Seriously, in the first 18 posts I at least 5 times read the above expression
I think they are trying to prove the causation with further studies: e.g. after reading 5 of the same boring post, you die => causation.
Sorry that I blew away my mod-points by trying to tell a few of them to RTFA. I keep forgetting it's pointless, I think there is some "correlation != causation" bots that just post this on all the stories.
And pass on all that cost to the possibly-unwilling taxpayer? I think not.
Well if it passes, I'm either paying the feds to maintain the data or my ISP to maintain the data so I don't really care.
Both of them will have access to the data...but I won't. I'm already grumpy that I lost my contacts on my old phone and the illegal wire trap program won't even talk about giving them back. When do I get to use the services I pay for?
Senator X was in the publics interest. It was Their interest to have him framed for downloading child porn. Y'know, Them with the capital T's interest.
for how much they go after the child pornography viewers...is it really that much of a problem?
If you like to fantasize about something you'll try to do it in RL. Police needs to be stop crimes they know are going to happen before they happen. We already take down people for conspiracy to commit and isn't fapping to thoughts of sexing up kids conspiring to sex up kids?
Anyway, thats the gist of the "get the consumers, not the producers" argument I've heard. It sounds more convincing when told by someone who believes it.
I don't even trust myself. It's possible that I could have multiple personalities, some of them malicious.
Fortunately I do not build my own computer systems from scratch.
Yes you do.
You designed your current CPU and wrote your operating system before submitting it to its current distributer. At some point you must have predicted the future horrors that your genius will one day commit against humanity and mind-wiped yourself.
Soon, the messages and tools you hid in there will surface and force you to carry out the dreadful mission you thought you escaped!
Same thing would happen if a piece of equipment had hidden malware in it, someone would notice the suspicious traffic and trace it back to the source.
Well it depends, if the malware was often active and eavesdropping, then I'm sure we would notice.
I was thinking someone would put a kill-code into products. Then at the beggining of an attack or diplomatic "FU!" (NYSE fails or something) all such equipment would malfunction, Y'know, like the Cylon attack from BSG?
I think this could only occur as a Dr. Strangelove scenario that we could trace back to one advisor/scapegoat who did it in supposed secrececy to the rest of his goverment.
I know you all speak English, but does 'Supreme' mean something different in Australia? I mean, if someone says that this burger is of "supreme" quality, you can come back and say that yours is of 'High" quality and trump him?
"Supreme court" refers to specific legal bodies in the US that it does not refer to in Australia. So yeah, "supreme court" means something different when speaking of those countries and will make a difference as to what the implications of the ruling are.
This court is indeed supreme for this decision (like your hamburger but not like the pizza) but is merely a federal court as far as appeals go.
Well if you want to be pedantic about it your right. But the word 'depression' is used. Its a general term that covers a wide range of states, from mild dissatisfaction to walking through a school yard with a semi auto. So I stand by my original post and laugh at the stick poking out your mouth.
Ok I'm pedantic, but moderate to severe depression as shown on the Beck Depression Inventory which was used is not the same as "depresion."
Further, if the researchers where overeager to inflate the scores of the BDI tests, why didn't that increase show up in the non-internet addicts?
Guess I'm pedantic, but I'm not going to dismiss research based on someone's misinterpretations of scientific terms.
How about: Awareness of the world makes people more depressed.
True for many, but it doesn't serve as a warning sign. People that live in the world are no more or less depressed than, uh...whatever.
Internet addiction has now been shown to have a link with depression, something we can use to identify those that need help. Actually useful information there.
They don't know! Thats what TFA says TWICE! Also why they don't say so in the summary and you need us to get that from the article for you.
Didn't RTFA
Thanks for admitting that though, there are long debates going on above where no one has read the article cept for my little addendum comments like this one.
BTW peoples this article is less than a page long.
You go submit that abstract to a peer reviewed journal and see how far it goes.
And researchers apparently aren't smart enough to realize...
The researchers found an interesting correlation that they would like to do further research and case studies on to see if people's (your) proposed reasons are true, instead of being all "smart enough" to give the dozens of posible explanations that they haven't yet tested.
(A & B) => ((A => B) | (B => A)) i.e. if two things are correlated, then one causes the other
k, but you missed at least the case of (C=>A)&(C=>B) In that case neither causes the other even though A&B tends to be true.
Also consider that life isn't always as cut and dry as your formal logic; The article makes the following logical statement: (A & sometimes B, well enough B that we think there should be further research anyway).
A general dissatisfaction with life seems to be one of the hallmarks of humanity and that is a good thing.
I agree, but a general dissatisfaction with life is not moderate to severe depression. It's a debilitating disorder with real symptoms beyond looking for entertainment.
Hell every person I know who goes out bar hoping to get laid would be classified as 'depressed' by these researchers
What? Did they get diagnosed with moderate to severe depression? Otherwise, no, these researchers would not classify them as having moderate to severe depression.
Hold on, this article is talking about kids giving each other wedgies. When I met a really uppity kid in school I'd give him a wedgie and hope he reflects on the fact that he was being really annoying before getting that wedgie.
Getting prison shanked is a pretty big leap from there, but still, you say someones head looks like your poop or you follow them around singing that damn song that never ends, maybe you could use some social skills to prevent that from happening again?
As someone who had a reputation for beating the snot out of kids who did not "know social norms" for a few years (I took my beatings later), I have to say, If a third grader responds to "You're using a shovel and Timmy wants to use a shovel, what do you do?" with "I tell Timmy I'm smarter than him and my dad makes infinity times more money than his dad and so Timmy should go play with the dumb kids." Well, that kid is gonna be the victim frequently, until he wises up or gets some counseling.
You can't stop all bullying, but the repeat victim help they are talking about here seems like it might really help some kids.
this study is bs. some kids like myself late 80s mid 90s back when being computer smart = nerd would of course get me targeted by bully's.. not because i lacked any social factor but because rather then be a jock and fit in i kerned electronics.. of course a led pipe later the bully's knew not to mess with me.
Yeah, I was smarter and better looking than all the other kids too. Thats why I got bullied, because I was too awesome. I have no possible defects so that could not have contributed. Nope, I was just too awesome.
I mostly hate how all/.'s assume they know better than those "crazy dumb shits out there" when they themselves admit knowing little information
Dude, your opinion is the issue I have with all my uneducated friends; they think that because they are loud and confident in their opinions taken right from the opinions of todays *cough* fox *cough* news broadcast, they are right and a well supported argument is poor if the presenter knows so little about the issue aside from being able to cite a few studies done by supposed experts.
I think an intelligent person would admit where their expertise ends. Instead of say, throwing out half a dozen supposed factoids to compose a comment that reads like a bad chain email.
I suppose your point was that if the scanners are there for security, which you value more than genital privacy.
I think his point was that he's grumpy about them dumping the porn mags out of his carry on, searching through his dirty undies, perhaps pocketing anything valuable and demanding that he prove his need for extra-dandruff preventative shampoo. Some dude glancing at his junk doesn't seem to be an increased invasion to him.
More or less agreed. The real question is, what are they gonna do if after implementing these scanners internationally if someone else manages to get an explosive on a plane again? I mean...after body scanning, where do you go?
Full cavity searches for everyone!
If thats not scary enough; what do you suppose they are gonna do when that fails?
You had nothing to hide. Privacy didn't affect you. Until some goon started to look at your balls when you board a plane... lol.
Sorry everybody, but I find it more disturbing that my every move is recorded and stored than that some person checks my genitals. The genitals are pretty much the same for everybody - my travels, my bank account, my posts online, my phone conversations - those are things that make me unique. Those matter far more.
I totally agree, but if genitals are what gets people riled up about my privacy when none of that other stuff will, then I'll tell them "THE GOVERNMENT IS COMING FOR YOUR GENITALS!" I don't care about some dude glancing at my junk in a professional context but if people who do care want to improve my privacy, more genitals to them.
why bother going for a plane, there are more people waiting in the queues than in any plane.
SSHHHH!
If you point that out then we are going to be screened before we can get in line to be screened, and then you'll point out that someone could light their pants on fire in the prescreen line and we'll have to be prescreened to be prescreened to be screened. And then you'll point... just SHHHHH!
Slashdot Mirror
Limited activities due to cardiovascular problems help cause boredom unless you're a computer geek.
Patient: "Doctor, I'm bored." /."
Doctor: "Oh No! Thats a life threatening illness! I prescribe
Seriously, in the first 18 posts I at least 5 times read the above expression
I think they are trying to prove the causation with further studies: e.g. after reading 5 of the same boring post, you die => causation.
Sorry that I blew away my mod-points by trying to tell a few of them to RTFA. I keep forgetting it's pointless, I think there is some "correlation != causation" bots that just post this on all the stories.
Exactly. Off the top of my head I can think of several things...
Kinda like the reasons they suggest for the correlation in TFA?
correlation is found to not be causation.
I see that comment so often it bores me.
Ow...ow, chest pain...numb left arm...aaaaghgghgh!!!!
And pass on all that cost to the possibly-unwilling taxpayer? I think not.
Well if it passes, I'm either paying the feds to maintain the data or my ISP to maintain the data so I don't really care.
Both of them will have access to the data...but I won't. I'm already grumpy that I lost my contacts on my old phone and the illegal wire trap program won't even talk about giving them back. When do I get to use the services I pay for?
Senator X was in the publics interest. It was Their interest to have him framed for downloading child porn. Y'know, Them with the capital T's interest.
for how much they go after the child pornography viewers...is it really that much of a problem?
If you like to fantasize about something you'll try to do it in RL. Police needs to be stop crimes they know are going to happen before they happen. We already take down people for conspiracy to commit and isn't fapping to thoughts of sexing up kids conspiring to sex up kids?
Anyway, thats the gist of the "get the consumers, not the producers" argument I've heard. It sounds more convincing when told by someone who believes it.
I don't even trust myself. It's possible that I could have multiple personalities, some of them malicious.
Fortunately I do not build my own computer systems from scratch.
Yes you do.
You designed your current CPU and wrote your operating system before submitting it to its current distributer. At some point you must have predicted the future horrors that your genius will one day commit against humanity and mind-wiped yourself.
Soon, the messages and tools you hid in there will surface and force you to carry out the dreadful mission you thought you escaped!
Same thing would happen if a piece of equipment had hidden malware in it, someone would notice the suspicious traffic and trace it back to the source.
Well it depends, if the malware was often active and eavesdropping, then I'm sure we would notice.
I was thinking someone would put a kill-code into products. Then at the beggining of an attack or diplomatic "FU!" (NYSE fails or something) all such equipment would malfunction, Y'know, like the Cylon attack from BSG?
I think this could only occur as a Dr. Strangelove scenario that we could trace back to one advisor/scapegoat who did it in supposed secrececy to the rest of his goverment.
I know you all speak English, but does 'Supreme' mean something different in Australia? I mean, if someone says that this burger is of "supreme" quality, you can come back and say that yours is of 'High" quality and trump him?
"Supreme court" refers to specific legal bodies in the US that it does not refer to in Australia. So yeah, "supreme court" means something different when speaking of those countries and will make a difference as to what the implications of the ruling are.
This court is indeed supreme for this decision (like your hamburger but not like the pizza) but is merely a federal court as far as appeals go.
Well if you want to be pedantic about it your right. But the word 'depression' is used. Its a general term that covers a wide range of states, from mild dissatisfaction to walking through a school yard with a semi auto. So I stand by my original post and laugh at the stick poking out your mouth.
Ok I'm pedantic, but moderate to severe depression as shown on the Beck Depression Inventory which was used is not the same as "depresion."
Further, if the researchers where overeager to inflate the scores of the BDI tests, why didn't that increase show up in the non-internet addicts?
Guess I'm pedantic, but I'm not going to dismiss research based on someone's misinterpretations of scientific terms.
How about: Awareness of the world makes people more depressed.
True for many, but it doesn't serve as a warning sign. People that live in the world are no more or less depressed than, uh...whatever.
Internet addiction has now been shown to have a link with depression, something we can use to identify those that need help. Actually useful information there.
Cause or effect?
They don't know! Thats what TFA says TWICE! Also why they don't say so in the summary and you need us to get that from the article for you.
Didn't RTFA
Thanks for admitting that though, there are long debates going on above where no one has read the article cept for my little addendum comments like this one.
BTW peoples this article is less than a page long.
You go submit that abstract to a peer reviewed journal and see how far it goes.
And researchers apparently aren't smart enough to realize...
The researchers found an interesting correlation that they would like to do further research and case studies on to see if people's (your) proposed reasons are true, instead of being all "smart enough" to give the dozens of posible explanations that they haven't yet tested.
Worth repeating: correlation is not always causation
Not really since TFA said it, what, 3 times?
The article made really clear the vague connection in the summery is just a vague connection that warrants further research.
(A & B) => ((A => B) | (B => A))
i.e. if two things are correlated, then one causes the other
k, but you missed at least the case of (C=>A)&(C=>B) In that case neither causes the other even though A&B tends to be true.
Also consider that life isn't always as cut and dry as your formal logic; The article makes the following logical statement:
(A & sometimes B, well enough B that we think there should be further research anyway).
A general dissatisfaction with life seems to be one of the hallmarks of humanity and that is a good thing.
I agree, but a general dissatisfaction with life is not moderate to severe depression. It's a debilitating disorder with real symptoms beyond looking for entertainment.
Hell every person I know who goes out bar hoping to get laid would be classified as 'depressed' by these researchers
What? Did they get diagnosed with moderate to severe depression? Otherwise, no, these researchers would not classify them as having moderate to severe depression.
Hold on, this article is talking about kids giving each other wedgies. When I met a really uppity kid in school I'd give him a wedgie and hope he reflects on the fact that he was being really annoying before getting that wedgie.
Getting prison shanked is a pretty big leap from there, but still, you say someones head looks like your poop or you follow them around singing that damn song that never ends, maybe you could use some social skills to prevent that from happening again?
As someone who had a reputation for beating the snot out of kids who did not "know social norms" for a few years (I took my beatings later), I have to say, If a third grader responds to "You're using a shovel and Timmy wants to use a shovel, what do you do?" with "I tell Timmy I'm smarter than him and my dad makes infinity times more money than his dad and so Timmy should go play with the dumb kids." Well, that kid is gonna be the victim frequently, until he wises up or gets some counseling.
You can't stop all bullying, but the repeat victim help they are talking about here seems like it might really help some kids.
this study is bs. some kids like myself late 80s mid 90s back when being computer smart = nerd would of course get me targeted by bully's.. not because i lacked any social factor but because rather then be a jock and fit in i kerned electronics.. of course a led pipe later the bully's knew not to mess with me.
Yeah, I was smarter and better looking than all the other kids too. Thats why I got bullied, because I was too awesome. I have no possible defects so that could not have contributed. Nope, I was just too awesome.
I mostly hate how all /.'s assume they know better than those "crazy dumb shits out there" when they themselves admit knowing little information
Dude, your opinion is the issue I have with all my uneducated friends; they think that because they are loud and confident in their opinions taken right from the opinions of todays *cough* fox *cough* news broadcast, they are right and a well supported argument is poor if the presenter knows so little about the issue aside from being able to cite a few studies done by supposed experts.
I think an intelligent person would admit where their expertise ends. Instead of say, throwing out half a dozen supposed factoids to compose a comment that reads like a bad chain email.
I suppose your point was that if the scanners are there for security, which you value more than genital privacy.
I think his point was that he's grumpy about them dumping the porn mags out of his carry on, searching through his dirty undies, perhaps pocketing anything valuable and demanding that he prove his need for extra-dandruff preventative shampoo. Some dude glancing at his junk doesn't seem to be an increased invasion to him.
More or less agreed. The real question is, what are they gonna do if after implementing these scanners internationally if someone else manages to get an explosive on a plane again? I mean...after body scanning, where do you go?
Full cavity searches for everyone!
If thats not scary enough; what do you suppose they are gonna do when that fails?
You had nothing to hide. Privacy didn't affect you.
Until some goon started to look at your balls when you board a plane... lol.
Sorry everybody, but I find it more disturbing that my every move is recorded and stored than that some person checks my genitals. The genitals are pretty much the same for everybody - my travels, my bank account, my posts online, my phone conversations - those are things that make me unique. Those matter far more.
I totally agree, but if genitals are what gets people riled up about my privacy when none of that other stuff will, then I'll tell them "THE GOVERNMENT IS COMING FOR YOUR GENITALS!" I don't care about some dude glancing at my junk in a professional context but if people who do care want to improve my privacy, more genitals to them.
why bother going for a plane, there are more people waiting in the queues than in any plane.
SSHHHH!
If you point that out then we are going to be screened before we can get in line to be screened, and then you'll point out that someone could light their pants on fire in the prescreen line and we'll have to be prescreened to be prescreened to be screened. And then you'll point... just SHHHHH!