There's no evidence that it removes pests any better than any other method, so that's not a reason, that's an excuse.
GMO is not closely watched, that is prohibited under the licensing agreements. As for the government, no, they obviously don't watch either, which is why destroyed stock ends up in the market place. They also don't have any competency, and the EPA has been practically shut down by Trump.
If you were my age, or with my background (which, interestingly, includes not only academia, science and farming, but technology as well), you'd have known better.
And, yes, I consider you a youngster if you don't remember the other methods used for pest control.
Given that it's talked about extensively, that's surprising. Given the WARRANTY file is distinct from the GPL or LICENSE file, your claim has no validity. Given that it's not autistic people who read EULAs, that's extremely phobic of you.
Congratulations, you manage to be wrong on multiple levels in a single insult. That requires considerable talent.
You hypothesize, you experiment, and then comes the bit that a lot of people struggle with - you LEARN. And then, the even harder bit, you don't repeat the mistakes.
GMO, as practiced in the early days, was a disastrous mistake.
GMO, as practiced now, is not peer-reviewed, is patented to prevent testing of claims, and is wrapped in trade secrets. That puts it closer to witchcraft than science.
GMO, as it could be done, would be properly and independently tested, peer-reviewed and would not involve non-specific toxins. Ideally, it wouldn't involve toxins at all. You can always increase yield and plant height. The former reduces the fraction of the crop lost and the latter reduces crop lost by weeds and ground pests. Most early varieties of wheat and corn grew much taller, so it's gene replacement therapy not GMO.
Rather stupid association. Vaccines are beneficial, GMO has yet to offer any significant benefit. Vaccines are peer-reviewed, GMO is not. Vaccines are not made with the sort of GMO that is of concern. Only a moron links unassociated issues. Don't be a moron.
Have these things called compilers. They can build the bloody SRPMs and then use those to build installable RPMs any time they bloody well like. That is the difference between Real Linux Users (who CHOOSE whether to wait or not, and who understand that their decision is a CHOICE) and those who believe that open source means you have to wait for a vendor.
I emphasize this again. There is nothing wrong with waiting. As long as it is a CHOICE. If you feel that it is sensible to wait, or that you don't want to take the time, that is perfectly fine. That is choosing. It is one of the three Great Powers that open source gives.
It was at the 300 Years of Gravity symposium. He was an incredibly cheerful guy.
The best bit of his lecture was when he said that whenever anyone predicted the death of physics, something new and exciting came along, so he was going to predict the end of physics in the hope of making this happen.
(Ok, CERN was a bit slow, but recent announcements from them suggest Stephen got his wish in his lifetime.)
My second favourite bit was during the Q&A for his lecture (never published as far as I know, it wasn't ready in time for the conference book). A guy was asking him if he had considered bouncing universes. The question was long and drawn out. Stephen cut him off with a curt "no" and left it at that.
Violating KISS principles got Intel and AMD into this mess. There's plenty of room on the die and they're quite capable of making SMP cheap and affordable. SMP is better than multicore because each core gets more cache and more bus. They deserve what they get and I have no sympathy.
Tools to verify the hardware description language exist, they can use simulators to test the hardware, if they are skimping on QA in order to cut costs, then they have no-one to blame but themselves.
You design it using something like VHDL, Verilog or SystemC. These are amenable to verification using theorem provers. Your compiler can be written using VST and verified. This will not produce a perfect product, you only demonstrate that the source and thus the low-level hardware description match the specification. However, specifications are much easier to prove correct than complex code.
You also use extreme programming methods. In other words, develop your test harness first and then develop to the test. This allows you to verify code correctness where a theorem is impossible or impractical.
Ok, so we have a system virtually identical to what hardware manufacturers use already, only perhaps changing the order of a few things and making sure the development tools produce what we expect. So how do we improve on that?
KISS it.
Complexity is the enemy of reliability, any engineer knows that.
You don't need one core that does absolutely everything. You don't need a complex instruction set. You can use a hybrid processor, something closer to the 486 or the Cell processor instead of a single unified core. And people should be using SMP as well as multicore to make better use of the bus anyway.
If Intel and AMD are unsure about criticality, they can look at SEL4, the same as the rest of us.
Ummm, that's a very stupid argument, I hope you realize.
Windows beat Linux because you can't play heavy games on Linux. And that's the only reason. You sure as hell can't play those games on a smartphone. First, it's running Linux, and second, it hasn't the power. It will never have the power because energy consumption goes up with the square of the CPU's abilities and batteries can't increase in capacity that fast.
Second, you can't do any decent wordprocessing in a phone or tablet, they're too prone to hanging, they don't have the screen and they still don't have the CPU to go beyond basics.
Third, the tablet market is collapsing because ebooks are crap and most people have now figured that out. Sales are way down and people are moving back to paper.
Fourth, the network speeds are too slow. It's fine in America, where 340 million suffer with barely faster than dial-up, but MOST OF THE WORLD is a damn sight faster and there are 6.7 billion of them. Rather a larger market. And they're expecting devices that can handle 10 gigabits per second to 400 gigabits per second, because to them that is NORMAL INTERNET SPEED. Smartphones and Tablets aren't capable.
Fifth, home users are used to 6-10 terabyte hard drives and SATA 3 speeds. That's NORMAL. When was the last time you bought a smartphone with a 10 terabyte SIM card?
Sixth, VR. You can't do CAVE or headsets on the USB port and, besides, it'll be needed for the charger to avoid setting the battery on fire.
Seventh, PCs don't explode. Smart phones and tablets DO. That's the problem with Li-Ion. And it can't be fixed, as "The Mouse" from Top Gear discovered.
Eighth, decent keyboard. A decent keyboard is faster and more effective than a touch screen, less vulnerable to false positives, less vulnerable to dirt and much more robust. Percussive maintenance on a PC keyboard won't shatter it. Try that on a cell phone and you end up with two half phones.
Ninth, HPC/Virtual Data Centre. Virtually all HPC these days is pile-of-pc style. That's why Intel's top Xeon processor is actually a good bet. As long as it doesn't have the same security bugs. When you're buying 100,000 PCs at a time, you ARE the market. The same goes for virtual data centres, such as Amazon's, or the system Google uses. Google buys vast numbers of commodity machines and plugs them together to form an incredibly high-end distributed system. Does anyone seriously think they're going to switch to a network of mobile phones? Higher cost for less power? That's not Google's approach.
Tenth, Programmers. Nobody programs phones on a phone. Nobody actually hacks the Android OS or the BIOS from the phone itself, simply because if you brick the phone you can't recover. They use a PC to do the programming and then upload, using JTAG where possible to unbrick. And most people program at least a little.
Eleventh, UI. The UIs for phones suck. They're badly designed, they're slow, they're unstable and they have to be that way because there aren't the resources to get them right and Android hasn't been ported to VST anyway.
Twelfth, real-time. Musicians, stage crew, roboticists, scientists, doctors, etc, need real-time. They either use an RTOS (FreeRTOS, VxWorks, RT-Linux) on a platform designed for heavy-duty real-time work (such as a VME crate) or they use a high-end PC that can get close enough. This is not something a Kindle can do.
Thirteenth, in honour of the new Doctor Who, there's SFX. How the hell does anyone think they could run Renderman, Maya or PoVRay on a cell phone? You can't stack up Kindles to create the effects for Titanic! For a start, those were high-end PCs running on a fast network. To get equivalent CPU power, you'd need enough Kindles to FILL the Titanic!
The total number of represented people in all these markets is so utterly overwhelming that if the world did abandon PCs, it would have to abandon civilization. You couldn't meet the requirements of any of them with any handheld device humanity will possess any time in the next hundred years. So unless you build an actual TARDIS, if you want a civilization, you're going to need the devices that keep it running.
You could have a school with a capacity of 100,000 where the average student had a BSc/BA by 18 and 15% had PhDs by then, and teachers and researchers were paid a decent salary, and run it for 40 years on the same money. That includes the cost of building it. The benefit to the economy would be infinitely greater than the train system, which should have been built for far, far less. Maybe set the design of its replacement to the kids.
Nothing wrong with regulation when it's done with the purpose of maximizing the space for everyone, fairly and reasonably, without imposing an unfair burden on those wishing to enter a market. In other words, regulation is about ensuring decency and fair play.
Unfortunately, that's not what Pad Thai is about. He wants a market that is run exclusively for the big players who are giving him lots of money, and nobody else. Users are of no importance, only money.
On the other hand, the FCC has openly stated it doesn't give a damn about treaties, obligations or laws, and can't be f'ed to regulate. Once they decided that was to be their firm policy, they lost the right to regulate.
Progress towards IPv6 reversed. Internet speeds on major links dropped. Multicast access declined. Key Internet infrastructure security declined. Bandwidth was siphoned off. Deep packet inspection by ISPs increased. Users were censored. This was previously illegal. Freedoms declined. For a country of the free, you seem damn eager to lose the freedom that really matters.
America went from being one of the best countries for Internet to, currently, being ranked alongside North Korea. American Internet is now one of the slowest but also one of the most expensive. Britain, in the 1990s, was slower than the US, it is now not only faster, it's cheaper. Sweden is hardly flat, unlike the Midwest. Swedish users get up to 400 gigabits per second. Yes, two zeros and a g. For a country that's mostly vertical cliffs and volcanic rock, that's not bad.
American ISPs aren't even required to provide what they sell. I pay for 50 mpbs and get 10. That is LEGAL under the Bush changes. I call it fraud. There are no competitors, because Comcast arranged a deal with them. Nobody enters the other person's turf. And, yes, this is from the engineers. That is flat-out illegal, companies may not work together to close a market like that or to threaten competitors who do enter the other person's turf - that falls under racketeering laws.
And that Comcast and Verizon lobbied against cooperatives such as Chattanooga and got a State Constitutional amendment banning cooperatives in Tennessee?
Sorry, but this is hardly the act of a corporation is fine with playing nice with others.
I'd rather see a move away from Google controlling the web. They already control HTTP/2.
The first question that needs to be asked is whether you want presentation to be controlled or for presentation to be guided.
If the former, if you want the page creator to be able to dictate how the page looks, then you want to be able to define windows on the display where a window contains fixed information (in which case use DVI) or it contains input, in which case you're running a client-side script - which should probably be byte-encoded. How about a language that uses bytecoding and is system independent? I know one, it begins with the letter J and sounds like coffee. All you need is to have the output be recognized as HTML and you can get rid of insecure crap.
If you want guided output, then you absolutely do not care if it's a mobile device or not. The author of the page has no business knowing or caring what browser you use or what display you use. They deliver information and your device handles the presentation. This means you get rid of CSS because you as the author should have no say in such things. The user gets to control it all.
If you've never worked at NASA Langley, or in other parts of the Hampton Roads area, you can sod off when it comes to northern Virginia, I was a damn sight more of the culture than someone who, by their own admission, is West Virginian (and thus, in Virginian eyes... well, you claim to know the culture so damn well, you tell me how those of us here see you)
The taxi driver series of studies needs explaining if this is true. (Taxi drivers exhibit a change in brain structure whilst acquiring The Knowledge, less intense professions show nothing, professions of similar intensity show similar gains. Because you can see before and after, it's possible to show the change taking place.)
If you can only explain a subset of the data, you have explained nothing.
Now, studies do indicate that 12 is an interesting year for the brain. The brain goes through various phases of development, consolidation and pruning in childhood. One cycle is between -3 months and 12. The second cycle is between 12 and 24, but it's it significant for highly intelligent kids on a brain food diet. Fast food would be toxic to this. So it's not shocking that current generation kids are missing this second phase.
Studies also indicate SSRIs work as much through neurogenesis as by serotonin levels, due to the latency involved. Without knowing if depressed people were specifically included, we can't know if the one case where you'd expect higher numbers to be showed up. The threshold might be too low in normal cases.
Agreed we have to solve this, and although I'm not convinced by the specific line you draw (Facebook does have access to either your location or whether you're blocking it, so can use finer-grained rules), I'd rather have you debating this and helping with developing the rules than almost anyone else because you ARE interested in a solution. A real solution.
There are plenty of people out there who are looking to poke holes in arguments or derail debate, but you've make some good points and you've a desire to see this sorted. That's a sadly rare quality.
I'm well aware of the complexity problem and it's incredibly frustrating. Usually, if there's an appearance of high complexity, there isn't. It only seems that way because it's insufficiently understood. Chaos theory showed that most complexity is an illusion, that simplicity is the order of the day, but that it might not be the simplicity anyone was expecting. The challenge is in finding the simplicity.
I'm perfectly happy with a standardized 18 across the globe until that question is addressed. Well, ok, I'll tolerate it, because the moderators on Facebook are going through hell and young users aren't exactly getting a thrill ride either. As long as it does get addressed some time, I'm not going to complain.
I live in Virginia, have done for quite some time. North and South Virginia. I'm not "outside".
Your reply assumes that because X misuses "obviously" in some arbitrary context, then Y must also be misusing it, even though you've bugger all evidence of that.
I was debating how to respond, but I think it's sufficient to say my karma ran over your dogma.
Slashdot Mirror
There's no evidence that it removes pests any better than any other method, so that's not a reason, that's an excuse.
GMO is not closely watched, that is prohibited under the licensing agreements. As for the government, no, they obviously don't watch either, which is why destroyed stock ends up in the market place. They also don't have any competency, and the EPA has been practically shut down by Trump.
If you were my age, or with my background (which, interestingly, includes not only academia, science and farming, but technology as well), you'd have known better.
And, yes, I consider you a youngster if you don't remember the other methods used for pest control.
Given that it's talked about extensively, that's surprising. Given the WARRANTY file is distinct from the GPL or LICENSE file, your claim has no validity. Given that it's not autistic people who read EULAs, that's extremely phobic of you.
Congratulations, you manage to be wrong on multiple levels in a single insult. That requires considerable talent.
You hypothesize, you experiment, and then comes the bit that a lot of people struggle with - you LEARN. And then, the even harder bit, you don't repeat the mistakes.
GMO, as practiced in the early days, was a disastrous mistake.
GMO, as practiced now, is not peer-reviewed, is patented to prevent testing of claims, and is wrapped in trade secrets. That puts it closer to witchcraft than science.
GMO, as it could be done, would be properly and independently tested, peer-reviewed and would not involve non-specific toxins. Ideally, it wouldn't involve toxins at all. You can always increase yield and plant height. The former reduces the fraction of the crop lost and the latter reduces crop lost by weeds and ground pests. Most early varieties of wheat and corn grew much taller, so it's gene replacement therapy not GMO.
Oh, and those buggers can get off my lawn!
Rather stupid association. Vaccines are beneficial, GMO has yet to offer any significant benefit. Vaccines are peer-reviewed, GMO is not. Vaccines are not made with the sort of GMO that is of concern. Only a moron links unassociated issues. Don't be a moron.
Oh, and get off my lawn.
You know that warranty clause in software that says that nothing is ever stable and will never be stable? It means it.
They have precisely e such developers in any given team. (Well, it's an irrational question, so of course you should expect an irrational answer!)
Have these things called compilers. They can build the bloody SRPMs and then use those to build installable RPMs any time they bloody well like. That is the difference between Real Linux Users (who CHOOSE whether to wait or not, and who understand that their decision is a CHOICE) and those who believe that open source means you have to wait for a vendor.
I emphasize this again. There is nothing wrong with waiting. As long as it is a CHOICE. If you feel that it is sensible to wait, or that you don't want to take the time, that is perfectly fine. That is choosing. It is one of the three Great Powers that open source gives.
It was at the 300 Years of Gravity symposium. He was an incredibly cheerful guy.
The best bit of his lecture was when he said that whenever anyone predicted the death of physics, something new and exciting came along, so he was going to predict the end of physics in the hope of making this happen.
(Ok, CERN was a bit slow, but recent announcements from them suggest Stephen got his wish in his lifetime.)
My second favourite bit was during the Q&A for his lecture (never published as far as I know, it wasn't ready in time for the conference book). A guy was asking him if he had considered bouncing universes. The question was long and drawn out. Stephen cut him off with a curt "no" and left it at that.
Violating KISS principles got Intel and AMD into this mess. There's plenty of room on the die and they're quite capable of making SMP cheap and affordable. SMP is better than multicore because each core gets more cache and more bus. They deserve what they get and I have no sympathy.
Tools to verify the hardware description language exist, they can use simulators to test the hardware, if they are skimping on QA in order to cut costs, then they have no-one to blame but themselves.
You design it using something like VHDL, Verilog or SystemC. These are amenable to verification using theorem provers. Your compiler can be written using VST and verified. This will not produce a perfect product, you only demonstrate that the source and thus the low-level hardware description match the specification. However, specifications are much easier to prove correct than complex code.
You also use extreme programming methods. In other words, develop your test harness first and then develop to the test. This allows you to verify code correctness where a theorem is impossible or impractical.
Ok, so we have a system virtually identical to what hardware manufacturers use already, only perhaps changing the order of a few things and making sure the development tools produce what we expect. So how do we improve on that?
KISS it.
Complexity is the enemy of reliability, any engineer knows that.
You don't need one core that does absolutely everything. You don't need a complex instruction set. You can use a hybrid processor, something closer to the 486 or the Cell processor instead of a single unified core. And people should be using SMP as well as multicore to make better use of the bus anyway.
If Intel and AMD are unsure about criticality, they can look at SEL4, the same as the rest of us.
Cutting the cables of rivals is also illegal, and Comcast has been in court for it.
Ummm, that's a very stupid argument, I hope you realize.
Windows beat Linux because you can't play heavy games on Linux. And that's the only reason. You sure as hell can't play those games on a smartphone. First, it's running Linux, and second, it hasn't the power. It will never have the power because energy consumption goes up with the square of the CPU's abilities and batteries can't increase in capacity that fast.
Second, you can't do any decent wordprocessing in a phone or tablet, they're too prone to hanging, they don't have the screen and they still don't have the CPU to go beyond basics.
Third, the tablet market is collapsing because ebooks are crap and most people have now figured that out. Sales are way down and people are moving back to paper.
Fourth, the network speeds are too slow. It's fine in America, where 340 million suffer with barely faster than dial-up, but MOST OF THE WORLD is a damn sight faster and there are 6.7 billion of them. Rather a larger market. And they're expecting devices that can handle 10 gigabits per second to 400 gigabits per second, because to them that is NORMAL INTERNET SPEED. Smartphones and Tablets aren't capable.
Fifth, home users are used to 6-10 terabyte hard drives and SATA 3 speeds. That's NORMAL. When was the last time you bought a smartphone with a 10 terabyte SIM card?
Sixth, VR. You can't do CAVE or headsets on the USB port and, besides, it'll be needed for the charger to avoid setting the battery on fire.
Seventh, PCs don't explode. Smart phones and tablets DO. That's the problem with Li-Ion. And it can't be fixed, as "The Mouse" from Top Gear discovered.
Eighth, decent keyboard. A decent keyboard is faster and more effective than a touch screen, less vulnerable to false positives, less vulnerable to dirt and much more robust. Percussive maintenance on a PC keyboard won't shatter it. Try that on a cell phone and you end up with two half phones.
Ninth, HPC/Virtual Data Centre. Virtually all HPC these days is pile-of-pc style. That's why Intel's top Xeon processor is actually a good bet. As long as it doesn't have the same security bugs. When you're buying 100,000 PCs at a time, you ARE the market. The same goes for virtual data centres, such as Amazon's, or the system Google uses. Google buys vast numbers of commodity machines and plugs them together to form an incredibly high-end distributed system. Does anyone seriously think they're going to switch to a network of mobile phones? Higher cost for less power? That's not Google's approach.
Tenth, Programmers. Nobody programs phones on a phone. Nobody actually hacks the Android OS or the BIOS from the phone itself, simply because if you brick the phone you can't recover. They use a PC to do the programming and then upload, using JTAG where possible to unbrick. And most people program at least a little.
Eleventh, UI. The UIs for phones suck. They're badly designed, they're slow, they're unstable and they have to be that way because there aren't the resources to get them right and Android hasn't been ported to VST anyway.
Twelfth, real-time. Musicians, stage crew, roboticists, scientists, doctors, etc, need real-time. They either use an RTOS (FreeRTOS, VxWorks, RT-Linux) on a platform designed for heavy-duty real-time work (such as a VME crate) or they use a high-end PC that can get close enough. This is not something a Kindle can do.
Thirteenth, in honour of the new Doctor Who, there's SFX. How the hell does anyone think they could run Renderman, Maya or PoVRay on a cell phone? You can't stack up Kindles to create the effects for Titanic! For a start, those were high-end PCs running on a fast network. To get equivalent CPU power, you'd need enough Kindles to FILL the Titanic!
The total number of represented people in all these markets is so utterly overwhelming that if the world did abandon PCs, it would have to abandon civilization. You couldn't meet the requirements of any of them with any handheld device humanity will possess any time in the next hundred years. So unless you build an actual TARDIS, if you want a civilization, you're going to need the devices that keep it running.
You could have a school with a capacity of 100,000 where the average student had a BSc/BA by 18 and 15% had PhDs by then, and teachers and researchers were paid a decent salary, and run it for 40 years on the same money. That includes the cost of building it. The benefit to the economy would be infinitely greater than the train system, which should have been built for far, far less. Maybe set the design of its replacement to the kids.
Nothing wrong with regulation when it's done with the purpose of maximizing the space for everyone, fairly and reasonably, without imposing an unfair burden on those wishing to enter a market. In other words, regulation is about ensuring decency and fair play.
Unfortunately, that's not what Pad Thai is about. He wants a market that is run exclusively for the big players who are giving him lots of money, and nobody else. Users are of no importance, only money.
The FCC are involved. Of course it's not been dealt with!
But they refuse to regulate anything else they're responsible for, unless big money is involved. Then they'll regulate.
On the other hand, the FCC has openly stated it doesn't give a damn about treaties, obligations or laws, and can't be f'ed to regulate. Once they decided that was to be their firm policy, they lost the right to regulate.
I certainly did.
Progress towards IPv6 reversed. Internet speeds on major links dropped. Multicast access declined. Key Internet infrastructure security declined. Bandwidth was siphoned off. Deep packet inspection by ISPs increased. Users were censored. This was previously illegal. Freedoms declined. For a country of the free, you seem damn eager to lose the freedom that really matters.
America went from being one of the best countries for Internet to, currently, being ranked alongside North Korea. American Internet is now one of the slowest but also one of the most expensive. Britain, in the 1990s, was slower than the US, it is now not only faster, it's cheaper. Sweden is hardly flat, unlike the Midwest. Swedish users get up to 400 gigabits per second. Yes, two zeros and a g. For a country that's mostly vertical cliffs and volcanic rock, that's not bad.
American ISPs aren't even required to provide what they sell. I pay for 50 mpbs and get 10. That is LEGAL under the Bush changes. I call it fraud. There are no competitors, because Comcast arranged a deal with them. Nobody enters the other person's turf. And, yes, this is from the engineers. That is flat-out illegal, companies may not work together to close a market like that or to threaten competitors who do enter the other person's turf - that falls under racketeering laws.
This is a criminal enterprise.
Until Bush rescinded it. And the Internet suffered when he did so. Badly.
The FCC chairman is not only corrupt but a liar. If he wants to play Venezuelan politics, deport him there.
For cutting cables of rivals?
And that Comcast and Verizon lobbied against cooperatives such as Chattanooga and got a State Constitutional amendment banning cooperatives in Tennessee?
Sorry, but this is hardly the act of a corporation is fine with playing nice with others.
I'd rather see a move away from Google controlling the web. They already control HTTP/2.
The first question that needs to be asked is whether you want presentation to be controlled or for presentation to be guided.
If the former, if you want the page creator to be able to dictate how the page looks, then you want to be able to define windows on the display where a window contains fixed information (in which case use DVI) or it contains input, in which case you're running a client-side script - which should probably be byte-encoded. How about a language that uses bytecoding and is system independent? I know one, it begins with the letter J and sounds like coffee. All you need is to have the output be recognized as HTML and you can get rid of insecure crap.
If you want guided output, then you absolutely do not care if it's a mobile device or not. The author of the page has no business knowing or caring what browser you use or what display you use. They deliver information and your device handles the presentation. This means you get rid of CSS because you as the author should have no say in such things. The user gets to control it all.
Those are your options.
If you've never worked at NASA Langley, or in other parts of the Hampton Roads area, you can sod off when it comes to northern Virginia, I was a damn sight more of the culture than someone who, by their own admission, is West Virginian (and thus, in Virginian eyes... well, you claim to know the culture so damn well, you tell me how those of us here see you)
The taxi driver series of studies needs explaining if this is true. (Taxi drivers exhibit a change in brain structure whilst acquiring The Knowledge, less intense professions show nothing, professions of similar intensity show similar gains. Because you can see before and after, it's possible to show the change taking place.)
If you can only explain a subset of the data, you have explained nothing.
Now, studies do indicate that 12 is an interesting year for the brain. The brain goes through various phases of development, consolidation and pruning in childhood. One cycle is between -3 months and 12. The second cycle is between 12 and 24, but it's it significant for highly intelligent kids on a brain food diet. Fast food would be toxic to this. So it's not shocking that current generation kids are missing this second phase.
Studies also indicate SSRIs work as much through neurogenesis as by serotonin levels, due to the latency involved. Without knowing if depressed people were specifically included, we can't know if the one case where you'd expect higher numbers to be showed up. The threshold might be too low in normal cases.
In other words, the study doesn't tell us much.
Agreed we have to solve this, and although I'm not convinced by the specific line you draw (Facebook does have access to either your location or whether you're blocking it, so can use finer-grained rules), I'd rather have you debating this and helping with developing the rules than almost anyone else because you ARE interested in a solution. A real solution.
There are plenty of people out there who are looking to poke holes in arguments or derail debate, but you've make some good points and you've a desire to see this sorted. That's a sadly rare quality.
I'm well aware of the complexity problem and it's incredibly frustrating. Usually, if there's an appearance of high complexity, there isn't. It only seems that way because it's insufficiently understood. Chaos theory showed that most complexity is an illusion, that simplicity is the order of the day, but that it might not be the simplicity anyone was expecting. The challenge is in finding the simplicity.
I'm perfectly happy with a standardized 18 across the globe until that question is addressed. Well, ok, I'll tolerate it, because the moderators on Facebook are going through hell and young users aren't exactly getting a thrill ride either. As long as it does get addressed some time, I'm not going to complain.
I live in Virginia, have done for quite some time. North and South Virginia. I'm not "outside".
Your reply assumes that because X misuses "obviously" in some arbitrary context, then Y must also be misusing it, even though you've bugger all evidence of that.
I was debating how to respond, but I think it's sufficient to say my karma ran over your dogma.