The fact that Palin & the GOP's rhetoric included references to reloading, using the ammo box instead of the ballot box, "taking out" bad politicians, removing the liberal disease, and putting targetting crosshairs on a map while listed the name of the politican who just happened to be shot in the head, are a complete coincidence.
Yes, probably. I'm not agreeing with or defending rhetoric, I find it distasteful, and find it one of the more depressing trends to strike my country in a very long time. While Palin and the GOPs rhetoric is nasty, there is no evidence that they lead to this event. That is the point. It is as good an explanation as the NASA connection (Loughner believed the Mars rover was a lie, Giffords' husband is an astronaut), meaning not very good, since it is nothing more than speculation. Or that he said he liked Mein Kampf, and she was a Jew. Or that he is in Arizona so this somehow comes back to immigration policy (I, surprisingly, haven't seen that one in the wild yet).
So, since it is a total coincidence, should we stop examining violent rhetoric that has been said by politicians or should we take a moment to reflect? Why should we be concerned about the words that politicians use, knowing that there are disturbed people who might engage in violence?
Never said that, we SHOULD examine the violent rhetoric, even if this even has nothing to do with it. Just because they look nice when you link them together, mean they are linked, or should be associated with each other. By doing so your using this tragedy towards your own ends, which is a bit disgusting, no matter how good your ends are.
If it comes out that there is a connection to the current GOP rhetoric, then by all means make a point of it. These is no causal connection yet discovered though. If we find Sarah Palin posters, and a bust of Glenn Beck wreathed in flowers, then we can use this to show how partisan (not just Republican) rhetoric is dangerous.
The infamous crosshairs map may not be to blame in any way, but it is still irresponsible. Personally, I have a very hard time believing that this guy was obsessed with a member of congress to the point of attacking her, yet had never read a blog post about h
I'm sure he has. But his previous experience with her was definitely not a "tea party" question. "How can there be government if all words are a lie" isn't the type of thing I've heard any Tea Party person say. I doubt it is a Palin speaking point. It is a strange a deluded question spawned from a sick mind.
We don't even know if Giffords was attacked because she was a politician or because she was a high visibility target.
I think there is a great deal of difference between playing a game like Grand theft auto, and listening to a politician say that their opponent is destroying this country and ending our way of life.
You realize that politicians have been saying that as long as their has been politicians saying things, right?
Where did you get that? Perhaps anti-Religion, but he, apparently, quit smoking pot, so it is very hard to see where he stood on that. As for pro-Communism, how the hell did you reach that conclusion? Reading Marx? Millions of college kids read Marx every year. Hell, I've read Mein Kampf, and I'm not a Nazi or anti-semitic, I've read the Tuner Diaries, and I'm not insane. I've read the Bible, and I'm not religious. I've read the Bhagavad Gita, and I'm not Hindu. I've read Kafka, and I'm not a giant bug. I've read a lot of books that hold concepts I don't agree with. Its rather common.
I'm guessing this kid wasn't a communist, or a Nazi, or whatever else.
He certainly doesn't fall within the demographic of any Republican or Tea Party member that I know of.
I'm not going to say he's a Republican. He probably wasn't. But your reason why is a bit of a reach... I didn't know you had to fit a profile to be a member of the republican party. I know people who smoke pot, wear paisley, and know yoga who are registered republicans. I also know tons of gun toting, religious people who are proud democrats. People generally don't fall into clear cut categories. Most well-rounded individuals don't fit party lines, and are forced to pick the party that comes the closest.
That said, this probably didn't have a damn thing to do with politics. Some thing don't, I know it is very hard to believe, watching the media.
Have you read anything about this? Reading his rants, and reading accounts from his friends and acquaintances makes it clear that this is probably not a case of "hornies". A couple years ago he attended an event that Giffords was holding and asked her something like "how can their be government if all words are lies" or something close to that, she didn't answer him, he was mad.
He was probably experiencing an escalating case of schizophrenia (judging by the course of events, his words, and his writing style), she was a target since she was "controlling grammar" or such. I'm also guessing he did it to draw attention to his "philosophy", hoping an event like that would make people read (watch) his stuff, and realize the truth of the "new currency", and "grammar"... (Notice the shear amount of crazy?).
This topic has made me doubly sick. I'm, obviously, sickened that this disturbed person slaughtered innocent people. I'm also sickened that we somehow want to turn it into bullshit politics*, and idiotic partisan rhetoric. Doing so completely misses the point, and mocks the actual event. Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, the Tea Party movement, or the GOP had NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO DO WITH THIS. I'm a lifelong Democrat, and a bona fide socialist, I have nothing against calling out the Republicans on their crap, but this isn't the appropriate event for it. It is actually a bit distasteful. The kid was insane, and not obviously politically motivated (at least motivated in any way us sane folk can really comprehend).
Hell, before a single fact actually rolled down the media pipeline, we were already blaming Palin. Before we KNEW anything at all outside of the fact that someone shot a democrat and a bunch of innocent bystanders we already were ramping up the partisan rhetoric. And now we're running with it, even when the available facts point in the other direction, and we still don't even have half the facts.
Do these people here on Slashdot realize that by blaming the GOP, they sound just like the idiots that blame violent video games for violence?
Sorry of the rant, it needs to be said.
* This part isn't aimed at you, just a convenient place to put it.
Whose to say its about rape? I can pick various scenarios where this statement could be said without rape being involved.
"I didn't know up your daughter, my DNA quantumly teleported*", for instance... This was the first context I thought of, at least. Before people dragged rape into it. Don't know why you have rape on the mind.
* Wow, Chrome's spell check doesn't think "teleport" is a word?
It's actually pretty simple, but I have a PhD in chemistry, so I might be biased
Probably not biased, since I don't have a PhD in anything and understood it. Though I do have a slightly higher than layman science background (specialized in philosophy of science).
Seriously though, for all your research you failed to actually provide anything showing the contrary to my claim, at least that wasn't hidden behind a pay wall, or that required me hitting up the nearest university. While these articles may actually prove or disprove my point, there really is no way of knowing. And, as I stated, it is an anecdotal point, therefore I'm not too invested in it, or would be too shocked at it being disproven.
I never presented it as a concrete factual statement. In fact I even prefaced it with "I guess". I added that preface after doing (probably) the exact same Google search as you did and not finding any meaningful, conclusive, results from sources that are somewhat trustworthy.
If you were in my composition class and wrote a paper on that, I'd give you an F. You might have managed to come up with a theory based on your anecdotal evidence, but you failed to do any research, and when someone does do some research everything they find seems to contradict your theory.
If I was in a composition class I probably wouldn't have picked this topic, or would have picked it while at a University with a well-stocked library with plenty of actual journals to pick from. I also probably wouldn't have brought anecdotal evidence into it, and going by the sources you cited the conclusion would be; "there is no conclusion at this time".
Also, having a informal theory, based on deductive reasoning or soft, anecdotal, evidence is acceptable previous to any actual empirical results.
Wow, your very emotionally invested in this... Why is that?
Your first source was a crock. It almost had me until I realized that it was just another political agenda masquerading as something real. Something... something... if we allow people different than us to do thing society will collapse.
Your second link isn't a comparison to straight couples, but between lesbian and gay couples. And if the information at the bottom of your first, propaganda, link is any evidence it puts tons of credence in "verbal abuse"...
Third... another abstract to a $50 article. It nicely says, though; "The article highlights the need for empirical research on same-sex male battering.". Indeed.
Fourth: getting cheaper, only $34 to read it. Available abstract mentions nothing about levels of abuse between straight and homosexual populations.
Fifth: That source is more suspect than the first. Its like using Mein Kampf as a source for information about Jewish culture and identity. Also, yes, gay men would be more battered than straight men, since straight men are generally the abusers in heterosexual relationships. No shit? Straight men are abused much less than straight women. So, for fun, if you have one population with equal levels( female-female_, and one with lesser levels (male-male), and you add them together and compare with the original group (female-male), you have a lesser overall level.
Sigh... sixth: " Based on the limited research done on lesbian violence, it appears that..." What a strong factual statement that is... Amusingly it implies that relationships with gay males are less violent than straight relationships... While lesbian couples may, or may not, be equal.
Did you actually spend the $137 to read those articles, or did you just do a quick search for abstracts? Really, your better off paying attention to the source, too. You picked two sources with a very heavy, and public, agenda. Its like posting links to the Discovery Institute on topics about science and evolution.
Bullshit. More claims with no evidence, only your anecdotal experience.
Anecdotal, again, which is still better than what you offered. Now go dig up some references on why abuse happens in straight relationships... I'm guessing the largest cause is cultural, this makes sense. Most abuse is done by men, and lots of men still hold idiotic cultural artifacts from our earlier history as true. Men are manly, women are submissive.
Then by your own admission most heterosexual couples you know are, apparently, fine. Sheer volume might account for the fact that "a fair number" of heterosexual couples you've met had issues with domestic violence, and "only one" homosexual couple did. Do you know comparable numbers of gay and straight couples? And might there possibly just be more pressure on homosexual couples to gloss over issues with domestic violence, in the interests of trying to help themselves be perceived as a "normal family"
Most couples, straight or homosexual, are not abusive. Volume might account for some of it, but not as much as you would think since I know a pretty pool of homosexuals as well. Until recently me and my girlfriend were one of two straight couples in a full apartment complex full of homosexuals. Around 1/4th of my friends are homosexual, or engage in non-purely heterosexual behavior. From these two circumstances I've been around a fair bit of homosexuals engaged in various types of relationships.
Why are they running around caring about appearances? Its not like my state (Arizona) will ever recognize them, and I doubt very much that they care what I think about them. At least they care as much about my opinion as I care about their opinion about my own relationship (long-term, permanently unmarried, "sin-mates"), which is to say; "not one iota". I'm pretty sure they all weren't out to impress me, since I really don't care what they do. As long as no one is harmed, it is no business of mine who you sleep with, or what gender you display a preference for.
I actually can't find a single bit of valid, scientific research pointing either way. Your link also doesn't back up that claim, it has one link that returns a 404. So I'm forced to use, admittedly flawed, anecdotal evidence. I know a fair number of straight couples with an abusive partner, while only one of the gay or lesbian couples I know had an abusive partner.
In the absence of hard statistics, personal observations fill the gap.
Also, 50% of gay relationships lack men, the chief abusers in relationships. And most of the gay men I know don't, generally, buy into the "macho bravado" crap that is generally a precursor of abuse. A lot of abuse is based off of old family paradigms ("I'm the MAN of the house, your the little subservient woman!", and gay people, by their very existence have moved past that, for the most part.
Might you have some sort of delusion going about gay couples being slightly cuter and cuddlier and heterosexuals being masochists
Nope. Homosexual couples can be just as dysfunctional as heterosexual ones. I don't understand where the "masochist" bit comes in. I've been in a very happy (heterosexual) relationship for years, and there isn't much pain, or suffering in it, neither is there in the most of the other heterosexual couples I know.
Internet porn in general desensitizes people to do things they normally wouldn't had they not been exposed and takes away from intimacy in general.
Citation needed. Millions upon millions of people look at internet porn daily, and what portion of those turn into pedophiles or other flavors of dangerous deviants? Hell, we pretty much have a whole generation that grew up on freely available internet (and BBS) porn now, are we completely awash in pedophiles? Nope, I'm guessing the ratio is about the same.
This is like the idiotic "reefer madness" crap, that smoking marijuana is going to turn everyone into crazed, Jazz listening, rapists. Or that playing Doom will turn you into a serial, or spree, killer.
Come back with some strong evidence, and perhaps we'll listen to you.
Oh no, HOMOSEXUALITY IS ACCEPTABLE BEHAVIOR!!!!111oneeleventyeleven! Sorry... you lost me there. I've known my fair share of gay and lesbian individuals, and none of them were pedophiles, deviants, or any bit more twisted than anyone else. I'm guessing that gay relationships are less abusive than straight ones, even. I really can't buy into your morality, there is no empirical reason to fear "the gay".
Also, a small logic error... I'm guessing most bus drivers, police officers, and airline pilots also started with pornography (if they are male), too. Actually, pretty much everyone started with pornography, even before this wonderful, porntabulous, internet age. Both Hitler, and the Pope probably both started with the love of boobs. Its like saying being born is the primary precedent for being a mass murderer, since all mass murderers were born. Sure, it might be true, but it is completely meaningless.
Oh, and I heard there might be a gay person having a relationship somewhere within a mile of you, perhaps you should move, they are scary, with their big pointy teeths.
That probably is the answer. I would keep using classic, but I got somewhat used to inline replies. When they work, it probably is the only good thing Slashdot has done to it's interface since 2000. When it works.
Its a bit better better than when the floating comments sidebar widget decided to shoot rays of pure hate at Firefox, though. I had to hop on using IE (it was the only other browser installed) to adjust my threshold every time I opened a story.
Of all the places you'd think would be immune to the "Web 2.0" nonsense, you'd think it would be Slashdot. I don't think I've ever seen a positive comment on here about anything 2.0, ever. The social features... Really, who thought that Slashdot, the hive of unwashed, antisocial nerds that we are, wanted social features?
No, it wasn't. I've been using Chrome on Windows, and Chromium on Linux (on separate computers, and across multiple installs) for some time, and this problem was real. Reading this thread shows that other people have also experienced this, checking various forums also show that this is a known bug. Oddly, it only really hit Slashdot, though.
I've used Firefox since it was Phoenix, and I really couldn't list the full amount of bugs I've encountered over the years. IE probably has a longer list. I'm not too experienced with Opera, but I'm guessing, if it is like any other bit of software, it also has a very long history of bugs.
I've been using Chrome for around a year now, and have no real complaints. Now that the/. posting bug is fixed (on Windows, at least, I think it is still in Chromium on Linux) (it was/.'s fault probably, as pasting into forms worked on other sites).
I'd love to live in your world, where people always make the decisions they wished they had.
I didn't mean to sound callous.
But it is a choice. When I was young I was engaged in the drug culture somewhat deeply, and many of my friends were as well. Most of us managed to pull through and develop into normal adults, while a small handful of use are still suffering, or locked in prison (or dead). Addiction isn't something that can never be escaped, it just is hard to beat but entirely possible. Yes, I have some regrets from that period of time, but I still managed to pull through, as did most of the people I know from then. It was tough, it was nasty, but it was possible.
Living in Arizona, the drug of choice here were methamphetamines, and those who didn't manage to get clean by the late 90s, had the heroin fad to contend with. I would never advocate legalizing those drugs, while I am a fan of legalizing marijuana and some varieties of hallucinogens (basically drugs that aren't terribly addictive, or have dire social consequences). I would, on the other hand, decriminalize the possession of small quantities of drugs. Turning people who make some bad decisions into criminals isn't a very good thing either. I would use the money that we save in legal costs and jailing for treatment programs, and better, honest, drug education, plus going after the actual supply chain and not just small time users.
I don't see any logic in our current drug policy.
We're better off treating users, and helping them, than locking them in jail like some flavor of violent criminal.
1- it is okay for Asange et.al. to maintain secrecy about their operations, but is not okay for the USA to maintain official secrecy to protect ourselves and supporters.
Yes and no. Yes, in that Assange's organization is not in the US and thus not part of US laws. They may maintain any level of secrecy allowed in the country that hosts them, or in which they are registered as a business (which I don't think they are). And Yes, some level of government secrecy is needed to maintain the legitimate operations of the government. No, in that Assange put himself in the open now, and thus some level of openness is probably the "high road". And No, the US government is an elected body, and should be held accountable to its citizens, as much information as humanly possible should be available to me and you, so we can make informed decisions about retain our current politicians and condone their actions, or the opposite.
2- It is Okay for the leakers cabal to steal and use (for their own financial gain, and to the likely physical danger of others)) US information/property,
but is not okay for the US to pursue how this was facilitated in a court of law.
Yes and no. First, "cabal" really? Physical danger, really? I have seen no proof of physical danger, nor have a read any articles pointing to direct human damage caused by any leak Wikileaks published. Your first clause is fallacious and highly suspect. Your bias is showing. The "cabal" did not steal any information, it was given to them by an individual or individuals (who may or may not be Manning). I have seen no information leading me to believe that Wikileaks "stole" anything themselves, thus they are, and should be, pretty much immune to prosecution on that front, at least. If publishing, or making the leaks available, is indeed illegal, then yes, the government should pursue them. In my opinion this would be a case where you support the law, even if its breakage was, arguably, ethical.
If the government, on the other hand, does its usual liberal reading of the law (and by liberal I mean twisting the interpretation towards its wanted goals, and not the fair spirit of the law), then the government has no real "right" to push it. They will, and it will have some level of popular support, but it still won't be right. Wikileaks, at the moment, is guilty of doing no more than smearing egg on our faces. I have a hard time feeling bad, it is bad to be embarrassed, but the best way of avoiding this is to refrain from doing things you know would be embarrassing, and not just prosecuting everyone bold enough to tell the truth. Perhaps if our government didn't act like an asshat, none of this would have happened.
Yes. It still is a choice. It might not be an EASY choice, but it still is a choice. People do get clean, people quit physically addictive behaviors all the time, thus it isn't inevitable. If you can quit, then it still is a choice. Choices don't have to be easy to be valid choices.
The real question is "what is addictive but not physically addictive". You brain is physical, and all addiction is the interplay of various chemicals in the brain. Venturing down the slippery slope why draw the line of heavily regulating things like heroin, when we could also ban (and imprison) people who gamble or play World of Warcarft (or who collect porcelain squirrels, for that matter)?
If I wish to hurt myself, I think it should be my right to do so, as long as no one else gets hurt. In a sane world we would have banned alcohol long ago, it is a far worse, physically, mentally, and socially, than marijuana. Hell, I haven't seen any studies actually stating that marijuana is physically addictive (in the same manner as heroin or other opiates), whereas alcohol actually is.
I don't even smoke pot. Well... I do, roughly once a year, in very small quantities. I don't, personally, enjoy it that much.
But If those observations are made by the naked eye in a locale that's not somehow extreme (extreme gravity, extreme temperature, extreme electromagnetic fields, etc.), then I would be shocked.
You forgot "extremely haunted"... I jest. Somewhat. In all seriousness though, there is something to hauntings, probably not ghosts, or some strange previously unknown law of physics, but there is something going on that hasn't been fully explained. It might be something new and interesting about human psychology, or some interesting tertiary effect of gravity, sound, or some flavor of normally mundane radiation effecting the nervous system. There is something there that should be explained, and by just completely ignoring it we're being bad scientists.
Note I didn't say "ghosts", or some other supernatural beasty, I would say I'm 99.8% certain that whatever leads to the phenomena that we perceive and call "hauntings" is not caused by ghosts, or spirits, or imps, or fairies, and is instead caused by some unknown secondary effect of something that we already know and understand.
I haven't seen any theory that naturalistically explains away most perceived hauntings without sounding like contrived "pseudoskepical" handwaving. People should actually hop into this arena and research, but enter it with a naturalistic perspective and not a supernatural one.
But then again I also "believe" in UFOs, though I don't beleive in little green men, or any other visiting aliens. I believe that UFOs are just that, objects that we can not explain which we perceive as flying.
The Standard Model (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Model) and General Relativity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_relativity) pretty much cover all the physical forces you are ever likely to encounter. To be fair we don't have a ToE (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_everything) yet, but the two separate frameworks have been wildly successful at describing and predicting all of the physics that have yet been observed.
They explain what they explain, but they don't contain proof that they, themselves, must be the utterly inclusive. Hell, many of the attempts at ToE are forced to bring in thing outside of the GR and the SM to bind them (string theory for example, which basically throws the kitchen sink for fun). There are also aspcects of the Standard Model that have no empirical evidence behind them, or have never in fact been observed. We only have half the picture of gravity, something we have been struggling with, intellectually, for over 4000 years, and which is the most "obvious" fundamental force in our lives.
Looking at the history of science, I wouldn't be terrible shocked if we learned that either GR or SM, or both, are incomplete. Hell, I would only be slightly shocked to learn that we somehow got some of the fundamentals completely wrong. Science has a way of throwing established knowledge on its head every so often. Not saying that I personally think that any of the big theories are wrong, but just that it wouldn't be terribly shocking if they were corrected in the next 100 years. I would say we have good odds of finding them both to be incomplete in a shorter period of time.
It is hubris to think we know it all. There is nothing pointing to this. There is no valid reason to draw that conclusion. If we ever do approach a bridge between the macro and the micro (ahem... ) scale, I'm guessing it will have enough question marks to keep physicists working for another 100 or so years, before they realize that someone forgot a symbol somewhere, and we're forced to rewrite large chunks of knowledge again.
Personally, I think a large chunk of it is probably explained by higher rates of diagnosis. More kids who wouldn't have been label autistic back in the day are now being labeled. Whether it's really justified or not, is another question.
Bingo. Not a very popular stance, but I'm guessing it is the closest to the actual truth of the matter. We've expanded the diagnostic criteria of autism spectrum "diseases" to the point of being utterly meaningless. Around 90% of the people I was friends with in the early 90's (before the autism craze) would probably be placed somewhere in the autism spectrum if they were youths today. I, too, would have probably been autistic, or at least "suffering" aspergers. Luckily this was the early 90's and we all just got ADD/ADHD instead.
I am happy that the APA (organizers of the DSM) are planning on removing aspergers from the new addition, in order to force mental health professionals to either diagnose autism or nothing, which might cut down over-diagnosis levels a bit.
When I was first venturing into psychology as a field of study, one of my early professors was very quick to point out that everyone has symptoms of a very large array of listed mental illnesses, but what keeps you from being actually mentally ill is the ability to function normally. If you are capable of having long terms friends, a wife, a steady job, etc.. you probably are not "mentally ill". As "illness" generally (used to be) taken as "an impediment to normal functioning". This isn't saying such modern vogue diseases don't exist, but are VERY overdiagnosed. There are people running around proclaiming aspergers or adult-ADD who have large happy families, well paying jobs with long-term stability, and an active social life, these people are not sick, since they are functioning at a high level.
I'm not sure of all the causes of this largely purely social phenomena; but part of it is the huge pressure pharma exerts on doctors, and the fact that parents want results. If parents, or teachers, aren't happy with little Billy's performance or personality, then they will shop around until someone agrees with them. As a doctor, you might as well diagnose, because if you don't someone else will. My dad this this when I was young (mostly as a political maneuver in a divorce, with a bit of influence from some overworked teachers), he took me to around five doctors until one of them decided I must have ADD, and perhaps some flavor of clinical depression. (without ever actually talking to me).
Another thing is that parents ignore natural variation. Someone I know is trying to get their kid diagnosed with autism because she hasn't spoken by the time she turned 3 years old. While this might be unusual, it isn't unheard of, or even that problematic. It is well within the natural variation of human development.
My Mom only got vaccinated for smallpox, her parents refused to vaccinate her and her brother for anything else, including polio, because they were scared of the vaccinations having a worse effect than even polio would. This is pretty far before my time, so I'm not really entirely sure what the reasoning was, but it wasn't uncommon, and I'm pretty sure it wasn't some big autism scare (did autism even exist as a diagnosis in the 50's?).
When you read books about the smallpox eradication efforts, or about the rise of polio vaccines, you find that people being irrationally scared of vaccinations is pretty common, even before we decided to get our news from idiotic b-list celebrities. With smallpox, there was even some room for complaint since it was a more risky vaccine and than anything we have today.
A very large portion of humans (I would say a majority, but I'm feeling generous today) are idiots, always have been, always will be. Idiots are like the poor, they will always be with us. That isn't very fair, I know, since my grandfather was pretty far from being an idiot, but we all have our moments.
I haven't noticed many problems with Flash's sound on either of my Linux boxes. full screen Flash video, on the other hand, sucks. On my Atom/ION2 box full screen streaming Flash is almost completely unplayable. It sucks in both Firefox and Chrome, even when downgrading Flash to 9.xx. The Hulu client completely chokes (which is near 100% Flash, AFAIK). Oddly Boxee works almost perfectly, outside of some choking from HD content from only CBS.
No issues with Youtube in either Chrome or Firefox, though.
This is one huge problem I've had trying to fix anything Flash or video related on Linux... There is no one problem common to 100% of the population, but 100% of the population has a problem. You might have perfect video, but bugged sound, and I have the exact opposite. Even with identical symptoms, one fix will work for some people, but not others.
Hell, I've been trying to get sound through HDMI on my HTPC for a year now, even though people with identical hardware have managed it, following their steps exactly has done nothing for me.
A lot of that is, sadly, Linux. Don't get me wrong, I love Linux, and currently have two computers with some flavor of Linux as the sole OS (OpenSuse and Ubuntu), but they often churn much worse than my Win7 or OS X boxes, regardless of the OS being less resource hungry. I blame half-assed support, Flash, terrible driver hacks.
Its now 2011, and Linux still really can barely handle full screen flash (much less something like Hulu) on most configurations.
With both of my Linux computers, I know damn well that if I installed a flavor of Windows (even Vista... grrr) they would run a bit better. This pains me. And oddly, Ubuntu (and now OpenSuse) runs better on my underpowered, almost 10 year old lap-top, than on the technically superior and more modern Nettop.
And nowadays we have 4 gigs of RAM, and the computer uses 500 megs of swap and every time you alt-tab you have to wait 4-5 seconds for everything to load back into RAM as windows slowly get redrawn, and everything runs slow... but wait! Developers are piling more and more on, since there's 4 gigs of RAM then EVERY program can use 2-3 gigs of RAM, and now... yes! 6 gigs of swap, and a computer that barely runs at all with 6 8 core processors!
What OS are you running? I have around 6 gigs of RAM and hardly ever swap, much less experience churn, actually I hardly ever hit 4 gigs utilized outside of having a large amount of browser windows open while processing a hefty RAW image in Photoshop. The only genre of software that ever chokes up my computer is browsers, mostly. Firefox does nasty things, and Chrome is a bit better but still would perform unacceptably if it was anything else but a browser. Yes, this computer is a bit of a workhorse (quad-core PhenomII@3.4GHz, 6GB Ram), but even my older Core 2 Duos run pretty much everything fine, without any of the symptoms you list.
The only computers I have that experience any real issues with modern software is an old Mac Mini (first generation Intel, upgraded to a 1.8GHz Core 2 Duo, and 2GB of memory), and a Zotec nettop HTPC running some little Atom dual core, with an ION gfx chip, running Ubuntu. Both of these are old and a bit underpowered, and I suspect that both of them run into issues more because of shoddy graphics chips, than actual hardware.
It does annoy me that most programs still can't use half my cores, though.
It largely ignores quotes too now. Which pisses me off to no end.
I'm sick of the time relevance problem too. If I type in something about a current thing with previous versions, topics about the previous version push the current one way down in the results. Try searching for a common Ubuntu problem in the current version, for example. You have to narrow it down "in the last year" EVERY single damn time you search. Do I really care about configuring the screensaver in Kubuntu 5.5, when 99% of users are not using it anymore? They really need to at add date to their relevance calculations.
And let me use quotes, and +/-, and basic boolean logic.
Very odd. Perhaps a regional difference, or a private vs. public difference? Maybe a size thing? I went to a rather small public university, and was in a program where past the 200 level you were lucky to have 10 students in one class*. Perhaps it was different in other departments, I never really discussed grading methodologies with my peers.
* Around 60 students in philosophy degree program at any one time, and while psych was the among the most populous, it had a pretty extreme drop rate after the actual science bits kicked in. To add to it, I was taking psych for pure research, and not therapy or abnormal, which is rare.
Slashdot Mirror
The fact that Palin & the GOP's rhetoric included references to reloading, using the ammo box instead of the ballot box, "taking out" bad politicians, removing the liberal disease, and putting targetting crosshairs on a map while listed the name of the politican who just happened to be shot in the head, are a complete coincidence.
Yes, probably. I'm not agreeing with or defending rhetoric, I find it distasteful, and find it one of the more depressing trends to strike my country in a very long time. While Palin and the GOPs rhetoric is nasty, there is no evidence that they lead to this event. That is the point. It is as good an explanation as the NASA connection (Loughner believed the Mars rover was a lie, Giffords' husband is an astronaut), meaning not very good, since it is nothing more than speculation. Or that he said he liked Mein Kampf, and she was a Jew. Or that he is in Arizona so this somehow comes back to immigration policy (I, surprisingly, haven't seen that one in the wild yet).
So, since it is a total coincidence, should we stop examining violent rhetoric that has been said by politicians or should we take a moment to reflect? Why should we be concerned about the words that politicians use, knowing that there are disturbed people who might engage in violence?
Never said that, we SHOULD examine the violent rhetoric, even if this even has nothing to do with it. Just because they look nice when you link them together, mean they are linked, or should be associated with each other. By doing so your using this tragedy towards your own ends, which is a bit disgusting, no matter how good your ends are.
If it comes out that there is a connection to the current GOP rhetoric, then by all means make a point of it. These is no causal connection yet discovered though. If we find Sarah Palin posters, and a bust of Glenn Beck wreathed in flowers, then we can use this to show how partisan (not just Republican) rhetoric is dangerous.
The infamous crosshairs map may not be to blame in any way, but it is still irresponsible. Personally, I have a very hard time believing that this guy was obsessed with a member of congress to the point of attacking her, yet had never read a blog post about h
I'm sure he has. But his previous experience with her was definitely not a "tea party" question. "How can there be government if all words are a lie" isn't the type of thing I've heard any Tea Party person say. I doubt it is a Palin speaking point. It is a strange a deluded question spawned from a sick mind.
We don't even know if Giffords was attacked because she was a politician or because she was a high visibility target.
I think there is a great deal of difference between playing a game like Grand theft auto, and listening to a politician say that their opponent is destroying this country and ending our way of life.
You realize that politicians have been saying that as long as their has been politicians saying things, right?
NOT EVERYTHING HAS TO DO WITH POLITICS.
He is pro-pot, anti-religion, and pro-Communism.
Where did you get that? Perhaps anti-Religion, but he, apparently, quit smoking pot, so it is very hard to see where he stood on that. As for pro-Communism, how the hell did you reach that conclusion? Reading Marx? Millions of college kids read Marx every year. Hell, I've read Mein Kampf, and I'm not a Nazi or anti-semitic, I've read the Tuner Diaries, and I'm not insane. I've read the Bible, and I'm not religious. I've read the Bhagavad Gita, and I'm not Hindu. I've read Kafka, and I'm not a giant bug. I've read a lot of books that hold concepts I don't agree with. Its rather common.
I'm guessing this kid wasn't a communist, or a Nazi, or whatever else.
He certainly doesn't fall within the demographic of any Republican or Tea Party member that I know of.
I'm not going to say he's a Republican. He probably wasn't. But your reason why is a bit of a reach... I didn't know you had to fit a profile to be a member of the republican party. I know people who smoke pot, wear paisley, and know yoga who are registered republicans. I also know tons of gun toting, religious people who are proud democrats. People generally don't fall into clear cut categories. Most well-rounded individuals don't fit party lines, and are forced to pick the party that comes the closest.
That said, this probably didn't have a damn thing to do with politics. Some thing don't, I know it is very hard to believe, watching the media.
Have you read anything about this? Reading his rants, and reading accounts from his friends and acquaintances makes it clear that this is probably not a case of "hornies". A couple years ago he attended an event that Giffords was holding and asked her something like "how can their be government if all words are lies" or something close to that, she didn't answer him, he was mad.
He was probably experiencing an escalating case of schizophrenia (judging by the course of events, his words, and his writing style), she was a target since she was "controlling grammar" or such. I'm also guessing he did it to draw attention to his "philosophy", hoping an event like that would make people read (watch) his stuff, and realize the truth of the "new currency", and "grammar"... (Notice the shear amount of crazy?).
This topic has made me doubly sick. I'm, obviously, sickened that this disturbed person slaughtered innocent people. I'm also sickened that we somehow want to turn it into bullshit politics*, and idiotic partisan rhetoric. Doing so completely misses the point, and mocks the actual event. Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, the Tea Party movement, or the GOP had NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO DO WITH THIS. I'm a lifelong Democrat, and a bona fide socialist, I have nothing against calling out the Republicans on their crap, but this isn't the appropriate event for it. It is actually a bit distasteful. The kid was insane, and not obviously politically motivated (at least motivated in any way us sane folk can really comprehend).
Hell, before a single fact actually rolled down the media pipeline, we were already blaming Palin. Before we KNEW anything at all outside of the fact that someone shot a democrat and a bunch of innocent bystanders we already were ramping up the partisan rhetoric. And now we're running with it, even when the available facts point in the other direction, and we still don't even have half the facts.
Do these people here on Slashdot realize that by blaming the GOP, they sound just like the idiots that blame violent video games for violence?
Sorry of the rant, it needs to be said.
* This part isn't aimed at you, just a convenient place to put it.
Whose to say its about rape? I can pick various scenarios where this statement could be said without rape being involved.
"I didn't know up your daughter, my DNA quantumly teleported*", for instance... This was the first context I thought of, at least. Before people dragged rape into it. Don't know why you have rape on the mind.
* Wow, Chrome's spell check doesn't think "teleport" is a word?
It's actually pretty simple, but I have a PhD in chemistry, so I might be biased
Probably not biased, since I don't have a PhD in anything and understood it. Though I do have a slightly higher than layman science background (specialized in philosophy of science).
Someone on the internet was wrong.
Oh noes.
Seriously though, for all your research you failed to actually provide anything showing the contrary to my claim, at least that wasn't hidden behind a pay wall, or that required me hitting up the nearest university. While these articles may actually prove or disprove my point, there really is no way of knowing. And, as I stated, it is an anecdotal point, therefore I'm not too invested in it, or would be too shocked at it being disproven.
I never presented it as a concrete factual statement. In fact I even prefaced it with "I guess". I added that preface after doing (probably) the exact same Google search as you did and not finding any meaningful, conclusive, results from sources that are somewhat trustworthy.
If you were in my composition class and wrote a paper on that, I'd give you an F. You might have managed to come up with a theory based on your anecdotal evidence, but you failed to do any research, and when someone does do some research everything they find seems to contradict your theory.
If I was in a composition class I probably wouldn't have picked this topic, or would have picked it while at a University with a well-stocked library with plenty of actual journals to pick from. I also probably wouldn't have brought anecdotal evidence into it, and going by the sources you cited the conclusion would be; "there is no conclusion at this time".
Also, having a informal theory, based on deductive reasoning or soft, anecdotal, evidence is acceptable previous to any actual empirical results.
Wow, your very emotionally invested in this... Why is that?
Your first source was a crock. It almost had me until I realized that it was just another political agenda masquerading as something real. Something... something... if we allow people different than us to do thing society will collapse.
Your second link isn't a comparison to straight couples, but between lesbian and gay couples. And if the information at the bottom of your first, propaganda, link is any evidence it puts tons of credence in "verbal abuse"...
Third... another abstract to a $50 article. It nicely says, though; "The article highlights the need for empirical research on same-sex male battering.". Indeed.
Fourth: getting cheaper, only $34 to read it. Available abstract mentions nothing about levels of abuse between straight and homosexual populations.
Fifth: That source is more suspect than the first. Its like using Mein Kampf as a source for information about Jewish culture and identity. Also, yes, gay men would be more battered than straight men, since straight men are generally the abusers in heterosexual relationships. No shit? Straight men are abused much less than straight women. So, for fun, if you have one population with equal levels( female-female_, and one with lesser levels (male-male), and you add them together and compare with the original group (female-male), you have a lesser overall level.
Sigh... sixth: " Based on the limited research done on lesbian violence, it appears that..." What a strong factual statement that is... Amusingly it implies that relationships with gay males are less violent than straight relationships... While lesbian couples may, or may not, be equal.
Did you actually spend the $137 to read those articles, or did you just do a quick search for abstracts? Really, your better off paying attention to the source, too. You picked two sources with a very heavy, and public, agenda. Its like posting links to the Discovery Institute on topics about science and evolution.
Bullshit. More claims with no evidence, only your anecdotal experience.
Anecdotal, again, which is still better than what you offered. Now go dig up some references on why abuse happens in straight relationships... I'm guessing the largest cause is cultural, this makes sense. Most abuse is done by men, and lots of men still hold idiotic cultural artifacts from our earlier history as true. Men are manly, women are submissive.
Then by your own admission most heterosexual couples you know are, apparently, fine. Sheer volume might account for the fact that "a fair number" of heterosexual couples you've met had issues with domestic violence, and "only one" homosexual couple did. Do you know comparable numbers of gay and straight couples? And might there possibly just be more pressure on homosexual couples to gloss over issues with domestic violence, in the interests of trying to help themselves be perceived as a "normal family"
Most couples, straight or homosexual, are not abusive. Volume might account for some of it, but not as much as you would think since I know a pretty pool of homosexuals as well. Until recently me and my girlfriend were one of two straight couples in a full apartment complex full of homosexuals. Around 1/4th of my friends are homosexual, or engage in non-purely heterosexual behavior. From these two circumstances I've been around a fair bit of homosexuals engaged in various types of relationships.
Why are they running around caring about appearances? Its not like my state (Arizona) will ever recognize them, and I doubt very much that they care what I think about them. At least they care as much about my opinion as I care about their opinion about my own relationship (long-term, permanently unmarried, "sin-mates"), which is to say; "not one iota". I'm pretty sure they all weren't out to impress me, since I really don't care what they do. As long as no one is harmed, it is no business of mine who you sleep with, or what gender you display a preference for.
I actually can't find a single bit of valid, scientific research pointing either way. Your link also doesn't back up that claim, it has one link that returns a 404. So I'm forced to use, admittedly flawed, anecdotal evidence. I know a fair number of straight couples with an abusive partner, while only one of the gay or lesbian couples I know had an abusive partner.
In the absence of hard statistics, personal observations fill the gap.
Also, 50% of gay relationships lack men, the chief abusers in relationships. And most of the gay men I know don't, generally, buy into the "macho bravado" crap that is generally a precursor of abuse. A lot of abuse is based off of old family paradigms ("I'm the MAN of the house, your the little subservient woman!", and gay people, by their very existence have moved past that, for the most part.
Might you have some sort of delusion going about gay couples being slightly cuter and cuddlier and heterosexuals being masochists
Nope. Homosexual couples can be just as dysfunctional as heterosexual ones. I don't understand where the "masochist" bit comes in. I've been in a very happy (heterosexual) relationship for years, and there isn't much pain, or suffering in it, neither is there in the most of the other heterosexual couples I know.
Internet porn in general desensitizes people to do things they normally wouldn't had they not been exposed and takes away from intimacy in general.
Citation needed. Millions upon millions of people look at internet porn daily, and what portion of those turn into pedophiles or other flavors of dangerous deviants? Hell, we pretty much have a whole generation that grew up on freely available internet (and BBS) porn now, are we completely awash in pedophiles? Nope, I'm guessing the ratio is about the same.
This is like the idiotic "reefer madness" crap, that smoking marijuana is going to turn everyone into crazed, Jazz listening, rapists. Or that playing Doom will turn you into a serial, or spree, killer.
Come back with some strong evidence, and perhaps we'll listen to you.
Oh no, HOMOSEXUALITY IS ACCEPTABLE BEHAVIOR!!!!111oneeleventyeleven! Sorry... you lost me there. I've known my fair share of gay and lesbian individuals, and none of them were pedophiles, deviants, or any bit more twisted than anyone else. I'm guessing that gay relationships are less abusive than straight ones, even. I really can't buy into your morality, there is no empirical reason to fear "the gay".
Also, a small logic error... I'm guessing most bus drivers, police officers, and airline pilots also started with pornography (if they are male), too. Actually, pretty much everyone started with pornography, even before this wonderful, porntabulous, internet age. Both Hitler, and the Pope probably both started with the love of boobs. Its like saying being born is the primary precedent for being a mass murderer, since all mass murderers were born. Sure, it might be true, but it is completely meaningless.
Oh, and I heard there might be a gay person having a relationship somewhere within a mile of you, perhaps you should move, they are scary, with their big pointy teeths.
That probably is the answer. I would keep using classic, but I got somewhat used to inline replies. When they work, it probably is the only good thing Slashdot has done to it's interface since 2000. When it works.
Its a bit better better than when the floating comments sidebar widget decided to shoot rays of pure hate at Firefox, though. I had to hop on using IE (it was the only other browser installed) to adjust my threshold every time I opened a story.
Of all the places you'd think would be immune to the "Web 2.0" nonsense, you'd think it would be Slashdot. I don't think I've ever seen a positive comment on here about anything 2.0, ever. The social features... Really, who thought that Slashdot, the hive of unwashed, antisocial nerds that we are, wanted social features?
Do you want to friend me... Hee, Hee... Grumble.
Maybe, just maybe, the problem is you.
No, it wasn't. I've been using Chrome on Windows, and Chromium on Linux (on separate computers, and across multiple installs) for some time, and this problem was real. Reading this thread shows that other people have also experienced this, checking various forums also show that this is a known bug. Oddly, it only really hit Slashdot, though.
I've used Firefox since it was Phoenix, and I really couldn't list the full amount of bugs I've encountered over the years. IE probably has a longer list. I'm not too experienced with Opera, but I'm guessing, if it is like any other bit of software, it also has a very long history of bugs.
I've been using Chrome for around a year now, and have no real complaints. Now that the /. posting bug is fixed (on Windows, at least, I think it is still in Chromium on Linux) (it was /.'s fault probably, as pasting into forms worked on other sites).
I'd love to live in your world, where people always make the decisions they wished they had.
I didn't mean to sound callous.
But it is a choice. When I was young I was engaged in the drug culture somewhat deeply, and many of my friends were as well. Most of us managed to pull through and develop into normal adults, while a small handful of use are still suffering, or locked in prison (or dead). Addiction isn't something that can never be escaped, it just is hard to beat but entirely possible. Yes, I have some regrets from that period of time, but I still managed to pull through, as did most of the people I know from then. It was tough, it was nasty, but it was possible.
Living in Arizona, the drug of choice here were methamphetamines, and those who didn't manage to get clean by the late 90s, had the heroin fad to contend with. I would never advocate legalizing those drugs, while I am a fan of legalizing marijuana and some varieties of hallucinogens (basically drugs that aren't terribly addictive, or have dire social consequences). I would, on the other hand, decriminalize the possession of small quantities of drugs. Turning people who make some bad decisions into criminals isn't a very good thing either. I would use the money that we save in legal costs and jailing for treatment programs, and better, honest, drug education, plus going after the actual supply chain and not just small time users.
I don't see any logic in our current drug policy.
We're better off treating users, and helping them, than locking them in jail like some flavor of violent criminal.
It still is a choice, though.
1- it is okay for Asange et.al. to maintain secrecy about their operations, but is not okay for the USA to maintain official secrecy to protect ourselves and supporters.
Yes and no. Yes, in that Assange's organization is not in the US and thus not part of US laws. They may maintain any level of secrecy allowed in the country that hosts them, or in which they are registered as a business (which I don't think they are). And Yes, some level of government secrecy is needed to maintain the legitimate operations of the government. No, in that Assange put himself in the open now, and thus some level of openness is probably the "high road". And No, the US government is an elected body, and should be held accountable to its citizens, as much information as humanly possible should be available to me and you, so we can make informed decisions about retain our current politicians and condone their actions, or the opposite.
2- It is Okay for the leakers cabal to steal and use (for their own financial gain, and to the likely physical danger of others)) US information/property,
but is not okay for the US to pursue how this was facilitated in a court of law.
Yes and no. First, "cabal" really? Physical danger, really? I have seen no proof of physical danger, nor have a read any articles pointing to direct human damage caused by any leak Wikileaks published. Your first clause is fallacious and highly suspect. Your bias is showing. The "cabal" did not steal any information, it was given to them by an individual or individuals (who may or may not be Manning). I have seen no information leading me to believe that Wikileaks "stole" anything themselves, thus they are, and should be, pretty much immune to prosecution on that front, at least. If publishing, or making the leaks available, is indeed illegal, then yes, the government should pursue them. In my opinion this would be a case where you support the law, even if its breakage was, arguably, ethical.
If the government, on the other hand, does its usual liberal reading of the law (and by liberal I mean twisting the interpretation towards its wanted goals, and not the fair spirit of the law), then the government has no real "right" to push it. They will, and it will have some level of popular support, but it still won't be right. Wikileaks, at the moment, is guilty of doing no more than smearing egg on our faces. I have a hard time feeling bad, it is bad to be embarrassed, but the best way of avoiding this is to refrain from doing things you know would be embarrassing, and not just prosecuting everyone bold enough to tell the truth. Perhaps if our government didn't act like an asshat, none of this would have happened.
Yes. It still is a choice. It might not be an EASY choice, but it still is a choice. People do get clean, people quit physically addictive behaviors all the time, thus it isn't inevitable. If you can quit, then it still is a choice. Choices don't have to be easy to be valid choices.
The real question is "what is addictive but not physically addictive". You brain is physical, and all addiction is the interplay of various chemicals in the brain. Venturing down the slippery slope why draw the line of heavily regulating things like heroin, when we could also ban (and imprison) people who gamble or play World of Warcarft (or who collect porcelain squirrels, for that matter)?
If I wish to hurt myself, I think it should be my right to do so, as long as no one else gets hurt. In a sane world we would have banned alcohol long ago, it is a far worse, physically, mentally, and socially, than marijuana. Hell, I haven't seen any studies actually stating that marijuana is physically addictive (in the same manner as heroin or other opiates), whereas alcohol actually is.
I don't even smoke pot. Well... I do, roughly once a year, in very small quantities. I don't, personally, enjoy it that much.
But If those observations are made by the naked eye in a locale that's not somehow extreme (extreme gravity, extreme temperature, extreme electromagnetic fields, etc.), then I would be shocked.
You forgot "extremely haunted"... I jest. Somewhat. In all seriousness though, there is something to hauntings, probably not ghosts, or some strange previously unknown law of physics, but there is something going on that hasn't been fully explained. It might be something new and interesting about human psychology, or some interesting tertiary effect of gravity, sound, or some flavor of normally mundane radiation effecting the nervous system. There is something there that should be explained, and by just completely ignoring it we're being bad scientists.
Note I didn't say "ghosts", or some other supernatural beasty, I would say I'm 99.8% certain that whatever leads to the phenomena that we perceive and call "hauntings" is not caused by ghosts, or spirits, or imps, or fairies, and is instead caused by some unknown secondary effect of something that we already know and understand.
I haven't seen any theory that naturalistically explains away most perceived hauntings without sounding like contrived "pseudoskepical" handwaving. People should actually hop into this arena and research, but enter it with a naturalistic perspective and not a supernatural one.
But then again I also "believe" in UFOs, though I don't beleive in little green men, or any other visiting aliens. I believe that UFOs are just that, objects that we can not explain which we perceive as flying.
The Standard Model (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Model) and General Relativity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_relativity) pretty much cover all the physical forces you are ever likely to encounter. To be fair we don't have a ToE (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_everything) yet, but the two separate frameworks have been wildly successful at describing and predicting all of the physics that have yet been observed.
They explain what they explain, but they don't contain proof that they, themselves, must be the utterly inclusive. Hell, many of the attempts at ToE are forced to bring in thing outside of the GR and the SM to bind them (string theory for example, which basically throws the kitchen sink for fun). There are also aspcects of the Standard Model that have no empirical evidence behind them, or have never in fact been observed. We only have half the picture of gravity, something we have been struggling with, intellectually, for over 4000 years, and which is the most "obvious" fundamental force in our lives.
Looking at the history of science, I wouldn't be terrible shocked if we learned that either GR or SM, or both, are incomplete. Hell, I would only be slightly shocked to learn that we somehow got some of the fundamentals completely wrong. Science has a way of throwing established knowledge on its head every so often. Not saying that I personally think that any of the big theories are wrong, but just that it wouldn't be terribly shocking if they were corrected in the next 100 years. I would say we have good odds of finding them both to be incomplete in a shorter period of time.
It is hubris to think we know it all. There is nothing pointing to this. There is no valid reason to draw that conclusion. If we ever do approach a bridge between the macro and the micro (ahem... ) scale, I'm guessing it will have enough question marks to keep physicists working for another 100 or so years, before they realize that someone forgot a symbol somewhere, and we're forced to rewrite large chunks of knowledge again.
Personally, I think a large chunk of it is probably explained by higher rates of diagnosis. More kids who wouldn't have been label autistic back in the day are now being labeled. Whether it's really justified or not, is another question.
Bingo. Not a very popular stance, but I'm guessing it is the closest to the actual truth of the matter. We've expanded the diagnostic criteria of autism spectrum "diseases" to the point of being utterly meaningless. Around 90% of the people I was friends with in the early 90's (before the autism craze) would probably be placed somewhere in the autism spectrum if they were youths today. I, too, would have probably been autistic, or at least "suffering" aspergers. Luckily this was the early 90's and we all just got ADD/ADHD instead.
I am happy that the APA (organizers of the DSM) are planning on removing aspergers from the new addition, in order to force mental health professionals to either diagnose autism or nothing, which might cut down over-diagnosis levels a bit.
When I was first venturing into psychology as a field of study, one of my early professors was very quick to point out that everyone has symptoms of a very large array of listed mental illnesses, but what keeps you from being actually mentally ill is the ability to function normally. If you are capable of having long terms friends, a wife, a steady job, etc.. you probably are not "mentally ill". As "illness" generally (used to be) taken as "an impediment to normal functioning". This isn't saying such modern vogue diseases don't exist, but are VERY overdiagnosed. There are people running around proclaiming aspergers or adult-ADD who have large happy families, well paying jobs with long-term stability, and an active social life, these people are not sick, since they are functioning at a high level.
I'm not sure of all the causes of this largely purely social phenomena; but part of it is the huge pressure pharma exerts on doctors, and the fact that parents want results. If parents, or teachers, aren't happy with little Billy's performance or personality, then they will shop around until someone agrees with them. As a doctor, you might as well diagnose, because if you don't someone else will. My dad this this when I was young (mostly as a political maneuver in a divorce, with a bit of influence from some overworked teachers), he took me to around five doctors until one of them decided I must have ADD, and perhaps some flavor of clinical depression. (without ever actually talking to me).
Another thing is that parents ignore natural variation. Someone I know is trying to get their kid diagnosed with autism because she hasn't spoken by the time she turned 3 years old. While this might be unusual, it isn't unheard of, or even that problematic. It is well within the natural variation of human development.
My Mom only got vaccinated for smallpox, her parents refused to vaccinate her and her brother for anything else, including polio, because they were scared of the vaccinations having a worse effect than even polio would. This is pretty far before my time, so I'm not really entirely sure what the reasoning was, but it wasn't uncommon, and I'm pretty sure it wasn't some big autism scare (did autism even exist as a diagnosis in the 50's?).
When you read books about the smallpox eradication efforts, or about the rise of polio vaccines, you find that people being irrationally scared of vaccinations is pretty common, even before we decided to get our news from idiotic b-list celebrities. With smallpox, there was even some room for complaint since it was a more risky vaccine and than anything we have today.
A very large portion of humans (I would say a majority, but I'm feeling generous today) are idiots, always have been, always will be. Idiots are like the poor, they will always be with us. That isn't very fair, I know, since my grandfather was pretty far from being an idiot, but we all have our moments.
No.
Oh wait...
I haven't noticed many problems with Flash's sound on either of my Linux boxes. full screen Flash video, on the other hand, sucks. On my Atom/ION2 box full screen streaming Flash is almost completely unplayable. It sucks in both Firefox and Chrome, even when downgrading Flash to 9.xx. The Hulu client completely chokes (which is near 100% Flash, AFAIK). Oddly Boxee works almost perfectly, outside of some choking from HD content from only CBS.
No issues with Youtube in either Chrome or Firefox, though.
This is one huge problem I've had trying to fix anything Flash or video related on Linux... There is no one problem common to 100% of the population, but 100% of the population has a problem. You might have perfect video, but bugged sound, and I have the exact opposite. Even with identical symptoms, one fix will work for some people, but not others.
Hell, I've been trying to get sound through HDMI on my HTPC for a year now, even though people with identical hardware have managed it, following their steps exactly has done nothing for me.
A lot of that is, sadly, Linux. Don't get me wrong, I love Linux, and currently have two computers with some flavor of Linux as the sole OS (OpenSuse and Ubuntu), but they often churn much worse than my Win7 or OS X boxes, regardless of the OS being less resource hungry. I blame half-assed support, Flash, terrible driver hacks.
Its now 2011, and Linux still really can barely handle full screen flash (much less something like Hulu) on most configurations.
With both of my Linux computers, I know damn well that if I installed a flavor of Windows (even Vista... grrr) they would run a bit better. This pains me. And oddly, Ubuntu (and now OpenSuse) runs better on my underpowered, almost 10 year old lap-top, than on the technically superior and more modern Nettop.
And nowadays we have 4 gigs of RAM, and the computer uses 500 megs of swap and every time you alt-tab you have to wait 4-5 seconds for everything to load back into RAM as windows slowly get redrawn, and everything runs slow... but wait! Developers are piling more and more on, since there's 4 gigs of RAM then EVERY program can use 2-3 gigs of RAM, and now... yes! 6 gigs of swap, and a computer that barely runs at all with 6 8 core processors!
What OS are you running? I have around 6 gigs of RAM and hardly ever swap, much less experience churn, actually I hardly ever hit 4 gigs utilized outside of having a large amount of browser windows open while processing a hefty RAW image in Photoshop. The only genre of software that ever chokes up my computer is browsers, mostly. Firefox does nasty things, and Chrome is a bit better but still would perform unacceptably if it was anything else but a browser. Yes, this computer is a bit of a workhorse (quad-core PhenomII@3.4GHz, 6GB Ram), but even my older Core 2 Duos run pretty much everything fine, without any of the symptoms you list.
The only computers I have that experience any real issues with modern software is an old Mac Mini (first generation Intel, upgraded to a 1.8GHz Core 2 Duo, and 2GB of memory), and a Zotec nettop HTPC running some little Atom dual core, with an ION gfx chip, running Ubuntu. Both of these are old and a bit underpowered, and I suspect that both of them run into issues more because of shoddy graphics chips, than actual hardware.
It does annoy me that most programs still can't use half my cores, though.
It largely ignores quotes too now. Which pisses me off to no end.
I'm sick of the time relevance problem too. If I type in something about a current thing with previous versions, topics about the previous version push the current one way down in the results. Try searching for a common Ubuntu problem in the current version, for example. You have to narrow it down "in the last year" EVERY single damn time you search. Do I really care about configuring the screensaver in Kubuntu 5.5, when 99% of users are not using it anymore? They really need to at add date to their relevance calculations.
And let me use quotes, and +/-, and basic boolean logic.
Very odd. Perhaps a regional difference, or a private vs. public difference? Maybe a size thing? I went to a rather small public university, and was in a program where past the 200 level you were lucky to have 10 students in one class*. Perhaps it was different in other departments, I never really discussed grading methodologies with my peers.
* Around 60 students in philosophy degree program at any one time, and while psych was the among the most populous, it had a pretty extreme drop rate after the actual science bits kicked in. To add to it, I was taking psych for pure research, and not therapy or abnormal, which is rare.