The people don't need(want) the extra bandwidth right now because there isn't anything for them to use it for.
hmmm, have you heard of bitorrent? people use it to download movies and tv shows.
I know lots of people who download movies and it often takes them a day or more. They are not technophiles, they are just competent enough to plug their laptop into their tv.
"For most, a 5Mbps cable connection is much much much more than they ever will (or can) use."
That's a joke right?
"On top of that, think of something (other than streaming media) that your average home-owning consumer is going to use that would require large bandwidth."
umm... so other than those things which everybody wants that require large bandwidth there is nothing that requires large bandwidth?
I'm sure Sealand felt the same way. But in this case the 'neighbour' has an army, a navy and an arsenal of nuclear weapons... (reference: Falkland Islands)
If you are in Ontario (I haven't research other jurisdictions) you are free of any contract you may have had with Telus. Changing the prices definitely constitutes a material change.
uranium is costly to enrich but the hard work of creating the uranium atoms was done for us by the sun a long time ago. There is no (known) similar reservoir of anti-matter available to us. We have to create any anti-matter from regular matter using the full++ required energy. There is no pool of energy to draw from; any pool of energy would have to be filled by us and therefore pointless.
I don't think he was bellyaching so much as presenting a real-world scenario so that we could discuss the underlying issues a bit. go easy dude
As psychological disorders has, in the scheme of things, been only very recently scientifically investigated, it's quite imperfect
The scientific investigation you refer to is i think neurology. (perhaps neurology is to psychology as automotive engineering is to automobile navigation... just a thought) So... to pull my analogy a little further... sometimes a person driving in circles over and over again is the result of a problem with the car and sometimes it is because the fool decided that's what he should be doing.
Psychology is fundamentally flawed because we cannot say/agree authoritatively what people should be thinking.
...how about the medical community stop trying to pass moral judgements through the back door...
First of all, please don't conflate the medical community and the psychiatric community. Medicine is a scientific discipline whereas psychiatry is an art.
...it seems like a cop-out by an establishment... [to] say that some behaviors, even when culturally acceptable, lead to bad results.
The precise meaning of words becomes important here. Good and bad are meaningless in the absence of an agreed ideal. A spike through the skull is either good for you or bad for you depending on whether your goal is to live or to die. I'm not trying to be facetious here, we all know of communities in which violent murder/suicide is considered good (islamic suicide bombing).
Before determining what is effective and what is not modern western medicine tries to assume a very narrow set of goals. I think it is something like: The patient wants to live as long as possible with as little pain and as much effective use of their body/brain as possible. With that shared set of goals medical science CAN make determinations about what is good and what is bad for you.
Psychiatry on the other hand cannot make determinations about what is good or bad for you because there is no similarly broad consensus on what our psychiatric goals are. Psychiatry can only make good/bad judgments in the context of a community that has some shared ideals. As far as I can tell the only globally shared goal for psychiatry would be: To function as a member of your community. That sounds much like:...defined...as a disorder if they cause significant impairment in a person's daily life. except with the added recognition of the fact that different thoughts/actions will cause impairment in different communities.
All in all I would say that psychiatry remains a big unsolved problem. I think it all comes down to the fact that we cannot agree on just what the correct way to think is. We cannot fix your thinking if we cannot define correct thinking.
Of course, if we could all agree on a scientific, evidence and reason-based world view then maybe we could provide some direction to psychiatry. I won't be holding my breath.
That is a very reasonable definition for the word delusional. It is (according the the article) NOT the official definition used by the American Psychiatric society.
Now, if psychiatry were a science rather than an art we could expect them to use a rational definition of delusion. As it stands they are using the 'popularity' or something like 'wikiality' based definition of delusion.
I am all for pushing psychiatry towards an enlightenment but I can see that they would have some serious practical problems if they simply switched to a more rational or 'reality-based' definition of delusion. It would be impossible to treat all those who believe in invisible gods/spirits/ghosts. Even if one could muster a treatment program large enough to help all these people there simply would not be enough orderlies wielding straight-jackets to prevent violent outbursts.
"...glassware, chemicals and numerous other items..."
Actually, around these parts the regulations are pretty lax and you can get glassware with nothing more than a photo ID. (if you're over 18) There are also lots of shops selling 'numerous items'.
Slashdot Mirror
The people don't need(want) the extra bandwidth right now because there isn't anything for them to use it for.
hmmm, have you heard of bitorrent? people use it to download movies and tv shows.
I know lots of people who download movies and it often takes them a day or more.
They are not technophiles, they are just competent enough to plug their laptop into their tv.
"For most, a 5Mbps cable connection is much much much more than they ever will (or can) use."
That's a joke right?
"On top of that, think of something (other than streaming media) that your average home-owning consumer is going to use that would require large bandwidth."
umm... so other than those things which everybody wants that require large bandwidth there is nothing that requires large bandwidth?
oh ya, and then formatting them with filesystems slightly larger than spec. good times.
I'm sure Sealand felt the same way.
But in this case the 'neighbour' has an army, a navy and an arsenal of nuclear weapons...
(reference: Falkland Islands)
If you are in Ontario (I haven't research other jurisdictions) you are free of any contract you may have had with Telus.
Changing the prices definitely constitutes a material change.
http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/english/elaws_statutes_02c30_e.htm
I stand corrected.
...behavior such as men choosing engineering over teaching and vice versa is demonstrably *not* because of biological differences.
Please demonstrate.
I am skeptical and would honestly love to see any data.
doesn't leave behind radioactive materials, just gamma rays."
lolz, *just* gamma rays.
uranium is costly to enrich but the hard work of creating the uranium atoms was done for us by the sun a long time ago.
There is no (known) similar reservoir of anti-matter available to us. We have to create any anti-matter from regular matter using the full++ required energy. There is no pool of energy to draw from; any pool of energy would have to be filled by us and therefore pointless.
You need to channel the matter and anti-matter streams through dilithium crystals.
I think you need to use anti-hydrogen though, not just anti-electrons.
...even fundamentalistic christians don't actually believe in "an old chap with a beard who lives in the sky".
That does not jive with my experiences. I have heard Christians go on and on about how god created man in his image.
What can we use it for?
controlling people.
pics or it didn't happen.
"...he thinks different than you..."
differently.
pet peeve.
fucking apple.
Ah well, I actually didn't mean to advocate the psycho-therapy system I described.
I only meant to explore the logic of the various options.
I would never want that sort of thing.
hey man... quit trying to control what I think with your factual assertions.
Quit your bellyaching.
I don't think he was bellyaching so much as presenting a real-world scenario so that we could discuss the underlying issues a bit.
go easy dude
As psychological disorders has, in the scheme of things, been only very recently scientifically investigated, it's quite imperfect
The scientific investigation you refer to is i think neurology.
(perhaps neurology is to psychology as automotive engineering is to automobile navigation... just a thought)
So... to pull my analogy a little further... sometimes a person driving in circles over and over again is the result of a problem with the car and sometimes it is because the fool decided that's what he should be doing.
Psychology is fundamentally flawed because we cannot say/agree authoritatively what people should be thinking.
...how about the medical community stop trying to pass moral judgements through the back door...
First of all, please don't conflate the medical community and the psychiatric community. Medicine is a scientific discipline whereas psychiatry is an art.
...it seems like a cop-out by an establishment ... [to] say that some behaviors, even when culturally acceptable, lead to bad results.
The precise meaning of words becomes important here. Good and bad are meaningless in the absence of an agreed ideal. A spike through the skull is either good for you or bad for you depending on whether your goal is to live or to die.
I'm not trying to be facetious here, we all know of communities in which violent murder/suicide is considered good (islamic suicide bombing).
Before determining what is effective and what is not modern western medicine tries to assume a very narrow set of goals.
I think it is something like: The patient wants to live as long as possible with as little pain and as much effective use of their body/brain as possible.
With that shared set of goals medical science CAN make determinations about what is good and what is bad for you.
Psychiatry on the other hand cannot make determinations about what is good or bad for you because there is no similarly broad consensus on what our psychiatric goals are. ...defined...as a disorder if they cause significant impairment in a person's daily life. except with the added recognition of the fact that different thoughts/actions will cause impairment in different communities.
Psychiatry can only make good/bad judgments in the context of a community that has some shared ideals.
As far as I can tell the only globally shared goal for psychiatry would be: To function as a member of your community.
That sounds much like:
All in all I would say that psychiatry remains a big unsolved problem.
I think it all comes down to the fact that we cannot agree on just what the correct way to think is.
We cannot fix your thinking if we cannot define correct thinking.
Of course, if we could all agree on a scientific, evidence and reason-based world view then maybe we could provide some direction to psychiatry.
I won't be holding my breath.
+10 insightful/cogent
I would substitute 'assumption' for 'belief' in your post then would agree.
...yet an entire scientific discipline just ignores the issue and allows it to perpetuate.
If you think psychiatry is a scientific discipline you are delusional. ;)
A delusion is a persistent false belief.
That is a very reasonable definition for the word delusional.
It is (according the the article) NOT the official definition used by the American Psychiatric society.
Now, if psychiatry were a science rather than an art we could expect them to use a rational definition of delusion. As it stands they are using the 'popularity' or something like 'wikiality' based definition of delusion.
I am all for pushing psychiatry towards an enlightenment but I can see that they would have some serious practical problems if they simply switched to a more rational or 'reality-based' definition of delusion.
It would be impossible to treat all those who believe in invisible gods/spirits/ghosts. Even if one could muster a treatment program large enough to help all these people there simply would not be enough orderlies wielding straight-jackets to prevent violent outbursts.
We could get all those welfare recipients filling sand bags and use the sand bags hold back the DDOS packet floods.
Better yet we could send this army of untrained workers into peoples homes to clean the trojans from their windows boxen.
I think we can all agree that the final solution will of course be to use them for food. Soylent green!
Nobody has a right to decide what does and doesn't go into my body except for me.
Oh sure. And when you decide to find out if you can get a buzz by snorting a singularity there goes the solar system.
"...glassware, chemicals and numerous other items..."
Actually, around these parts the regulations are pretty lax and you can get glassware with nothing more than a photo ID. (if you're over 18)
There are also lots of shops selling 'numerous items'.