Yeah.. Owning an ISP gives me plenty of access to computer time. But, it's a job... And it's balanced... When I'm not posting on Slashdot, I'm probably hiking up a mountain to inspect towers or relay sites.. Half of my time (at least) is not sedentary... That's the whole point of what I've been talking about.. It's not that kids are on social media, it's that they are (some of them at least) spending the bulk of their time on it.
Simple observations... The proportion of fat kids, when I was a kid, was not this high.. There were a few.. But we are rapidly approaching the point where being fat is the majority..
It's basically "I accuse thee, I accuse thee, I accuse thee" and the guy is instantly guilty. Is it any wonder guys are avoiding dating?
C'mon... You aren't really trying to convince me that any teenagers are giving sex that much thought are you? I don't know how it is where you are, granted, but when I was a 16 year old, there was nothing else on my mind. I'm pretty sure you could have told me I'd burst into flames 3 seconds after "finish" and I would have still risked it.
If where you are penalizes two 15 year olds for consensual sex, by putting them on a sex offender registry for life, then you guys have some bigger fish to fry.. That is... insane.. Logically one cannot be a victim and a perpetrator for the same act...
There is no doubt that both would be crippling to a modern teen's social life, but I bet most would choose to interact exclusively in person vs never being able to interact in person.
You may be right.. But if most ended up being 51%... We have a serious problem.. Even if most was 80%, we still have a major problem.. I don't know what "most" is. I would be interested in finding out.
If I had to make a bet, I'd guess that your "most" is not nearly as large as you might think it is. I'd guess "most" would come in around 75%. (keyword: guess)
While I'm not clear on the dopamine correlation, I'm also not sure that's relevant. If your body is rewarding you for efficiency or satisfying some internal pressure (that may have been artificial to begin with, built in by parents/teachers because THEY thought it was important), that doesn't seem like a problem. Addiction is a problem when it interferes with your obligations or is putting your physical health in significant immediate threat. That's not happening here. If meeting someone face to face is required to keep your job, for example, and you don't do it, then you have a problem. But if it's so you calk talk to Susie about who Sally blew last night...fuck that shit, use text.
The dopamine is a very important factor. It's what creates the addiction. Your body doesn't always reward you for things that turn out to be positive in the long run. Eating a crapload of candy every day is a good example I think. Our bodies crave sugar & fats because they used to be very hard to get and are a good source of short term / long term energy. But, we have unlimited access to both today. Our mental reward for chomping down on a Snickers bar is causing some people a lot of problem.
These addictions to social media and smart phones are causing morons to walk around with their faces glued to their phones. Seems like every few weeks you hear about someone getting run over because they walked out into traffic while looking at their phone. From the studies I've seen, our brains give us that reward when we post something that is "liked" by our friends.. I'm no expert, and I'm not sure on the exact mechanics... But i have the power of observation, and I see LOTS of kids who are absolutely glued to their phones.
Right now, from what I can see, there is almost no oversight (by a lot of parents) on how kids are using these devices. Young teens are the most vulnerable to forming life long addictions (in my experience). eg. In my group of friends, the ones who didn't start drinking early never turned into alcoholics. Most of the people I know who are problem drinkers started in their mid-teens. Nearly 100% of my friends who did end up as current, or recovering, alcoholics started drinking around 14-16.
I've had computers all my life, and a strong affinity for them. But my parents forced me to balance it. I was made to play outside with actual people the bulk of the day. Once I came in for the night, then they didn't care so much. But gluing myself to a monitor from 8AM to about 5PM was forbidden.
If these kids today don't develop, or lose, their ability to interact comfortably with other people face to face, they are going to have a rough road to hoe. I think it's kind of like drugs.. Yeah, we probably all know a couple people who are functional addicts, but for most people who end up with a drug addiction, life becomes pretty difficult. The level of affinity that some kids have for their phones is... eerie and a little disturbing.
I'll end with this... I read an article a few weeks ago that was focused on this very topic (smartphones, social media, and teens) and it presented some pretty.... interesting... statistics. I don't recall the exact numbers, but something like only 12% of High School Seniors have been on a date. And, only about 1/3 of current 16 year olds have a driver's license. (These numbers may be off, but the general gist is right). That's.... odd... Among my group of peers, getting a DL was.. everything.. It was freedom.. It was independence.. Most of my friends took the test on their birthday. I certainly did. Spending a day at the DMV on your 16th birthday is what everyone did. Now... apparently not so much...
My guess is that jpaine619 lives in the US, so "problems facing our citenzry" likely means "problems facing US citizens." I agree that lack of potable water and crushing poverty are not the most serious problems within the US. Not because other problems are of greater magnitude to those harmed by them, but because their are relatively few people who have those problems in the US.
So... famine, lack of potable water and crushing poverty in vast regions of the globe fall under rank #3 and below?
On topic: I don't say I like where Social media is going, but it's a wave you can't stop, however you can ride it, together with your kids, minimizing its ill effects.
Well, I said our citizenry.. I was referring to fellow Americans.. I guess I should have clarified it a bit more. So no, famine, water issues, and crushing poverty do not affect most Americans. They affect some, but not most.
I'm also not for stopping social media. I was quite clear in mentioning KIDS. Kids are the first generation to have had social media since day one. I think parents need to be made aware, or more aware, of the potential problems that it can cause. Once you make it to adulthood, your time is your time and, generally speaking, I no longer have an opinion on it. Once you are an adult most folks also are somewhat developed. The habits they have they will probably end up having for their entire lives..
I'll add a closing thought though... Kids can be lazy. There were lazy kids when I was a kid, But I have never seen the level of... sedentary kids that I see today. Fat kids were also rare. Now... not so much I think.. There has been a major shift in what kids do... I'm not seeing a whole bunch of benefits.. I don't know what the solution is, but I see a problem.....
Has nothing to do with virtue. And, I'm not a kid. And, I posted from a computer. I didn't do it from a smart phone I'm glued to all day.
Your statement is so stupid it's beyond reality. I occasionally (1x to 2x a month) have a beer. Do you think I don't get to speak out about alcoholism? A few times a month I might have a bit of weed. Did I lose my ability to comment about those people who wake-n-bake and go through life stoned 100% of their waking hours?
This has nothing to do with how society evolves. This isn't socialization, this is turning kids into hermits. Studies have shown that smart phones and social media are addictive. The instant gratification of both boosts dopamine levels.. Pretty soon you get used to those elevated dopamine levels.. That's addiction.
This and obesity are the two most serious problems facing our citizenry, in my opinion.
Ummm... no. It goes to those who can afford them. Not everyone has an equal ability to pay and price gouging during a natural disaster is a dick move.
The term for that is price gouging when it happens around the time of a natural disaster. Some price fluctuation is to be expected but there is a limit to what is appropriate.
Back to this, are we? Same loads of bullshit over and over again. There have been studies that show that when prices are raised, during a disaster, people don't binge buy items..
Why does all logic escape you lefties? There is a shortage of items... They have become more valuable... Said items may not be replaced until the disaster is over... So your solution is that the first person to get to them can buy them all?
Or.... we could let the shop owners raise the prices so it becomes economically feasible to only buy "some" items. Thus leaving some for others.
Let's take batteries, just as an example.. Every time there is some storm, or earthquake, or whatever, the first thing people try to hoard are batteries.. (well, that and bottled water). So, if the prices of the batteries aren't allowed to change, then the first person to get to the store can make a huge dent in the inventory. By the time the 10th person comes along, the batteries are probably wiped out.. (I'm using the amount of inventory I see at my local grocery store as my reference).
Now let's jump over to a system that doesn't micromange, and allows stores to charge whatever the fuck they want..
How much is the store going to raise the prices? Probably not to insane levels, but let's say they do, for a moment.. They're gonna have to deal with that negative publicity after the disaster.. Not good in the long run. They'll be punished by the public.. I've seen this happen with my own eyes..
So let's say the store triples the prices on batteries... Now the first guy to the store can only buy 1/3 of what he was planning.. Assuming everyone has his amount of money, the batteries are going to last 3x longer.. 3x more people will be able to purchase batteries.. Those batteries are also going to be conserved.. They were expensive and they may not be replaceable for a long time.
Under your stupid ass system, we ignore supply and demand, and instead let the first few people buy up all the inventory.. AND if it's a rich person (whom you seem to hate) it's even easier for them to buy ALL the batteries, under your system.. We're keeping the prices low..
Water and batteries... Not expensive items, but very important during an emergency.. I could buy every goddamn battery at my local supermarket (which is a big one) for less than a grand.. Under your price control system, this is fine. I alone should have batteries during an emergency.. Every poor person, behind me, can fuck off if they want batteries.. yeah?
Or... the store could adjust prices, and I can't buy all the batteries.. They aren't gonna price them so high that nobody can buy them.. They'll be shooting for a reasonable target.. High enough to make a nice profit, but not so high that the public turns on them. This will have a nice side-effect of minimizing hoarding and binge buying.
Neither system prevents the "rich" from buying whatever they want, but at least under the system I favor the middle class loses the ability to binge buy and hoard. More people will be able to buy those items they need in an emergency.
The poor are always going to be in a bad position. They're poor.. It sucks, but it's reality. I've been poor. I also knew I was poor and planned accordingly.. The last thing I wanted to do was try to buy disaster supplies during a disaster..
Well, mutual defense treaties are fine... I just don't buy this whole "we got here first, so it's ours for all time... blah blah blah".
Make allies, defend your shit.... If you lose, you lose.. Suck it up. If that's not how we are gonna look at it, then I suspect we'll be hearing from some Phoenicians on how they want their land back....
I disagree with the notion that we aren't having an impact. I don't know how severe the impact is. But the billions of gallons of oil we have burned cannot be doing nothing. Our atmosphere is pretty thin.... We've dumped a lot of carbon into it.. Again, I'm not qualified to make a statement on how much damage we have done, but I know we have done some damage. I think that's just common sense..
But, we're talking about icebergs that are already floating around.. I don't think anyone in Dubai is planning on forcibly calving one off of a glacier... I mean, I could be wrong but I suspect they plan on grabbing one that's already floated North some distance.. Would be rather silly to sail by one that's already there...
"Fresh water, of which icebergs are made, is less dense than salty sea water. So while the amount of sea water displaced by the iceberg is equal to its weight, the melted fresh water will take up a slightly larger volume than the displaced salt water. This results in a small increase in the water level."
(I'm not the person you replied to)
Okay.. I'll take you at your word.. But... it'll melt anyway. Once a 'berg calves from a glacier, its only future is to sink a Titanic or melt...
Besides, you only get to own something for as long as you can keep it. There is no moral problem here. They lost it... I'll feel bad for them when all the countries of Europe revert to their original settlers. Lands change hands... What's yours today may not be yours tomorrow. This has been happening for 20,000 years. Get off that liberal soapbox, you're likely to fall and break your neck.
How the fuck do you plan to get them to stop reproducing? People want to reproduce.. For many it's a strong drive... Your plan include forced sterilization?
How big do you think these icebergs are? More importantly do you have any idea of how much water there is in the ocean in relation to an iceberg?
I'd guess something like 10,000,000,000,000:1
The iceberg will be melting the whole time. Most of the fresh water will escape into the ocean and become useless seawater by the time it's at Dubai.
How the hell is that different than what will happen anyway? Icebergs melt..... That's all they do... I take that back, sometimes they sink ships.... Sink ships and melt... That's all...
Wait wait wait.... Let me get this straight.... You think that an iceberg that is floating in the water has not raised the level of the ocean (ever so slightly), but it will when it melts?
Did they teach any physics in your school? How do you think that iceberg is floating? *Hint*
I understand your statement, but in truth it's backwards. Your OS doesn't support your software. Your software supports your OS. That's the problem. And yeah, it's a Catch-22.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah.. Owning an ISP gives me plenty of access to computer time. But, it's a job... And it's balanced... When I'm not posting on Slashdot, I'm probably hiking up a mountain to inspect towers or relay sites.. Half of my time (at least) is not sedentary... That's the whole point of what I've been talking about.. It's not that kids are on social media, it's that they are (some of them at least) spending the bulk of their time on it.
Simple observations... The proportion of fat kids, when I was a kid, was not this high.. There were a few.. But we are rapidly approaching the point where being fat is the majority..
It's basically "I accuse thee, I accuse thee, I accuse thee" and the guy is instantly guilty. Is it any wonder guys are avoiding dating?
C'mon... You aren't really trying to convince me that any teenagers are giving sex that much thought are you? I don't know how it is where you are, granted, but when I was a 16 year old, there was nothing else on my mind. I'm pretty sure you could have told me I'd burst into flames 3 seconds after "finish" and I would have still risked it.
If where you are penalizes two 15 year olds for consensual sex, by putting them on a sex offender registry for life, then you guys have some bigger fish to fry.. That is... insane.. Logically one cannot be a victim and a perpetrator for the same act...
There is no doubt that both would be crippling to a modern teen's social life, but I bet most would choose to interact exclusively in person vs never being able to interact in person.
You may be right.. But if most ended up being 51%... We have a serious problem.. Even if most was 80%, we still have a major problem.. I don't know what "most" is. I would be interested in finding out.
If I had to make a bet, I'd guess that your "most" is not nearly as large as you might think it is. I'd guess "most" would come in around 75%. (keyword: guess)
While I'm not clear on the dopamine correlation, I'm also not sure that's relevant. If your body is rewarding you for efficiency or satisfying some internal pressure (that may have been artificial to begin with, built in by parents/teachers because THEY thought it was important), that doesn't seem like a problem. Addiction is a problem when it interferes with your obligations or is putting your physical health in significant immediate threat. That's not happening here. If meeting someone face to face is required to keep your job, for example, and you don't do it, then you have a problem. But if it's so you calk talk to Susie about who Sally blew last night...fuck that shit, use text.
The dopamine is a very important factor. It's what creates the addiction. Your body doesn't always reward you for things that turn out to be positive in the long run. Eating a crapload of candy every day is a good example I think. Our bodies crave sugar & fats because they used to be very hard to get and are a good source of short term / long term energy. But, we have unlimited access to both today. Our mental reward for chomping down on a Snickers bar is causing some people a lot of problem.
These addictions to social media and smart phones are causing morons to walk around with their faces glued to their phones. Seems like every few weeks you hear about someone getting run over because they walked out into traffic while looking at their phone. From the studies I've seen, our brains give us that reward when we post something that is "liked" by our friends.. I'm no expert, and I'm not sure on the exact mechanics... But i have the power of observation, and I see LOTS of kids who are absolutely glued to their phones.
Right now, from what I can see, there is almost no oversight (by a lot of parents) on how kids are using these devices. Young teens are the most vulnerable to forming life long addictions (in my experience). eg. In my group of friends, the ones who didn't start drinking early never turned into alcoholics. Most of the people I know who are problem drinkers started in their mid-teens. Nearly 100% of my friends who did end up as current, or recovering, alcoholics started drinking around 14-16.
I've had computers all my life, and a strong affinity for them. But my parents forced me to balance it. I was made to play outside with actual people the bulk of the day. Once I came in for the night, then they didn't care so much. But gluing myself to a monitor from 8AM to about 5PM was forbidden.
If these kids today don't develop, or lose, their ability to interact comfortably with other people face to face, they are going to have a rough road to hoe. I think it's kind of like drugs.. Yeah, we probably all know a couple people who are functional addicts, but for most people who end up with a drug addiction, life becomes pretty difficult. The level of affinity that some kids have for their phones is... eerie and a little disturbing.
I'll end with this... I read an article a few weeks ago that was focused on this very topic (smartphones, social media, and teens) and it presented some pretty.... interesting... statistics. I don't recall the exact numbers, but something like only 12% of High School Seniors have been on a date. And, only about 1/3 of current 16 year olds have a driver's license. (These numbers may be off, but the general gist is right). That's.... odd... Among my group of peers, getting a DL was.. everything.. It was freedom.. It was independence.. Most of my friends took the test on their birthday. I certainly did. Spending a day at the DMV on your 16th birthday is what everyone did. Now... apparently not so much...
My guess is that jpaine619 lives in the US, so "problems facing our citenzry" likely means "problems facing US citizens." I agree that lack of potable water and crushing poverty are not the most serious problems within the US. Not because other problems are of greater magnitude to those harmed by them, but because their are relatively few people who have those problems in the US.
Yes.. You are 100% correct.
So... famine, lack of potable water and crushing poverty in vast regions of the globe fall under rank #3 and below?
On topic: I don't say I like where Social media is going, but it's a wave you can't stop, however you can ride it, together with your kids, minimizing its ill effects.
Well, I said our citizenry.. I was referring to fellow Americans.. I guess I should have clarified it a bit more. So no, famine, water issues, and crushing poverty do not affect most Americans. They affect some, but not most.
I'm also not for stopping social media. I was quite clear in mentioning KIDS. Kids are the first generation to have had social media since day one. I think parents need to be made aware, or more aware, of the potential problems that it can cause. Once you make it to adulthood, your time is your time and, generally speaking, I no longer have an opinion on it. Once you are an adult most folks also are somewhat developed. The habits they have they will probably end up having for their entire lives..
I'll add a closing thought though... Kids can be lazy. There were lazy kids when I was a kid, But I have never seen the level of ... sedentary kids that I see today. Fat kids were also rare. Now... not so much I think.. There has been a major shift in what kids do... I'm not seeing a whole bunch of benefits.. I don't know what the solution is, but I see a problem.....
Has nothing to do with virtue. And, I'm not a kid. And, I posted from a computer. I didn't do it from a smart phone I'm glued to all day.
Your statement is so stupid it's beyond reality. I occasionally (1x to 2x a month) have a beer. Do you think I don't get to speak out about alcoholism? A few times a month I might have a bit of weed. Did I lose my ability to comment about those people who wake-n-bake and go through life stoned 100% of their waking hours?
This has nothing to do with how society evolves. This isn't socialization, this is turning kids into hermits. Studies have shown that smart phones and social media are addictive. The instant gratification of both boosts dopamine levels.. Pretty soon you get used to those elevated dopamine levels.. That's addiction.
This and obesity are the two most serious problems facing our citizenry, in my opinion.
Ummm... no. It goes to those who can afford them. Not everyone has an equal ability to pay and price gouging during a natural disaster is a dick move.
The term for that is price gouging when it happens around the time of a natural disaster. Some price fluctuation is to be expected but there is a limit to what is appropriate.
Back to this, are we? Same loads of bullshit over and over again. There have been studies that show that when prices are raised, during a disaster, people don't binge buy items..
Why does all logic escape you lefties? There is a shortage of items... They have become more valuable... Said items may not be replaced until the disaster is over... So your solution is that the first person to get to them can buy them all?
Or.... we could let the shop owners raise the prices so it becomes economically feasible to only buy "some" items. Thus leaving some for others.
Let's take batteries, just as an example.. Every time there is some storm, or earthquake, or whatever, the first thing people try to hoard are batteries.. (well, that and bottled water). So, if the prices of the batteries aren't allowed to change, then the first person to get to the store can make a huge dent in the inventory. By the time the 10th person comes along, the batteries are probably wiped out.. (I'm using the amount of inventory I see at my local grocery store as my reference).
Now let's jump over to a system that doesn't micromange, and allows stores to charge whatever the fuck they want..
How much is the store going to raise the prices? Probably not to insane levels, but let's say they do, for a moment.. They're gonna have to deal with that negative publicity after the disaster.. Not good in the long run. They'll be punished by the public.. I've seen this happen with my own eyes..
So let's say the store triples the prices on batteries... Now the first guy to the store can only buy 1/3 of what he was planning.. Assuming everyone has his amount of money, the batteries are going to last 3x longer.. 3x more people will be able to purchase batteries.. Those batteries are also going to be conserved.. They were expensive and they may not be replaceable for a long time.
Under your stupid ass system, we ignore supply and demand, and instead let the first few people buy up all the inventory.. AND if it's a rich person (whom you seem to hate) it's even easier for them to buy ALL the batteries, under your system.. We're keeping the prices low..
Water and batteries... Not expensive items, but very important during an emergency.. I could buy every goddamn battery at my local supermarket (which is a big one) for less than a grand.. Under your price control system, this is fine. I alone should have batteries during an emergency.. Every poor person, behind me, can fuck off if they want batteries.. yeah?
Or... the store could adjust prices, and I can't buy all the batteries.. They aren't gonna price them so high that nobody can buy them.. They'll be shooting for a reasonable target.. High enough to make a nice profit, but not so high that the public turns on them. This will have a nice side-effect of minimizing hoarding and binge buying.
Neither system prevents the "rich" from buying whatever they want, but at least under the system I favor the middle class loses the ability to binge buy and hoard. More people will be able to buy those items they need in an emergency.
The poor are always going to be in a bad position. They're poor.. It sucks, but it's reality. I've been poor. I also knew I was poor and planned accordingly.. The last thing I wanted to do was try to buy disaster supplies during a disaster..
Well, mutual defense treaties are fine... I just don't buy this whole "we got here first, so it's ours for all time... blah blah blah".
Make allies, defend your shit.... If you lose, you lose.. Suck it up. If that's not how we are gonna look at it, then I suspect we'll be hearing from some Phoenicians on how they want their land back....
I disagree with the notion that we aren't having an impact. I don't know how severe the impact is. But the billions of gallons of oil we have burned cannot be doing nothing. Our atmosphere is pretty thin.... We've dumped a lot of carbon into it.. Again, I'm not qualified to make a statement on how much damage we have done, but I know we have done some damage. I think that's just common sense..
But, we're talking about icebergs that are already floating around.. I don't think anyone in Dubai is planning on forcibly calving one off of a glacier... I mean, I could be wrong but I suspect they plan on grabbing one that's already floated North some distance.. Would be rather silly to sail by one that's already there...
"Fresh water, of which icebergs are made, is less dense than salty sea water. So while the amount of sea water displaced by the iceberg is equal to its weight, the melted fresh water will take up a slightly larger volume than the displaced salt water. This results in a small increase in the water level." (I'm not the person you replied to)
Okay.. I'll take you at your word.. But... it'll melt anyway. Once a 'berg calves from a glacier, its only future is to sink a Titanic or melt...
Right.. They let us in here....
Your level of delusion is amusing.
Besides, you only get to own something for as long as you can keep it. There is no moral problem here. They lost it... I'll feel bad for them when all the countries of Europe revert to their original settlers. Lands change hands... What's yours today may not be yours tomorrow. This has been happening for 20,000 years. Get off that liberal soapbox, you're likely to fall and break your neck.
How the fuck do you plan to get them to stop reproducing? People want to reproduce.. For many it's a strong drive... Your plan include forced sterilization?
How big do you think these icebergs are? More importantly do you have any idea of how much water there is in the ocean in relation to an iceberg? I'd guess something like 10,000,000,000,000:1
No.
The iceberg will be melting the whole time. Most of the fresh water will escape into the ocean and become useless seawater by the time it's at Dubai.
How the hell is that different than what will happen anyway? Icebergs melt..... That's all they do... I take that back, sometimes they sink ships.... Sink ships and melt... That's all...
If anything, removing the water, in the iceberg, from the ocean will drop the level of the ocean. Or do you think the ocean needs free-range icebergs?
Wait wait wait.... Let me get this straight.... You think that an iceberg that is floating in the water has not raised the level of the ocean (ever so slightly), but it will when it melts?
Did they teach any physics in your school? How do you think that iceberg is floating? *Hint*
displacement
He's been in office for two fucking years.... How the hell has he managed to destroy the planet?
I understand your statement, but in truth it's backwards. Your OS doesn't support your software. Your software supports your OS. That's the problem. And yeah, it's a Catch-22.
What 1 month? It's 3 years...
Jan 2020 to Jan 2023 is not 4 years.. For fuck's sake.. Look at it..
Jan 2020
Jan 2021
Jan 2022
Jan 2023
That is 3 years.
Jan 2020 to Jan 2021 = 1 year
Jan 2021 to Jan 2022 = 1 year
Jan 2022 to Jan 2023 = 1 year
Your sentence fragment annoys me.
Yeah, it doesn't work like that. Some (most?) states have very specific rules on what constitutes an independent contractor.