apply on the other end if a "non-good guy" gets in the system in order to push bad sites.
I seriously doubt it will be a magic bullet, but it might help.
Actually, the fact we forget is the very reason we end up reliving the same nightmares over and over again. I'll forgo the foray into politics...
Oh now, there's at least a little difference between forgetting the history regarding atrocities committed by a ruthless fascist dictator, and forgetting some trivial details regarding a video game.
Also, "non-creationist" doesn't work because they're only disagreeing with a subset of non-creationists (and they don't claim to be creationists, but whatever). "Non-intelligent designer" doesn't work either because it's non-standard, bulky, and doesn't denote a specific positive belief.
What? Are you implying that not all ID'ers aren't creationists now?
ID is nothing but dressed up creationism. It was started by creationists. It is supported by creationists. It's nothing more than an attempt to try to make creationism sound more valid through the use of pseudoscience, propaganda, logical fallacies, and misinformation.
The creation of the term "intelligent design" is purely politically motivated, in order to avoid the stigma of "creationism". For example, the book Of Pandas and People supposedly replaced forms of the word "creationism" within it's early drafts with the term "intelligent design."
"Evolutionist" is nothing but a politically loaded term. It's used to try to imply that it represents a mere subset of scientists, and to imply that it's a matter of "faith", not based on scientific principals.
It's the same reason they like to refer to "the *belief* in Evolution". It is also very much like emphasizing the use of the word "Theory" in "Theory of Evolution" (and twisting the scientific meaning of the word to a mainstream non-scientific meaning). It's all about spin.
Let me share that I was raised Christian. I was taught to be skeptical of evolution by both my home and church. However, one of the biggest things that turned me against my upbringing was the question, "if these guys have such a strong case, why must they resort to misinformation, half-truths, and spin in order to try to convince people?"
Slashdot Mirror
In Russia?
Listen, I remember a show on Americans on television accusing Russia of having a weather altering device about 15 years ago (following a year we had a lot of reported weather activity. I don't recall what year or what weather events occurred, except that it was a year that many potatoes were ruined by floods in the Midwest.
If the kid doesn't have ADHD, the drugs will likely do the exact opposite.
Does it though?
I've also have read some who have said that the reason that a stimulant helps calm these kids down is because it actually fatigues them (due to the stimulation and resulting poorer sleep quality).
I definitely believe it's being over-prescribed, and I am not completely sure that this is an actual real diagnosis or not. I am at least skeptical and entertain some of the ideas of critics.
I grew up too late to be diagnosed with ADD, or I probably would have. Instead, I had teachers who recommended that I have my hearing checked and thought I might have had hearing impairment. I saw a doctor when I was a kid and he told my parents, "I think he's just bored in school."
Yeah, I have a much younger adopted brother who was diagnosed (much to my dismay) with ADD/ADHD. I honestly believe that most (if not all) of these diagnoses are simply a matter of some kids have different learning styles and different personalities that just don't mesh well with the assembly line educational system.
My little brother is strong willed and quite rambunctious. However, he certainly can concentrate when he wants to (certain subjects), and he can stay calm when he is dealt with in certain ways or when he is focused. He has a vivid imagination and he is very expressive, and it seems like teachers are more likely to try to get him drugged and sitting in a corner than to try to guide him or learn how to deal with him.
I think it's important for ADHD kids to learn to deal with their differences (note: imho ADHD is not a disorder, or a problem, or a deficiency, we're just a particular set of personality traits that do not do well in modern social norms that require most people to sit still and perform repetitive tasks all day every day) without medication.
There is at least one personality researcher that believes the same thing. I believe I heard David Keirsey refer to these types of medications as behavioral modification through narcotherapy, and claimed that there is a strong correlation between personality types and the diagnosis of ADD/ADHD.
He has an interesting article on his site called Drugged Obedience: http://www.keirsey.com/drugged_ob.aspx
you don't infringe copyright inadvertently
Tell that to George Harrison.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Sweet_Lord#Legal_controversy
This is basically what I was fishing for. If you don't like the product, don't buy it. Furthermore, you can feel free to say that it's bad taste.
But when he says it's not about freedom but sensitivity and taste, I wonder what he is really getting at. If he just wants to get that off his chest, fine. However if he feels that something should be done about it (aside from criticism and not buying it), then that's where we part company.
Hell, the criticism of it is probably just fueling interest anyway.
Except this has absolutely nothing to do with freedom, but rather good taste and a little sensitivity towards their target market (unless they're planning on selling this game in Afghanistan).
If everyone had the same opinions, had the same beliefs, were offended by the same things, agreed with everything that everyone else said, and had a universal sense of taste and sensitivity, we wouldn't need the First Amendment in the first place! Freedom of speech isn't the freedom for people to say things that you agree with and find palatable.
If it has nothing to do with freedom, then what are you suggesting should be done?
I've been involved with tech support, and have been asked for help from family and friends. Many non-computer savvy people see these registrations and think that they are *supposed* to use their email address password there. When people (including my mother) have asked me for help to setup for random online accounts where they give their Yahoo email address (for example), they frequently ask, "so I should put my yahoo password in here?"
Even if they realize it's a second password, they will often use the same one anyway, which is often something as simple as their own first name in all lowercase. I told one family member that this was a very bad idea, and that good passwords are a combination of letters and numbers, so she began adding 123 to the end of her passwords...
These people don't realize how some accounts *can* be abused. Sure, many of us take security for things like social media sites less seriously, but don't forget that having an insecure Facebook account opens the door for someone getting access to your account and bombarding everyone you know with things like porn spam, phishing schemes, links to infect people with malware, people posing as you to commit fraud (such as posing as you to ask people for financial assistance for some personal emergency), or social sabotage.
Passwords are a mess, in general. Only a small minority exercise proper password security practices, there are too many sites that require passwords, and even those that of us that want to practice good password security (and realize the importance of it) are burdened with the mess of having 30 different logins and passwords for different sites.
TURTLE.NET?
(or if you prefer, LOGO.NET).
Why isn't the iPad designed for creating things, exactly? Who started this myth?
Apple?
I've always gotten the impression that they didn't "design" it for anything in particular, but rather just gave it some features, form factor, and their trendy phone OS, and hoped it would find a niche in the trendy gadgets market. It's worked pretty well for them.
Was it not true that initially there was much head-scratching, trying to figure out what role the IPod was supposed to fill? No matter what market (that it's form and function would suggest) was considered, it seemed the IPad came up lacking in every comparison, except in the trendy effect. From what I've seen, it was designed to be a cool gadget that hopefully users would figure out how to do something useful with, despite the (often intentional) limitations.
That isn't to say that there isn't a market for trendy gadgets, because obviously there is. That also isn't to say that people haven't managed to use it for creating things, they have.
However to suggest it was "designed" for creating, rather than consuming (within their walled garden), seems quite a stretch. I don't even recall Apple pitching that.
I'm glad to see more competition in this market place. I'm not too fond of the IPad, but more competition ultimately increases the likelihood of consumers getting products in general, whether they are from Apple or a competitor. There's a lot that the competition can learn from Apple, and I believe there will be a lot that Apple can learn from the competition as well.
If it's good enough for D&D adventurers, it's good enough for cavemen!
Still, how many, if any, of the 82% who pirated World of Goo would have bought it on their own?
Well, at least one...
I pirated it, tried it, really liked it. I believe I ended up paying $10 or $15 once there was a special deal for it. I haven't even played (or even reinstalled) since I bought it again, but some of us definitely do buy games after trying them out.
On another note, I also pirated Civ 4 (during a time where I was having trouble finding a job and couldn't afford to buy it if I wanted to). I played it for a good year on the pirated version probably. Maybe two years.
However, once my financial situation improved, I bought Civ 4 and both expansions so I could be legitimate and give them a small bit of profit of deserved profit.
In addition, I even bought all these games a second time off of Steam, because it was on sale and I decided, "what the hell. This way I don't have to worry about finding the CDs when I play." In this case, not only did I buy a game that I pirated, I bought it twice.
So if I wrote a book about this, should I call it "The 129,864,880 Books That You Must Read Before You Die", or "The 129,864,881 Books That You Must Read Before You Die"?
It's been my observation that Civ4 helped reinvigorate the franchise, and I believe the customization and modability had a lot to do with it. I actually have purchased the entire Civ4 series (with the 2 expansions) twice. Once retail, and a 2nd time during a Steam Sale so I don't have to worry about finding the CDs.
Civ4 took a lot of ideas from Civ3, and really polished them. They also got rid of some of the blatant cheap exploits that were possible in Civ3, and included multiplayer right out of the gate (rather than requiring an expansion).
When is the last time a game has been slowed down by AI, rather than graphics?
I had one of those cards when Civ4 came out 5 years ago... and it was awful even way back then. I bet you could find a much better card for less than $30 now.
I see. I was unaware of any "long-running religious flamewar" regarding anything that you wrote, and would have never have imagined that such ideas would be considered trolling...
However, I still don't necessarily see controversial ideas as being inherently trolling. Also, without being aware of any baggage regarding the ideas, I personally did find them very interesting.
I have learned my lesson today. Trolling on Slashdot apparently can be a lot more technical and subtle than I would have imagined.
Wait, what!? You are saying that the post before mine deserved being modded a troll, when it provides new ideas and arguments that apply to the side discussion, but then address moderators and tell them to not jump the gun and mod something as off topic when it provides new information on a side discussion?
Which is it?
This is the first time that I've seen someone claiming that space is curved and that some parts of the universe have effectively lost to us is modded as a troll... and defended as a troll.
Maybe astrophysicists have a difference sense of netiquette than the rest of us..
I don't understand mods here sometimes...
The idea of tracing lines in space is what got my attention as well. It's as if previous posters have forgotten that Euclidean geometry breaks down when you start talking about the universe.
First of all, didn't they say that the reputation would be determined by "cooperating good guys"? Since when has Comcast ever been described as "cooperative", or "good"? ;-)
But seriously, reputations aren't usually vetoes where one person can blackball a server, are they? I would imagine that they would realize that it would be a waste of time, given that all of the other "good guys" would collectively carry too much weight for one entity to effectively sabotage.
I also imagine that they'd realize that this would be a good way to lose credibility as a "good guy", and maybe have it revoked.
Hopefully the same principal would apply on the other end if a "non-good guy" gets in the system in order to push bad sites.
I seriously doubt it will be a magic bullet, but it might help.
Actually, the fact we forget is the very reason we end up reliving the same nightmares over and over again. I'll forgo the foray into politics...
Oh now, there's at least a little difference between forgetting the history regarding atrocities committed by a ruthless fascist dictator, and forgetting some trivial details regarding a video game.
When D's are outlawed, only outlaws will have D's!
I've never been a fan of deus ex machina.
Also, "non-creationist" doesn't work because they're only disagreeing with a subset of non-creationists (and they don't claim to be creationists, but whatever). "Non-intelligent designer" doesn't work either because it's non-standard, bulky, and doesn't denote a specific positive belief.
What? Are you implying that not all ID'ers aren't creationists now?
ID is nothing but dressed up creationism. It was started by creationists. It is supported by creationists. It's nothing more than an attempt to try to make creationism sound more valid through the use of pseudoscience, propaganda, logical fallacies, and misinformation.
The creation of the term "intelligent design" is purely politically motivated, in order to avoid the stigma of "creationism". For example, the book Of Pandas and People supposedly replaced forms of the word "creationism" within it's early drafts with the term "intelligent design."
"Evolutionist" is nothing but a politically loaded term. It's used to try to imply that it represents a mere subset of scientists, and to imply that it's a matter of "faith", not based on scientific principals.
It's the same reason they like to refer to "the *belief* in Evolution". It is also very much like emphasizing the use of the word "Theory" in "Theory of Evolution" (and twisting the scientific meaning of the word to a mainstream non-scientific meaning). It's all about spin.
Let me share that I was raised Christian. I was taught to be skeptical of evolution by both my home and church. However, one of the biggest things that turned me against my upbringing was the question, "if these guys have such a strong case, why must they resort to misinformation, half-truths, and spin in order to try to convince people?"