True, for massively parallel processing against a single task a different model is needed.
My experience is of scalable parallelism on todays hardware in the server arena, when's it's as useful to do a lot of serial tasks in parallel as it is to break them down for faster individual processing.
Oh, absolutely true, a citizen of non-democratic country has no such expectation. A sovereign dictatorship could easily force a law exchange on its people.
However, in democratic countries, this sort of thing out to be a fundamental enough change to the very makeup of the country to force a popular vote, or be rejected outright. You're basically becoming a superstate with local seats of power and no central democratic government organisation or representation in other sectors.
Something that's not really a democracy any more anyway.
"If you are educated and in the west, only a suicidal maniac tries to undermine IP, it's what your economies are built on these days."
Not all of it.
"IP" is multifaceted and in some forms (masses of trivial software patents) starts to strangle the very industry it's supposed to serve. There are companies that patent these useless "inventions" and sue others as there sole business model, there are many companies that feel they have no choice but to keep patenting every little thing so that when they inevitable step on someone else's patents they have something to trade or countersue with.
Patents are granted too easily and are getting in the way of progress, they need to be undermined.
Copyright now extends far too far, it is supposed ot be a limited term, it is a social contract between producers and consumers, such that both parties win. One side has recently pushed their powers far too far.
Trademarks, as applied to internet addresses, have resulted in rulings where people with legitimate uses for domain names have been walked all over by companies that decide they want it for their new product.
The economy of the west and individual IP holders would not be badly affected by reduced copyright terms, weakened trademark rights (or weakened trademark enforcement) and restrictions on what is and is not patentable.
"so using the concept of video game "abuse" is just shorthand for accusing someone of being a pothead"
Eh, no. TFA (even TFS) say there are higher rates of substance abuse in people who play computer games regularly. i contend that the term "abuse", used in close proximity with the term "substance" is thrown around with scant regard for the most likely underlying reality - that these folks are more likely to smoke weed than the general population.
"dude, can i have some of what you are smoking?...and, yes right now i am accusing you of smoking pot!"
If I had some I'd surely oblige, but as I say, it's been a while.
"we both agree that one commits the strawman fallacy by going above and beyond the scope of someone's initial comments."
True, but it's appropriate in cases of blatant misrepresentation. Going above and beyond the original narrow scope of a conversation is not necessarily a straw man, but anticipating and attacking your interlocutor's responses to a particular issue is often crossing the line.
It is thrown around too much and in the wrong situations, I'll grant you that.
"societal values exert a force in this world, absolutely
but habituation and addiction are unrelated phenomena"
And I don't disagree.
"so, when you want to get to the bottom of the motivations behind excessive drug use/ video game playing, you examine the phenomena of habituation and addiction"
But that's not what we're discussing. We're discussing the article at hand which simply throws out the "abuse" line when in all likelihood they mean that more of them smoke a bit of pot.
focusing on societal values in this context, meanwhile, is like a random tangential obscure footnote
If we were talking about anything like what you seem to think we're talking about, sure. Whatever.
The children violated social norms, BUT ITS NOT THE POINT, NOR AN EVEN VAGUELY IMPORTANT ISSUE
It is if you're talking about the effects of said violation being a possible detachment from society and minor depression. NOT, note well, NOT anything to do with counterculture, or any fucking culture at all.
"because comments of yours like "I'm saying that by taking illegal drugs a person does not fall in line with the particular subset of prevalent societal rules values concerned with use of illegal substances" is 100% accurate
but COMPLETELY POINTLESS"
Yet you chose to pick a fight over it and try to widen the terms of that fight into an argument over legality and addictiveness, something so far outside the terms of my original comment that it's ridiculous. You introduced the term "counterculture". You brought up addiction when I hadn't mentioned a specific substance, let alone made claims about its properties. You went on a totally off-topic rant. Pat yourself on the back CTS, it's another great day.
Strawman is the only proper response when someone misrepresents your views and then argues against them though. You could go through and dissect exactly why you don't think that way, but it's usually the case that the previous individual has painted your views in a childish and insulting way, such that gracing them with a response other than "Those aren't my opinions, that's a nice straw man you have there" is not worth the effort.
"playing videogames, cracking your knuckles, smoking marijuana, hiring prostitutes to defecate on your feet: all harmless"
With the possible caveat that smoking anything is probably not great for you, agreed.
"occasionally, it is harmful. with something like heroin, or methamphetamine, or cocaine, it is clearly harmful, for strictly medical reasons, not because of retarded social conservative values"
And I don't disagree here either. What are you trying to say?
"furthermore, you are flat out wrong above: no one smokes nicotine once a day because they clearly enjoy it. they do it because they are biochemically addicted"
Where did I say that?
Again - my complaint is that "drug abuse" is not qualified in the original story and that using illegal substances puts you at odds with some of society's values. This includes (and my primary thought here was about) weed, which is likely what most of the gamers who have been fingered as "abusers" are into. So doing something harmless (your word) like smoking weed leads to at least a small amount of dissafection with the society you're in, by the very nature of the act, without even considering the effects.
therefore, according to your logic on drugs, this makes people abuse children"
No, I'm saying that by taking illegal drugs a person does not fall in line with the particular subset of prevalent societal rules values concerned with use of illegal substances.
"1. addiction: marijuana should be legal. it isn't addictive, biochemically. end of story. but the legality of every drug should be considered on a case-by-case basis"
yes, I've read your stance on this many times over the last several years and don't entirely disagree.
"2. countercultural values: HAVE NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO DO WITH THE BIOCHEMISTRY OF ADDICTION."
I agree with that as well. However, as mentioned before, taking any illegal substance puts you at odds with at least a small subset of societal values.
You don't really seem to be disagreeing with my original point any more, just ranting. But then I shouldn't be suprised, I am talking to CTS...
"Third parties are mathematically NOT a viable option."
Not right now.
"The entire electoral system in the United States is geared toward two parties, and changing that requires congressional and state approval."
That is indeed a terrible thing, but it is still in the bounds of possibility that a third party could edge in if it started to receive popular support.
"The most you could hope for would be to replace one of the parties with a different one or to dramatically change an existing party. Each has happened several times in the past."
Yes, that sounds fine.
"The more you vote for a third party and the more votes a third party gets, the more they take away from any candidate likely to agree with them"
The more you repeat this the truer it gets... oh wait, no, it's still the same old line. There are more than two positions in politics and the two incumbent parties overlap so much that it doesn't matter. Get this into your head - those two parties are corrupt and lie, some people just will NOT vote for them as there is no point, all they stand for is continuation of the status quo - politics for the rich, by the rich. Swapping one of them out for an alternative would be a great thing, especially if said alternative wants to dismantle some of the enormous apparatus of state, and perhaps (though due to the corrupting influence power this is less likely) effect electoral reform.
"where all drugs were 100% legal, including meth, heroin, cocaine, etc., the use of these substances would still be seen as a mental health issue"
Those ones you mentioned, perhaps so. Other substances less so, clearly depending on whether people are exhibiting addictive behaviour.
"because it is not mentally normal to need a foreign substance to support your brain chemistry"
Agreed. Where exactly was "need" mentioned?
"anyone who doesn't NEED drugs understands what i am talking about"
I don't understand what you're talking about and it's been years since I transgressed the law in this area. You've jumped straight from me saying "not all drug use is abuse" to accusing me of being an addict.
"and if you say you don't NEED a certain drug, and are right now formulating a rationalization against these words of mine, then congratulations: you are probably an addict. an addict needs a hard, reactive wall of rationalization to convince themselves to constantly need a foregin substance for their brain chemistry"
You're barking up the wrong tree mate. My complaint was the immediate anti-drug stance (i.e. no qualification of the word abuse) taken by the media. You're the one coming up with talk about addiction, habits etc.
"in fact your words above "an indicator that the person has little regard for this area of law, and may be disconnected from society/not buy into its values" screams rationalization"
Please explain. It is now very commonplace for people to smoke weed, however doing so implies a disregard for the law of the land. It does not necessarily imply addiction, any more than going for a beer with your buddies after work implies alcoholism.
"using drugs has absolutely nothing to do with being countercultural."
Didn't say it did, I said it implied lack of respect for that area of law and not buying into society's values, notably the ones that brought that law into being and keep it in place.
"there are many people who buy all of a society's questionable values who become addicts (rush limbaugh) and there are plenty of counterculture icons who don't use drugs at all"
Again with the addiction! I would also suggest that Rush does not buy into the crap he spews forth.
"there are plenty of counterculture icons who don't use drugs at all"
So?
"or, put another way, when it comes to being counterculture and using drugs, correlation is not causation;-)"
Yes, but when it comes to taking illegal drugs you are breaking the law, this shows explicitly that you don't respect that part of the law or the social values that brought it into being and keep it there. It's pretty simple.
I'm not trying to paint some sort of counterculture mystique here, just say it is possible to use some of these things without being or becoming an addict or an "abuser", and that if you do you probably don't fully buy into the values of the society you find yourself in as you are going directly against them.
I don't believe for a second that they won't continue with the rights restrictions that the Republicans have started. It'll just be "for the children!" instead of "stop the terrorists!". Both are in the pockets of the corporations and their lobbyists.
Frankly, at this point, I'd rather the long term strategy of building up following of a third party, and adding to their momentum (the more people that vote for one, the more think "hey, this just might work" next time), because it makes no difference to daily life who gets in.
"I just implied that, practically speaking, voting for a third party is the same as not voting at all"
That's fine with me.
"and not effecting any change whatsoever"
Not in the immediate election, no, but the more people do vote for a third party, the more other people will see that it IS a viable option. People that don't like the main parties but are stuck in your way of thinking will start to migrate. This is a slow process, but it's not a complete absense of effect.
"while forcing yourself to analyze the two major party candidates for which one is however slightly closer to your position WOULD have an effect."
Out of the hundreds of millions that think like you? i doubt it makes a scrap of difference, and I'll dislike either, it makes no practical difference to my life which one gets in. Their policies are lies anyway.
"No it doesn't. It just posits that one of them are always going to win, and thus voting for anyone else is taking votes away from the one of them that most closely matches your views, however far they may be from them."
No, they will absolutely not have my mandate if I see them both as a problem and genuinely don't care which one of them gets in. It's not taking anything away, I wouldn't vote for either of them if you paid me. Well maybe if you paid me. Just because X says he's liberal and Y says he's conservative doesn't mean I want either Christian Rule OR tax rises to fund further government expansion, which will happen under both.
I agree with the rest, that it's not suddenly, magically going to happen at a presidential level, but I don't agree that the right thing to do is vote for either.
Not that I do either, but the fact of illegal substance use is not evidence of a problem itself, more an indicator that the person has little regard for this area of law, and may be disconnected from society/not buy into its values. This links up with depression and dissatisfaction.
Slashdot Mirror
Murder does actually seem to be a cultural thing. The UK has roughly 1/6 the murder rate of the US.
True, for massively parallel processing against a single task a different model is needed.
My experience is of scalable parallelism on todays hardware in the server arena, when's it's as useful to do a lot of serial tasks in parallel as it is to break them down for faster individual processing.
Oh, absolutely true, a citizen of non-democratic country has no such expectation. A sovereign dictatorship could easily force a law exchange on its people.
However, in democratic countries, this sort of thing out to be a fundamental enough change to the very makeup of the country to force a popular vote, or be rejected outright. You're basically becoming a superstate with local seats of power and no central democratic government organisation or representation in other sectors.
Something that's not really a democracy any more anyway.
Personally I'm pretty happpy with pthreads and C anyway... I've yet to be sold on any of these new languages.
Given that several millions of americans are breaking the law in this area, one would think they'd look at it.
OTOH, that never made anyone reconsider drug policy.
"If you are educated and in the west, only a suicidal maniac tries to undermine IP, it's what your economies are built on these days."
Not all of it.
"IP" is multifaceted and in some forms (masses of trivial software patents) starts to strangle the very industry it's supposed to serve. There are companies that patent these useless "inventions" and sue others as there sole business model, there are many companies that feel they have no choice but to keep patenting every little thing so that when they inevitable step on someone else's patents they have something to trade or countersue with.
Patents are granted too easily and are getting in the way of progress, they need to be undermined.
Copyright now extends far too far, it is supposed ot be a limited term, it is a social contract between producers and consumers, such that both parties win. One side has recently pushed their powers far too far.
Trademarks, as applied to internet addresses, have resulted in rulings where people with legitimate uses for domain names have been walked all over by companies that decide they want it for their new product.
The economy of the west and individual IP holders would not be badly affected by reduced copyright terms, weakened trademark rights (or weakened trademark enforcement) and restrictions on what is and is not patentable.
Umm, because as sovereign nations the people in each nation should be deciding their own laws, surely?
If I have to abide by US law, or French law, I want a say in their elections too.
"so using the concept of video game "abuse" is just shorthand for accusing someone of being a pothead"
Eh, no. TFA (even TFS) say there are higher rates of substance abuse in people who play computer games regularly. i contend that the term "abuse", used in close proximity with the term "substance" is thrown around with scant regard for the most likely underlying reality - that these folks are more likely to smoke weed than the general population.
"dude, can i have some of what you are smoking? ...and, yes right now i am accusing you of smoking pot!"
If I had some I'd surely oblige, but as I say, it's been a while.
"we both agree that one commits the strawman fallacy by going above and beyond the scope of someone's initial comments."
True, but it's appropriate in cases of blatant misrepresentation. Going above and beyond the original narrow scope of a conversation is not necessarily a straw man, but anticipating and attacking your interlocutor's responses to a particular issue is often crossing the line.
It is thrown around too much and in the wrong situations, I'll grant you that.
"societal values exert a force in this world, absolutely
but habituation and addiction are unrelated phenomena"
And I don't disagree.
"so, when you want to get to the bottom of the motivations behind excessive drug use/ video game playing, you examine the phenomena of habituation and addiction"
But that's not what we're discussing. We're discussing the article at hand which simply throws out the "abuse" line when in all likelihood they mean that more of them smoke a bit of pot.
focusing on societal values in this context, meanwhile, is like a random tangential obscure footnote
If we were talking about anything like what you seem to think we're talking about, sure. Whatever.
The children violated social norms, BUT ITS NOT THE POINT, NOR AN EVEN VAGUELY IMPORTANT ISSUE
It is if you're talking about the effects of said violation being a possible detachment from society and minor depression. NOT, note well, NOT anything to do with counterculture, or any fucking culture at all.
"because comments of yours like "I'm saying that by taking illegal drugs a person does not fall in line with the particular subset of prevalent societal rules values concerned with use of illegal substances" is 100% accurate
but COMPLETELY POINTLESS"
Yet you chose to pick a fight over it and try to widen the terms of that fight into an argument over legality and addictiveness, something so far outside the terms of my original comment that it's ridiculous. You introduced the term "counterculture". You brought up addiction when I hadn't mentioned a specific substance, let alone made claims about its properties. You went on a totally off-topic rant. Pat yourself on the back CTS, it's another great day.
Strawman is the only proper response when someone misrepresents your views and then argues against them though. You could go through and dissect exactly why you don't think that way, but it's usually the case that the previous individual has painted your views in a childish and insulting way, such that gracing them with a response other than "Those aren't my opinions, that's a nice straw man you have there" is not worth the effort.
The other two piss me off though.
WTF?!?!?
If your intent was to introduce misdirection and confuse the hell out of me then I salute you sir, job well done.
"playing videogames, cracking your knuckles, smoking marijuana, hiring prostitutes to defecate on your feet: all harmless"
With the possible caveat that smoking anything is probably not great for you, agreed.
"occasionally, it is harmful. with something like heroin, or methamphetamine, or cocaine, it is clearly harmful, for strictly medical reasons, not because of retarded social conservative values"
And I don't disagree here either. What are you trying to say?
"furthermore, you are flat out wrong above: no one smokes nicotine once a day because they clearly enjoy it. they do it because they are biochemically addicted"
Where did I say that?
Again - my complaint is that "drug abuse" is not qualified in the original story and that using illegal substances puts you at odds with some of society's values. This includes (and my primary thought here was about) weed, which is likely what most of the gamers who have been fingered as "abusers" are into. So doing something harmless (your word) like smoking weed leads to at least a small amount of dissafection with the society you're in, by the very nature of the act, without even considering the effects.
"society takes a firm stance against child abuse
therefore, according to your logic on drugs, this makes people abuse children"
No, I'm saying that by taking illegal drugs a person does not fall in line with the particular subset of prevalent societal rules values concerned with use of illegal substances.
"1. addiction: marijuana should be legal. it isn't addictive, biochemically. end of story. but the legality of every drug should be considered on a case-by-case basis"
yes, I've read your stance on this many times over the last several years and don't entirely disagree.
"2. countercultural values: HAVE NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO DO WITH THE BIOCHEMISTRY OF ADDICTION."
I agree with that as well. However, as mentioned before, taking any illegal substance puts you at odds with at least a small subset of societal values.
You don't really seem to be disagreeing with my original point any more, just ranting. But then I shouldn't be suprised, I am talking to CTS...
"Okay, I guess you missed my point."
Nope. don't flatter yourself francis.
"Third parties are mathematically NOT a viable option."
Not right now.
"The entire electoral system in the United States is geared toward two parties, and changing that requires congressional and state approval."
That is indeed a terrible thing, but it is still in the bounds of possibility that a third party could edge in if it started to receive popular support.
"The most you could hope for would be to replace one of the parties with a different one or to dramatically change an existing party. Each has happened several times in the past."
Yes, that sounds fine.
"The more you vote for a third party and the more votes a third party gets, the more they take away from any candidate likely to agree with them"
The more you repeat this the truer it gets... oh wait, no, it's still the same old line. There are more than two positions in politics and the two incumbent parties overlap so much that it doesn't matter. Get this into your head - those two parties are corrupt and lie, some people just will NOT vote for them as there is no point, all they stand for is continuation of the status quo - politics for the rich, by the rich. Swapping one of them out for an alternative would be a great thing, especially if said alternative wants to dismantle some of the enormous apparatus of state, and perhaps (though due to the corrupting influence power this is less likely) effect electoral reform.
"where all drugs were 100% legal, including meth, heroin, cocaine, etc., the use of these substances would still be seen as a mental health issue"
Those ones you mentioned, perhaps so. Other substances less so, clearly depending on whether people are exhibiting addictive behaviour.
"because it is not mentally normal to need a foreign substance to support your brain chemistry"
Agreed. Where exactly was "need" mentioned?
"anyone who doesn't NEED drugs understands what i am talking about"
I don't understand what you're talking about and it's been years since I transgressed the law in this area. You've jumped straight from me saying "not all drug use is abuse" to accusing me of being an addict.
"and if you say you don't NEED a certain drug, and are right now formulating a rationalization against these words of mine, then congratulations: you are probably an addict. an addict needs a hard, reactive wall of rationalization to convince themselves to constantly need a foregin substance for their brain chemistry"
You're barking up the wrong tree mate. My complaint was the immediate anti-drug stance (i.e. no qualification of the word abuse) taken by the media. You're the one coming up with talk about addiction, habits etc.
"in fact your words above "an indicator that the person has little regard for this area of law, and may be disconnected from society/not buy into its values" screams rationalization"
Please explain. It is now very commonplace for people to smoke weed, however doing so implies a disregard for the law of the land. It does not necessarily imply addiction, any more than going for a beer with your buddies after work implies alcoholism.
"using drugs has absolutely nothing to do with being countercultural."
Didn't say it did, I said it implied lack of respect for that area of law and not buying into society's values, notably the ones that brought that law into being and keep it in place.
"there are many people who buy all of a society's questionable values who become addicts (rush limbaugh) and there are plenty of counterculture icons who don't use drugs at all"
Again with the addiction! I would also suggest that Rush does not buy into the crap he spews forth.
"there are plenty of counterculture icons who don't use drugs at all"
So?
"or, put another way, when it comes to being counterculture and using drugs, correlation is not causation ;-)"
Yes, but when it comes to taking illegal drugs you are breaking the law, this shows explicitly that you don't respect that part of the law or the social values that brought it into being and keep it there. It's pretty simple.
I'm not trying to paint some sort of counterculture mystique here, just say it is possible to use some of these things without being or becoming an addict or an "abuser", and that if you do you probably don't fully buy into the values of the society you find yourself in as you are going directly against them.
Because for that you need an idea, and to get up earlier than 10am.
I don't believe for a second that they won't continue with the rights restrictions that the Republicans have started. It'll just be "for the children!" instead of "stop the terrorists!". Both are in the pockets of the corporations and their lobbyists.
Frankly, at this point, I'd rather the long term strategy of building up following of a third party, and adding to their momentum (the more people that vote for one, the more think "hey, this just might work" next time), because it makes no difference to daily life who gets in.
But hey, I'm not even american, what do I know?
"I just implied that, practically speaking, voting for a third party is the same as not voting at all"
That's fine with me.
"and not effecting any change whatsoever"
Not in the immediate election, no, but the more people do vote for a third party, the more other people will see that it IS a viable option. People that don't like the main parties but are stuck in your way of thinking will start to migrate. This is a slow process, but it's not a complete absense of effect.
"while forcing yourself to analyze the two major party candidates for which one is however slightly closer to your position WOULD have an effect."
Out of the hundreds of millions that think like you? i doubt it makes a scrap of difference, and I'll dislike either, it makes no practical difference to my life which one gets in. Their policies are lies anyway.
"No it doesn't. It just posits that one of them are always going to win, and thus voting for anyone else is taking votes away from the one of them that most closely matches your views, however far they may be from them."
No, they will absolutely not have my mandate if I see them both as a problem and genuinely don't care which one of them gets in. It's not taking anything away, I wouldn't vote for either of them if you paid me. Well maybe if you paid me. Just because X says he's liberal and Y says he's conservative doesn't mean I want either Christian Rule OR tax rises to fund further government expansion, which will happen under both.
I agree with the rest, that it's not suddenly, magically going to happen at a presidential level, but I don't agree that the right thing to do is vote for either.
It's a shame, because it affects the conclusion. IMHO it should be -
Gamers disaffected with society, resulting in depression, supporting evidence consisting of substance use...
When what we'll get is
"Gamers depressed! Turn to drugs!" or "Games depress people and are a gateway to drug use!" or "Drug use causes depression and can lead to gaming!"
Not that I do either, but the fact of illegal substance use is not evidence of a problem itself, more an indicator that the person has little regard for this area of law, and may be disconnected from society/not buy into its values. This links up with depression and dissatisfaction.
"you need to save the situation in the short term"
But that's impossible, if you're of the opinion that the two main parties are both the enemy.
You don't know what socialism is.