The corn lobbyists didn't do anything to the health of the country.
Are you really sure about that? If they use their lobby to circumvent the intent of a regulatory body designed to protect people's health, they did something to the health of those the agency is supposed to protect.
Unfortunatly, the FDA is a pawn of lobbyist, aspartame, MSG, countless other poisons pass as "not harmfull" when they shouldn't. The most sesitive (migraines, epilectics) are harmed immediatly, like canaries in a mine, the rest of the population is harmed in the long-term, in a subtle fashion that won't be easily traced back to it's cause: Small doses of poison, over a long period of time.
And it's not just slashdot either: "11 household items could KILL YOUR CHILD, we'll tell you which ones after you sit and watch these ads for household items..."
You looked up the verb definition while using the word as an adjective.
No, I looked up the adjective, didn't like the wording, so I put up the verb's definition. Which is fine because, ya see, it's through the verb that the adjective applies. I kept "content" though, I liked the ambiguity of it in the title.
There's the causation others were saying was absent: A teaching approach that leaves students contended with minimal effort makes them satisfied with basic skills they learned, not wanting more. Hence the lower performance.
The causation problem I have is this:
"Study Shows Good With Math Means Bad With People"
Which indicates causality. It's not a problem with the article, but a problem with slashdot.
Ah, the trollish headline. Go YOU posting, didn't it? That's the joy of advertising-revenue business models: Got to generate page views, by any means necessary.
Math and Science are considered to be Hard so they are not culturally acceptable in conversation, while conversation in literature, arts, music, sports and politics are.
Todd McFarlane once attributed his succes in business to his love of baseball: His interest in baseball statistics fueled his understanding of math; his ability to do quick math in his head lead him to sign a good deal before the other guy noticed where the money would be going.
Personally, I wish I could opt out of sports news, but he found a way to profit from it, intellectually as well as financially.
Correlation does not equate causation. How many times do I have to say this? Slashdot keeps making this mistake. Just because two things happen at the same time doesn't mean that one causes the other.
What part of that: "A recent study by Brookings Institution's Brown Center shows that students who are good with math are less likely to be happy, and are likely to have low confidence." states a causation?
What is stated as the cause, and which is the effect? I only see a statement of correlation here.
If they're happy and confident, then they are content.
Let's look in the dictionary... Main Entry: 2content Function: transitive verb 1 : to appease the desires of 2 : to limit (oneself) in requirements, desires, or actions
They're content, so they're not pushing themselves. The ones that are unhappy about their math skills are still striving to improve them.
Your understanding of addiction is woefully outdated if you think a dependency has to come from an external source.
Double *sigh*: Your understanding of addiction isn't outdated, it's flat out wrong.
The distinction to an addiction to a chemical substance is in the definition you quoted! Right before the part you put in bold. There's definition 1, and definition 2. 1 is chemical, and two is not. They both involve endorphine because EVERYTHING PLEASURABLE OR REWARDING involves endorphine, good food, good music, pot, heroin, games, they all involve endorphine in different amounts.
See, smarty pants, if a non-substance addiction warranted to be labelled 'chemical', that would mean that a substance-based dependency would be a chemical^2 (squared) addiction, wouldn't it? So, before you hit [Submit], read what you wrote and quoted, make sure it's not nonsense like that post. 'Kay?
Then why do you guys care how he wastes his? I know why *I* care; why do *you*, if you *honestly* believe that there is no point to life?
Because we've evolved to be social creatures: the well being of the other tribe members contributes to our well being.
You care for the afterlife-treat you were promised if you show an invisible father figure that you did what you were told, I care because I act with others as I would have them act the rest. If someone needs help that I can give, I help.
This modern age has taught him that he's just an animal that happened to evolve, with no significance. And he's been taught that there's nothing beyond this life to hold him accountable. Grandchildren? He's been taught that children are a contraception failure. Why *should* he care about anything but entertainment? Were you expecting a different outcome to his education?
That is quite an achievement in right-wing religious trolling.
You've blamed biological science, atheism and contraception for things unrellated.
Guess what, I understand evolution, I use contraception, and I know that man created god in his image. Yet I want kids, I care about many things, because I don't need a made-up boogyman in the sky to scare me straight with after-death threats/rewards to act right while I'm alive, I don't need to be ignorant about biology and reproduction to want kids.
I also know plenty of church kids who care about nothing but entertainment, negating your whole point. BTW Entertainment that panders to them, considering that I can't think of a sitcom family that doesn't go to church.
That's not quite true, though many would accuse me of picking nits. In this case, the chemical addiction is to a chemical produced by the body, not introduced externally. Either way, it's chemical, though.
And following that logic, those chemicals are made up of atoms, so WoW addiction is atomic!!!!
What you did is not a nitpick, it's a complete lack of understanding of what adding "chemical" to "addiction" means.
Games do not wreck people's lives. People wreck their own lives. Some people gamble, [...] Whichever way you look at it, people have a choice.
That is true.
However, this story is a warning to people who have a void in their lives (for whatever causes) that this game can replace that void with a bottomless chasm. It's not the game itself, of course. Like others mention in this thread already, we can 'meet' plenty of people doing the same with slashdot, fark, digg, anything.
The point is, however, that the game is a susbcription-based for-profit endaevour, which is designed by very competant people to hook those suceptible to this weakness, to do this with timesinks to keep them paying the fee as long as possible.
In other words, it prays on those who can't defend themselves.
I also didn't like how he compared WoW to "the worst drugs on the market" or whatever. He said WoW was WORSE than those. Please.
That's not what he said.
He said he has seen more damage done by WoW than by any other drug.
I've seen more damage done by a car than by any modern weapon (because I've never been in a war zone, not because bombs hurt people less than car crashes).
My guild is probably more advanced than his, and my gut is in BETTER shape than when I started playing. PS- over 100 days/played. And my GF still hasn't broken up with me.
You forgot to mention your enormous penis and your luxurious mansion.
Yeah, because no one ever gets murdered with a firearm in the UK.
Who ever said the world was perfect? The point is it's easier to kill with a gun than with a big stick and a knife, so when someone unstable is looking for a wepon, the harder it is to find a gun, the safer we are.
If they had access to personal firearms, there would be no such danger. A bit of blood and gore to clean up, perhaps, but that guy would be the dead guy on my lawn.
You always answer the door with a gun?
This scenario without gun control: *Ding dong* Door opens. BANG!
Too many people use the supposed anonymity of the internet as an excuse to be asshats. Always remember...the other guy could be a bigger asshat.
And now the asshats will use this as an example to FUD on their targets.
This article reminds of a one from a week or two ago about a guy who was convicted for threatning the family of a murder victim on a board, people here were saying that wasn't right, I thought it was, and this case illustrates why (that family was not anonymous).
Then there's this article, which might lead to less british trolls if "death threat" is a serious crime in their eye.
Crimes of passion do not have to happen instantaneously.
That seemed odd to me, and Wikipedia's definition is exactly what I thought: "A crime of passion, in popular usage, refers to a crime in which the perpetrator commits a crime, especially assault or murder, against a spouse or other loved one because of sudden strong impulse such as a jealous rage or heartbreak rather than as a premeditated crime."
I've never heard it used to mean anything else than that.
He's psychotic, what did you expect? [...] This is one reason why I plan to live in the South as long as I live in America. Most of the South is still relatively sane. Someone comes at you with any sort of axe, ice pick, knife, etc. you're going to be hard-pressed to find a jury that will convict you for blowing their head off.
If that story had taken place in the southern united states, the guy would have driven the 70 miles with his gun and blown the victim away when he opened the door.
When guns are illegal, only pickaxe handles are handy to psycho net ragers.
Slashdot Mirror
The corn lobbyists didn't do anything to the health of the country.
Are you really sure about that?
If they use their lobby to circumvent the intent of a regulatory body designed to protect people's health, they did something to the health of those the agency is supposed to protect.
Unfortunatly, the FDA is a pawn of lobbyist, aspartame, MSG, countless other poisons pass as "not harmfull" when they shouldn't. The most sesitive (migraines, epilectics) are harmed immediatly, like canaries in a mine, the rest of the population is harmed in the long-term, in a subtle fashion that won't be easily traced back to it's cause: Small doses of poison, over a long period of time.
Parasites in the brain are a baaaad thing and not as uncommon as you might think.
:)
Come to think of it, that might explain many of the posts you see at -1. It's a fatal disease, I hope?
And it's not just slashdot either: "11 household items could KILL YOUR CHILD, we'll tell you which ones after you sit and watch these ads for household items..."
:)
Be a cynic
You looked up the verb definition while using the word as an adjective.
No, I looked up the adjective, didn't like the wording, so I put up the verb's definition.
Which is fine because, ya see, it's through the verb that the adjective applies.
I kept "content" though, I liked the ambiguity of it in the title.
There's the causation others were saying was absent: A teaching approach that leaves students contended with minimal effort makes them satisfied with basic skills they learned, not wanting more.
Hence the lower performance.
The causation problem I have is this:
"Study Shows Good With Math Means Bad With People"
Which indicates causality. It's not a problem with the article, but a problem with slashdot.
Ah, the trollish headline.
Go YOU posting, didn't it? That's the joy of advertising-revenue business models: Got to generate page views, by any means necessary.
Snap!
Yo mama!
did it say anything about how happy dictionary geeks are?
:D
No, it did not digress thusly, but a bon mot at an opportune moment will make a girl blush
Math and Science are considered to be Hard so they are not culturally acceptable in conversation, while conversation in literature, arts, music, sports and politics are.
Todd McFarlane once attributed his succes in business to his love of baseball: His interest in baseball statistics fueled his understanding of math; his ability to do quick math in his head lead him to sign a good deal before the other guy noticed where the money would be going.
Personally, I wish I could opt out of sports news, but he found a way to profit from it, intellectually as well as financially.
Correlation does not equate causation.
How many times do I have to say this? Slashdot keeps making this mistake. Just because two things happen at the same time doesn't mean that one causes the other.
What part of that: "A recent study by Brookings Institution's Brown Center shows that students who are good with math are less likely to be happy, and are likely to have low confidence." states a causation?
What is stated as the cause, and which is the effect? I only see a statement of correlation here.
If they're happy and confident, then they are content.
Let's look in the dictionary...
Main Entry: 2content
Function: transitive verb
1 : to appease the desires of
2 : to limit (oneself) in requirements, desires, or actions
They're content, so they're not pushing themselves.
The ones that are unhappy about their math skills are still striving to improve them.
Endorphins are addictive AND chemicals.
Sigh...
Your understanding of addiction is woefully outdated if you think a dependency has to come from an external source.
Double *sigh*: Your understanding of addiction isn't outdated, it's flat out wrong.
The distinction to an addiction to a chemical substance is in the definition you quoted! Right before the part you put in bold. There's definition 1, and definition 2. 1 is chemical, and two is not. They both involve endorphine because EVERYTHING PLEASURABLE OR REWARDING involves endorphine, good food, good music, pot, heroin, games, they all involve endorphine in different amounts.
See, smarty pants, if a non-substance addiction warranted to be labelled 'chemical', that would mean that a substance-based dependency would be a chemical^2 (squared) addiction, wouldn't it? So, before you hit [Submit], read what you wrote and quoted, make sure it's not nonsense like that post. 'Kay?
"theme of your post" + "theme of your sig (in its original context)" = "hilarious mismatch"
:)
Yeah, I like fiction that doesn't apply to real life
>There's no point to life, we're just meat sacks.
Then why do you guys care how he wastes his?
I know why *I* care; why do *you*, if you *honestly* believe that there is no point to life?
Because we've evolved to be social creatures: the well being of the other tribe members contributes to our well being.
You care for the afterlife-treat you were promised if you show an invisible father figure that you did what you were told, I care because I act with others as I would have them act the rest. If someone needs help that I can give, I help.
A little polemical, a little over-the-top, but disturbingly insightful nonetheless.
"Availability of contraception causes addiction to WoW" is insightfull to you?
This modern age has taught him that he's just an animal that happened to evolve, with no significance. And he's been taught that there's nothing beyond this life to hold him accountable.
Grandchildren? He's been taught that children are a contraception failure.
Why *should* he care about anything but entertainment? Were you expecting a different outcome to his education?
That is quite an achievement in right-wing religious trolling.
You've blamed biological science, atheism and contraception for things unrellated.
Guess what, I understand evolution, I use contraception, and I know that man created god in his image. Yet I want kids, I care about many things, because I don't need a made-up boogyman in the sky to scare me straight with after-death threats/rewards to act right while I'm alive, I don't need to be ignorant about biology and reproduction to want kids.
I also know plenty of church kids who care about nothing but entertainment, negating your whole point. BTW Entertainment that panders to them, considering that I can't think of a sitcom family that doesn't go to church.
That's not quite true, though many would accuse me of picking nits. In this case, the chemical addiction is to a chemical produced by the body, not introduced externally. Either way, it's chemical, though.
And following that logic, those chemicals are made up of atoms, so WoW addiction is atomic!!!!
What you did is not a nitpick, it's a complete lack of understanding of what adding "chemical" to "addiction" means.
Games do not wreck people's lives. People wreck their own lives.
Some people gamble, [...]
Whichever way you look at it, people have a choice.
That is true.
However, this story is a warning to people who have a void in their lives (for whatever causes) that this game can replace that void with a bottomless chasm.
It's not the game itself, of course. Like others mention in this thread already, we can 'meet' plenty of people doing the same with slashdot, fark, digg, anything.
The point is, however, that the game is a susbcription-based for-profit endaevour, which is designed by very competant people to hook those suceptible to this weakness, to do this with timesinks to keep them paying the fee as long as possible.
In other words, it prays on those who can't defend themselves.
I also didn't like how he compared WoW to "the worst drugs on the market" or whatever. He said WoW was WORSE than those. Please.
That's not what he said.
He said he has seen more damage done by WoW than by any other drug.
I've seen more damage done by a car than by any modern weapon (because I've never been in a war zone, not because bombs hurt people less than car crashes).
My guild is probably more advanced than his, and my gut is in BETTER shape than when I started playing. PS- over 100 days /played. And my GF still hasn't broken up with me.
You forgot to mention your enormous penis and your luxurious mansion.
Yeah, because no one ever gets murdered with a firearm in the UK.
Who ever said the world was perfect?
The point is it's easier to kill with a gun than with a big stick and a knife, so when someone unstable is looking for a wepon, the harder it is to find a gun, the safer we are.
if it is found the guy spent days plotting this, i would say premed
It is, he even had an accomplice (another poster down below in the thread has a link to a times article with details).
And if we were to go by your wiki definition, it would fail because it does not meet the following criteria: against a spouse or other loved one
Definatly. It's not "any crime where emotions were involved", it's an impulse thing, usually involving a lover in some way.
If they had access to personal firearms, there would be no such danger. A bit of blood and gore to clean up, perhaps, but that guy would be the dead guy on my lawn.
You always answer the door with a gun?
This scenario without gun control:
*Ding dong*
Door opens.
BANG!
You're dead.
Too many people use the supposed anonymity of the internet as an excuse to be asshats. Always remember...the other guy could be a bigger asshat.
And now the asshats will use this as an example to FUD on their targets.
This article reminds of a one from a week or two ago about a guy who was convicted for threatning the family of a murder victim on a board, people here were saying that wasn't right, I thought it was, and this case illustrates why (that family was not anonymous).
Then there's this article, which might lead to less british trolls if "death threat" is a serious crime in their eye.
Crimes of passion do not have to happen instantaneously.
That seemed odd to me, and Wikipedia's definition is exactly what I thought:
"A crime of passion, in popular usage, refers to a crime in which the perpetrator commits a crime, especially assault or murder, against a spouse or other loved one because of sudden strong impulse such as a jealous rage or heartbreak rather than as a premeditated crime."
I've never heard it used to mean anything else than that.
He's psychotic, what did you expect? [...] This is one reason why I plan to live in the South as long as I live in America. Most of the South is still relatively sane. Someone comes at you with any sort of axe, ice pick, knife, etc. you're going to be hard-pressed to find a jury that will convict you for blowing their head off.
If that story had taken place in the southern united states, the guy would have driven the 70 miles with his gun and blown the victim away when he opened the door.
When guns are illegal, only pickaxe handles are handy to psycho net ragers.