Addiction of things like cigerettes, and cocaine are caused by nicotine and dopamine (respectively) through a chemical/molecular process. Addiction to gambling is like being addicted to rollercoasters, except with destructive consequences. If casinos were responsible and checked IDs at the door and restricted those that had been requested not to be allowed to enter because of "addiction".
Internet use has very little to do with dopamine levels, the shrinks just want a whole new group of unnecessary patients. If dopamone adjustment resulted from computer use, like cocaine, then more and more computer use would be needed to satisfy. While in some cases this might be true, a vast majority of those online 4 hrs a day aren't in this category, even if those in work are disqualified.
I think its funny that/. had news on the new Apache server before Apache had news on their own server.
Re:If you did, you'd need more than 8 hours sleep
on
Quack!
·
· Score: 1
I'm not sayin TV should be the main activity of a child. But 2 or 3 hrs a night is fine. If all you do is what is productive and/or good for you you'll end up like alot of the sys admins here, stressed and with ulcers. I'm not saying not watching TV will cause ulcers, but sometimes you have to know when to just sit down relax and enjoy the mindless.
Not all little kids are in a place they can run outside though. I'm pretty big on athletics, if I have time I'll play varsity basketball and I was a three letter JV athlete when I had time. I played hide and seek when I was little. But I was born in the city and lived there until I was 6, and by then I had bad asthma and couldn't run that much. Are city kids supposed to run out in the streets? Maybe a little but not 5 hours worth of time, its not safe.
Also, any sites the 8 year old will go to aren't very interactive, although they probably are more than TV. Along the same lines as my first argument, not everyone has tv though.
How many 8 year olds can understand freecode,/. or anyother similar site?
I watch maybe an hour of TV a day and surf about 3 hrs. What television I watch is almost all news or debate shows.
Re:Moderators - Can't "suppress"
on
Quack!
·
· Score: 1
Yawn
I haven't logged into/. in weeks. It logs me in automatically. Even if it didn't, I would login to stand up for my opinions instead of ACs who don't put their 'name' up when they make arguments. Or more commonly when they flame.
But passing rules that are unenforcable, erodes(sp?) their respect for your authority. By forbidding TV, a resented and easily bypassed, they get used to ignoring your rules.
When teens, when you give a early curfew and they want to go out, they'll sneak out, at least more readily. It's impossible to stop your teens from doing what they want, except through mutual consent. I've heard parents say, "This isn't a democracy.". However, without the consent of the teens, the parents can't force them to do anything. (Legally)
You are currently online. If TV is bad for your kids, isn't surfing the net bad for you? Thats different? How? Kids can go to school, do homework, see the rest of the family(which shouldn't be a distant fourth) and run around like mad and still have time to watch television. 8hrs school + 8hrs sleep + 3hr homework(more than I've ever spent doing it) = 5 hrs. Can you run around like mad for 5 hours?
Re:They might have a point, you know.
on
Quack!
·
· Score: 1
Posting the same thing under two names.
Is your point so weak you must try to trick others (quite weakly)?
Re:They might have a point, you know.
on
Quack!
·
· Score: 2
Did you watch Sesame St? What about Mr. Roger's Neighborhood?
Capt. Kangaroo?
Howdy Dowdy?
These shows are perfectly fine for children. Sesame St helps children learn! Yes kids shouldn't be raised by Hasbro, watching TV doesn't mean sitting them in front of it all day.
Moderate television viewing is good for a kid. Watching Muppet Babbies won't scar your kid, but it will entertain them and often programs like The Magic School Bus help them learn.
(It *isn't* obvious to me why children shouldn't watch TV, as long as the TV doesn't become the parent.)
I basically agree on points 1 & 2, but disagree on 3.
While reading and writing can be learned by almost anyone, technical aptitude is limited to a smaller part of the population, and many of them don't want to be geeks, if only for the social stigma. I believe the techie job market will remain better than that of the economy overall for at least another decade, but then there could be some major shifts by then, technologically, or economical that could prove this completely false.
Sorry but as you *well* know you don't have to be responsible at 17 years, (judging from a recent outdoor concert!) but sometime, somewhere, some one should be. That should be someones parents.
When do you *have* to be responsible. We all know people in their twenties who are irresponsible, and there are millions of irresponsible people in their 30s, 40s and older. Age doesn't mean responsibility. I am 18 but I work full time during the summer, take all honors and AP classes. I would say I am more responsible than the 39 yr old deadbeat dad or lifelong welfare recipients.
Will the starter of this subthread gain a sudden burst of responsibilty and maturity when he reaches 17 that he wouldn't have now? Realistically at 13 kids, especially geek kids, have seen the worst the media can through at us. I saw From Dusk 'til Dawn when I was around 14 or 15, and I was less disturbed by it than my parents, who saw parts of it in passing(the movie is R rated and has some nudity and is one of the more violent movies I've seen). I turned out fairly decently.
Studies that say movies harm people are always fundamentally flawed 3 ways. First, they aren't scientific, but thats minor since it would be nigh impossible to make it so. Second, cause is mistaken for effect. For instance, some studies show that serial killers have a fascination with violent movies, and suggest that the movies cause their violent tendancies. Their prejudices make them overlook the obvious-they like violent movies because they are violent. That's effect, not cause. Third, The sample groups are always the violent. From their data, it could easily be concluded that breathing causes violent behavior. Looking at all that see violent movies would show that a tiny percentage of the viewers turn violent. But then having.00003% of their sample group support their theory rather than 80-90% wouldn't help their careers.
We are always talking about movie studios making better cleaner, less violent movies. Why should they when we can't even stand up to 17 year old in a theatre
I'm not asking for less violent movies. Obviously, not everyone is since they tend to be very popular, whether its Saving Private Ryan, Braveheart, Rocky or the latest Jackie Chan. Please speak for yourself.
You know you right... you should wait till your 21 to drive! heh eh. If your old enough to go to war you should be allowed to drink! Ok But first you have to go to war. We'll deliver the brew.
And noone under 30 can vote. Noone under 35 drive a car. No make that 40. No 50. Wait 60. Again, age doesn't grant responsibility or maturity. I doubt you fought in a war, or you wouldn't through the old slogan in peoples faces.
If truth abounded, and mankind would stop warring and oppressing each other, so many of the examples you cite would be non-existant. Tell
the Indian that the cow he sees walk by himself is not really his grandfather, and therefore he can eat a little better in the days to come. Tell the warring tribes of africa to make peace and work together, and share resources they have all around them.
Does belittling that Indian's religious beliefs make you feel better when your argument fails?
Here's a way that resources could be used more efficiently, have all reverends, pastors, ministers and nuns work at a job not based on some dead Arab 2000 gone. Doesn't feel good does it, and it makes you look like a bigger idiot.
Basiccally your argument is that if everyone got perfectly along and there was no conflict, those 'surface problems', like overcrowding, starvation, plague and drought, wouldn't happen. You seem to have no basis in reality if you see these as surface problems.
opportunity cost - for every choice made, there is a consequence"
Yes there is. Including having 6 kids and increasing the demand on food, water, shelter, and all other products by 4 people in the next generation. If everyone did this, the world population would triple every generation.
Who said it was only political/religious speech. What about the press? Thats what movies come under. Filth by you opinion. You miss the point. Noone insists that they see SP or 'this perversion'. The parents allow them to see it. They want to see it by their own free will.
BTW Good way to make a stand as posting as an Anon. Coward.
Actually, although I agree that the Columbine were the most to blame other than the kids themselves, the mother here doesn't seem neglegant. She decided to let the kids see the movie. There's nothing wrong with that, even if she couldn't go into the movies with them. The bad parents mke undecisons, or let their kids do whatever and have no idea whats going on, or not caring.
In your great maturity, you seem to have missed the point. The issue is about freedom of expression and censorship, so forgeting those issues seems silly. BasicallyJust because one doesn't like a movie and/or its contents, doesn't give one the right to stop me from seeing it. If you don't agree, just replace book/pamplet/sermon/speech/idea with movie.
But, who gave the movies authority to keep kids out if their parents give permission to see the movie. >> Kids are allways going to tell the parents it's >>not that bad. If the parent is in the theater >>with them, they see just how bad it really >>is.
Maybe because the movies aren't really that bad. I'm 18 and I saw the movie with my sister (15). She'd seen it before, and she wasn't hurt by it, or any other movie.
Oh no, they swear in the movie! Like the kids haven't heard them before. Oh no you're raping my virgin ears! Swearing is the most fake of all taboos. How does saying sh!t harm anyone?
Movies fall into two categories. Those with a point and those that are candy. Each one fills a entertainment 'need'. Those with a point are like literature, while candy is like romance novels or bad sci fi. It all depends what you want from your $8 that day.
South park actually had a point. Most of it was vulgar, sure, but it did it intentionally to protest censorship, and the reaction that you and many other people had, not to mention to make the audience laugh. The plot of the movie is actually the 4 kids see a movie, and then they swear. The adults naively blame the movie instead of the free will bearing kids.
And thats the final and ultimate point in this debate. No matter how young, kids have free will. The Columbine kids were psychopaths, not innocent kids corrupted by TV. Stop trying to blame those around the person at fault when the truth makes you feel uneasy.
Affirmative action makes race an issue in job/school hirings/acceptance. Minorities are given 'extra points'. This seems to me to benefit minorities. If it were income based than I'd have no problem with it, but its not.
I'm personally against profiling, but that seems off topic. It is no more right than assuming Italians are all related to the mob. Or that all Asians are smart and techies. Or all Irish are drunks. etc.
Since race is still constantly being made an issue, the disparity between races and racism of some people continues. Its like scratching poison ivy. It may momentarily allieviate(sp?) the itch, but it just spreads and increases the rash.
If you read up on it for 5 minutes you'd see it has English & German as input languages(I'll give you the two very similar language point there) and Japanese, Eng. and Ger. as output. It also is close in Spanish and Korean. English=Germanic. Spanish=romantic. Korean/Japanese=neither.
More than 20% of the world's population speaks one of these languages.
More than 10% of the world has used a telephone! Think about it. China is 50% of the world's population. At least half that country(all but the western part probably) has used a telephone. As has almost everyone in the US. And a majority of India has as well. As has Europe. Think before you type.
> You know, almost everything in >France is decided in Paris. As a french citizen, >I really like to know who has responsability for >having taken such a "parisianist" idea (though >not surprising when you live in France).
And thats why the French bother everyone (well not everyone) so much. Its not the French people. Its the stupid government that is too centralized.
Slashdot Mirror
Addiction of things like cigerettes, and cocaine are caused by nicotine and dopamine (respectively) through a chemical/molecular process. Addiction to gambling is like being addicted to rollercoasters, except with destructive consequences. If casinos were responsible and checked IDs at the door and restricted those that had been requested not to be allowed to enter because of "addiction".
Internet use has very little to do with dopamine levels, the shrinks just want a whole new group of unnecessary patients. If dopamone adjustment resulted from computer use, like cocaine, then more and more computer use would be needed to satisfy. While in some cases this might be true, a vast majority of those online 4 hrs a day aren't in this category, even if those in work are disqualified.
I think its funny that /. had news on the new Apache server before Apache had news on their own server.
I'm not sayin TV should be the main activity of a child. But 2 or 3 hrs a night is fine. If all you do is what is productive and/or good for you you'll end up like alot of the sys admins here, stressed and with ulcers. I'm not saying not watching TV will cause ulcers, but sometimes you have to know when to just sit down relax and enjoy the mindless.
Not all little kids are in a place they can run outside though. I'm pretty big on athletics, if I have time I'll play varsity basketball and I was a three letter JV athlete when I had time. I played hide and seek when I was little. But I was born in the city and lived there until I was 6, and by then I had bad asthma and couldn't run that much. Are city kids supposed to run out in the streets? Maybe a little but not 5 hours worth of time, its not safe.
Also, any sites the 8 year old will go to aren't very interactive, although they probably are more than TV. Along the same lines as my first argument, not everyone has tv though.
How many 8 year olds can understand freecode, /. or anyother similar site?
I watch maybe an hour of TV a day and surf about 3 hrs. What television I watch is almost all news or debate shows.
Yawn
/. in weeks. It logs me in automatically. Even if it didn't, I would login to stand up for my opinions instead of ACs who don't put their 'name' up when they make arguments.
I haven't logged into
Or more commonly when they flame.
But passing rules that are unenforcable, erodes(sp?) their respect for your authority. By forbidding TV, a resented and easily bypassed, they get used to ignoring your rules.
When teens, when you give a early curfew and they want to go out, they'll sneak out, at least more readily. It's impossible to stop your teens from doing what they want, except through mutual consent. I've heard parents say, "This isn't a democracy.". However, without the consent of the teens, the parents can't force them to do anything. (Legally)
Its just in the US, schools tend to be so bad, they are trying to replace quality with quantity.
(Sept. 2 here, moved after an uproar when they planned Aug. 21)
Basically the point of this is saying that children should have rights.
Its illogical that on your 18th or 21st birthday you magically become a human being instead of a child.
You are currently online. If TV is bad for your kids, isn't surfing the net bad for you? Thats different? How?
Kids can go to school, do homework, see the rest of the family(which shouldn't be a distant fourth) and run around like mad and still have time to watch television.
8hrs school + 8hrs sleep + 3hr homework(more than I've ever spent doing it) = 5 hrs. Can you run around like mad for 5 hours?
Posting the same thing under two names.
Is your point so weak you must try to trick others (quite weakly)?
Did you watch Sesame St? What about Mr. Roger's Neighborhood?
Capt. Kangaroo?
Howdy Dowdy?
These shows are perfectly fine for children. Sesame St helps children learn! Yes kids shouldn't be raised by Hasbro, watching TV doesn't mean sitting them in front of it all day.
Moderate television viewing is good for a kid. Watching Muppet Babbies won't scar your kid, but it will entertain them and often programs like The Magic School Bus help them learn.
(It *isn't* obvious to me why children shouldn't watch TV, as long as the TV doesn't become the parent.)
The secretaries have no actual power, it is merely to show equality among all citizens, whether they are webmaster or lurker.
I basically agree on points 1 & 2, but disagree on 3.
While reading and writing can be learned by almost anyone, technical aptitude is limited to a smaller part of the population, and many of them don't want to be geeks, if only for the social stigma. I believe the techie job market will remain better than that of the economy overall for at least another decade, but then there could be some major shifts by then, technologically, or economical that could prove this completely false.
The FBI has no authority outside the US, just as the CIA has no jurisdiciton inside the US.
At least officially.
When do you *have* to be responsible. We all know people in their twenties who are irresponsible, and there are millions of irresponsible people in their 30s, 40s and older. Age doesn't mean responsibility. I am 18 but I work full time during the summer, take all honors and AP classes. I would say I am more responsible than the 39 yr old deadbeat dad or lifelong welfare recipients.
Will the starter of this subthread gain a sudden burst of responsibilty and maturity when he reaches 17 that he wouldn't have now?
Realistically at 13 kids, especially geek kids, have seen the worst the media can through at us. I saw From Dusk 'til Dawn when I was around 14 or 15, and I was less disturbed by it than my parents, who saw parts of it in passing(the movie is R rated and has some nudity and is one of the more violent movies I've seen). I turned out fairly decently.
Studies that say movies harm people are always fundamentally flawed 3 ways. First, they aren't scientific, but thats minor since it would be nigh impossible to make it so. Second, cause is mistaken for effect. For instance, some studies show that serial killers have a fascination with violent movies, and suggest that the movies cause their violent tendancies. Their prejudices make them overlook the obvious-they like violent movies because they are violent. That's effect, not cause. Third, The sample groups are always the violent. From their data, it could easily be concluded that breathing causes violent behavior. Looking at all that see violent movies would show that a tiny percentage of the viewers turn violent. But then having
I'm not asking for less violent movies. Obviously, not everyone is since they tend to be very popular, whether its Saving Private Ryan, Braveheart, Rocky or the latest Jackie Chan. Please speak for yourself.
Does belittling that Indian's religious beliefs make you feel better when your argument fails?
Here's a way that resources could be used more efficiently, have all reverends, pastors, ministers and nuns work at a job not based on some dead Arab 2000 gone. Doesn't feel good does it, and it makes you look like a bigger idiot.
Basiccally your argument is that if everyone got perfectly along and there was no conflict, those 'surface problems', like overcrowding, starvation, plague and drought, wouldn't happen. You seem to have no basis in reality if you see these as surface problems.
Yes there is. Including having 6 kids and increasing the demand on food, water, shelter, and all other products by 4 people in the next generation. If everyone did this, the world population would triple every generation.
Who said it was only political/religious speech. What about the press? Thats what movies come under.
Filth by you opinion.
You miss the point. Noone insists that they see SP or 'this perversion'. The parents allow them to see it. They want to see it by their own free will.
BTW Good way to make a stand as posting as an Anon. Coward.
Actually, although I agree that the Columbine were the most to blame other than the kids themselves, the mother here doesn't seem neglegant. She decided to let the kids see the movie. There's nothing wrong with that, even if she couldn't go into the movies with them. The bad parents mke undecisons, or let their kids do whatever and have no idea whats going on, or not caring.
In your great maturity, you seem to have missed the point. The issue is about freedom of expression and censorship, so forgeting those issues seems silly. BasicallyJust because one doesn't like a movie and/or its contents, doesn't give one the right to stop me from seeing it. If you don't agree, just replace book/pamplet/sermon/speech/idea with movie.
But, who gave the movies authority to keep kids out if their parents give permission to see the movie.
>> Kids are allways going to tell the parents it's
>>not that bad. If the parent is in the theater
>>with them, they see just how bad it really
>>is.
Maybe because the movies aren't really that bad. I'm 18 and I saw the movie with my sister (15). She'd seen it before, and she wasn't hurt by it, or any other movie.
Oh no, they swear in the movie! Like the kids haven't heard them before. Oh no you're raping my virgin ears! Swearing is the most fake of all taboos. How does saying sh!t harm anyone?
Movies fall into two categories. Those with a point and those that are candy. Each one fills a entertainment 'need'. Those with a point are like literature, while candy is like romance novels or bad sci fi. It all depends what you want from your $8 that day.
South park actually had a point. Most of it was vulgar, sure, but it did it intentionally to protest censorship, and the reaction that you and many other people had, not to mention to make the audience laugh. The plot of the movie is actually the 4 kids see a movie, and then they swear. The adults naively blame the movie instead of the free will bearing kids.
And thats the final and ultimate point in this debate. No matter how young, kids have free will. The Columbine kids were psychopaths, not innocent kids corrupted by TV. Stop trying to blame those around the person at fault when the truth makes you feel uneasy.
Affirmative action makes race an issue in job/school hirings/acceptance. Minorities are given 'extra points'. This seems to me to benefit minorities. If it were income based than I'd have no problem with it, but its not.
I'm personally against profiling, but that seems off topic. It is no more right than assuming Italians are all related to the mob. Or that all Asians are smart and techies. Or all Irish are drunks. etc.
Since race is still constantly being made an issue, the disparity between races and racism of some people continues. Its like scratching poison ivy. It may momentarily allieviate(sp?) the itch, but it just spreads and increases the rash.
What are you talking about?
If you read up on it for 5 minutes you'd see it has English & German as input languages(I'll give you the two very similar language point there) and Japanese, Eng. and Ger. as output. It also is close in Spanish and Korean. English=Germanic. Spanish=romantic. Korean/Japanese=neither.
More than 20% of the world's population speaks one of these languages.
More than 10% of the world has used a telephone! Think about it. China is 50% of the world's population. At least half that country(all but the western part probably) has used a telephone. As has almost everyone in the US. And a majority of India has as well. As has Europe. Think before you type.
If that was sarcasm ignore this but...
I'm pretty sure that slang won't be given up just for this. English's ability to constantly evolve is why it is now the international language.
Also, you do realize "got to" & "ought'a" are slang right?
> You know, almost everything in >France is decided in Paris. As a french citizen, >I really like to know who has responsability for >having taken such a "parisianist" idea (though >not surprising when you live in France).
And thats why the French bother everyone (well not everyone) so much. Its not the French people. Its the stupid government that is too centralized.