While you call this important body of knowledge valueless, I do not and can do the things you describe. So therefor when and if the balloon goes up, my family will eat and be clothed while yours will starve and die naked in the cold. What a pitty.
You... hunt your own food... in Oakland. And tan your own leather? By the light of kerosene lamps. To wear on your horse while you ride to Burning Man. I think you'll be dead long before any of that is an issue. If it is an issue, I don't think you'll feed your family with cursive writing, man.
You don't believe in evidence. There either is evidence supporting your claim, or there isn't.
I said "I believe there is evidence". I'm'a assume English isn't your first language (for now; more on that below) and explain that the phrase means "I'm not certain, but I think evidence has been found".
But since you're calling me out on it, I'll look at your links.
Link the first:
This powerful combination of two studies presents persuasive evidence that violent video games do indeed increase aggression in some players.
Playing violent video games like Doom, Wolfenstein 3D or Mortal Kombat can increase a person's aggressive thoughts, feelings and behavior both in laboratory settings and in actual life, according to two studies appearing in the April issue of the American Psychological Association's (APA) Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Furthermore, violent video games may be more harmful than violent television and movies because they are interactive, very engrossing and require the player to identify with the aggressor, say the researchers.
After 40+ years of research, one might think that debate about media violence effects would be over. An historical examination of the research reveals that debate concerning whether such exposure is a significant risk factor for aggressive and violent behavior should have been over years ago (Bushman & Anderson, 2001). Four types of media violence studies provide converging evidence of such effects: laboratory experiments, field experiments, cross-sectional correlation studies, and longitudinal studies (Anderson & Bushman, 2002a; Bushman & Huesmann, 2000).
The link between anger and aggression is far from clear, and they would like to see similar results reproduced with other test groups and using different games and experimental setups. It's also worth noting that they attempted to measure a wide range of additional factors during their study, but many of these measurements produced statistically insignificant or contradictory results.
This is the first one that doesn't claim the connection is well-established, but it does find a causative link between aggressive behavior and violent media. It attempts to establish that there is an additional factor.
Link the fifth:
After an average playtime of 56 hours over the course of a month with âoeAsheronâ(TM)s Call 2,â a popular MMRPG, or âoemassively multi-layer online role-playing game,â researchers found âoeno strong effects associated with aggression caused by this violent game,â said Dmitri Williams, the lead author of the study.
Teenagers experiencing 56 hours of fantasy violence over one month and then self-assessing their feelings. 'Nuff said, I hope.
Link the sixth:
A brain mechanism that may link violent computer games with aggression has been discovered by researchers in the US. The work goes some way towards demonstrating a causal link between the two - rather than a simple association.
Yeah, enteroviruses. The cold used to be from rhinoviruses, but they got merged.*
It's likely her doctor was concerned about opportunistic infections - such as pneumonia - and gave her antibiotics preventative-like. (In my opinion, doing so is usually overreacting, but I'm not a medical-type doctor and, if I were, I don't know anything about your sister. So do what the nice doctor tells you.)
* The recession impacts everything. I definitely didn't expect it, but then I never studied microeconomics.
Bollocks. Can you provide a single reference to a shark repellent which was proved or convincingly demonstrated to be effective and any evidence of a subsequent mutation that caused that species to be immune?
This demonstration is pretty darn convincing. Right? And sure enough, a later mutation came along with immunity. One day science will give us* bat-catshark repellent, but until then, I'm staying clear of any body of water larger than I can comfortably drink.
* And by "us" I mean "those of us who dress up light a creature of the night to strike fear into the hearts of criminals".
At all the mexican food restaurants here in Texas, they hang a (sealed) ziploc bag filled with water above the door. Somehow they believe that it repels mosquitos and flies. So many places do it, you'd think it would have to work, but I can't see how. Anybody have any ideas?
I believe the theory is that flies avoid it to avoid getting snapped up by the fish found in running water. Whether it works or not is still unclear but unlikely. One researcher says "no, under fluorescent or incandescent lighting", but surprisingly there doesn't seem to be much research.
Not disagreeing with anything you said but this is clearly not a game for kids, and is not marketed as such.
Hm? Of course not. I disagree with the ban. I just object to analogizing the impact of film and video games - they're different media that stimulate different parts of the brain. They are different and should be treated differently: Specifically, age limitations based on content should probably be slightly lower with film than games.
As I said, I'm not aware of any negative impact on adults, and even if there were I dislike the notion that the government should protect us from it. There's a long slippery slope there, and the bottom isn't pretty - it ends with the government criminalizing caffeine, loud voices, and anything colored bright red.
I've no problem with age-restricting the purchase of games, with a reasonable upper limit. But I wouldn't support an outright ban even on a game in which you played a rapist pedophile on an rampage through a nursery school with a rusty letter opener.
This is different than the evening news? I'm all for sex over violence and a happy world but honestly the stuff that happens in that description is up nightly on TV.My friend down in AU says he watched 28 days/weeks later, so how is this any different?
Well, don't take this as support of the ban, but there is a difference between totally passively watching violence (and simulated violence) and actively controlling simulated violence. Different bits of the brain get used, and I believe there's some evidence that both can negatively impact social development in children, with the latter having a measurably stronger impact. I'm not aware of any research showing that either adversely affects adult behavior when viewed as an adult.
cardboard does not act as a Farady cage and the computer will leak large amounts of radio frequency interference so will not be legal in most countries.
That's pretty easy to solve with a few cents worth of aluminum.
It's not possible. Only ionizing radiation can alter DNA.
That's not strictly true. If you get DNA hot enough it can denature, but the most likely effect is that it'll simply stop working. It's barely, theoretically, possible to bombard DNA with non-ionizing radiation, cool it again careful-like, and end up with a mutation. But of course that ain't gonna happen because of a nearby microwave tower. For that matter, it ain't gonna happen even if you try to do it, unless you try an awful lot and get very lucky.
If this guy thinks it's a reasonable concern, I'm surprised he hasn't sold his garlic farm and spent all the cash on used lottery tickets.
It would appear that those published, peer-reviewed studies disagree with you. In particular, a quote from the former:
. . . M. avium has been isolated from a variety of sources, including municipal drinking water systems . ..
Whether M. avium is worth any worry is up for debate. Whether it exists in our water supplies is not. It probably isn't a great cause for concern, although it's nice to know that it's being looked into with more thoroughness than someone waving vaguely and going "naaaaah".
* Which I assume also whisper to you that the best way to denote emphasis is by capitalizing words in their entirety. They're wrong about that, too.
It seems foolish to base a scientific study off of some scientist's ability to objectively judge facial expressions in infants.
That's not what the study measured. It used quantifiable criteria. The conclusions are debatable, but you have to read the study before you're entitled to an opinion.
The real tragedy is that most of these fossils probably came from private digs. Like archeology, paleontology relies on context. The location where it was found, it's position in the geological strata, other fossils found with it. All these factors can enrich our understanding of these species.
Alan Detrich pulled 'em out of the ground. I can't imagine why you'd worry just because he's a lunatic. He fancies himself a sculptor, he's a staunch proponent of intelligent design who ran for the Kansas Board of Education and famously called those who oppose him "evil-lutionists", and he owns a private fossil excavation company. I can't for the life of me see any reason to be concerned.
The Detrich Fossil Company. It's a Kansas-based company that excavates and resells dino fossils owned by Alan Detrich. He owns Samson and the Kansas Kingfish, at least - I'm only assuming the others belong to him.
Other than the TRex, the prices were not all that bad. Sure, out of my price range. But $500k for a triceratops (I know its something else) seems pretty good.
Funny, that; I felt the same way except it was the shark jaws that I felt seemed over the top. Tyrannosaur bones're the highest-valued dino bones in general - even a single tooth can be pricey. Giant, prehistoric shark jaws are neat, but not all that different from today's sharks, plus they aren't actually, y'know... dinosaurs. Carcharocles teeth aren't terribly rare, either - you can buy one for fifty bucks or so. If the jaws had some of the original teeth, the price'd be a little more reasonable, but those were "close enough" teeth purchased later.
Having done a lot of fishing in my youth this is a common mistake and I actually thought that internet 'trolling' was called that because it's like fishing for a response in the open waters of the internet. I know that's not the case but it seems a more appropriate origin than some fantasy description of a grotesque creature.
Hm? That's exactly what trolling on the 'net means - "trolling for newbies", as in fishing. Linky.
In other words: "We didn't like the result we got, so we massaged the data until we got something we liked, and called that our method."
You said just about all there is to be said. They changed their method to make the results match their hypothesis. They acknowledge poor methodology in their data collection, so even the original results are suspect. The only place this paper ought've been published is in a landfill. Beale and Bond should go back to 101-level courses, and the headline of this story should be "Don't Publish Research With Obvious Flaws".
I'm not sure how you solve the problem of the estimated population of the earth in, say, 200 years if it continues increasing at the current rate.
If I were a betting man, I'd put my chips on nanotechnology to handle the bulk of it. But lots of people have proposed - and are working on - quite a few plausible solutions, including, but not limited to, colonization of other planets, arcologies on- and off-planet, and more efficient production of energy and crops.
Nobody's sure how it will be solved, but your lack of ideas appears to stem from a lack of looking for them.
You also need to be certified as a First Responder, because quite often you're the first on the scene and that means you're the first to provide medical support. So, yes, firefighters DO need to be smart.
The ability to take training does not imply "smart", at least not in the way I understand the word. In my experience, the average firefighter is just about average in intelligence, or perhaps slightly above-average. A few are very smart, and a few are dumber'n rocks. This seems t'be true in virtually every profession that isn't pure manual labor but doesn't require much in the way of critical thinking.
Would that recording from your camera be admissable if the recording system is not inside a black box that you cannot open yourself without leaving traces?
From the site:
It is possible American Family might request Teen Safe Driver output from customers in some situations involving the claims process, for instance, as part of an accident investigation. The information also is subject to being subpoenaed by other parties in a legal proceeding.
I just bought a new Zippo not long ago, and its awesome.
I was indulging in a little sarcasm up there. Sorry it didn't come across clear-like, but I don't actually believe that the 1970s were a halcyon period of consumer perfection - although I think the parent to my post does.
There was a short period of time when companies actually made sure their products were usable by people.
That was in 1970s.
Yes. All companies during that decade had perfect products, a feat never achieved before or since. A Sears n' Roebuck stove from 1898 was as likely to be a piece of crap as a Zippo lighter is today.
Electronics then were not complicated, but sophisticated enough. And Walkmans would actually work.
Oh, electronics. My iPod works fine. So does my TI calculator and my Motorola cell phone.
The rot started with Sound Blaster.
It was an Industry standard as opposed to open standard.
Yeah, Sound Blaster was notorious for shenanigans like EBCDIC. Oh, wait, that was someone else, long before Creative Labs existed.
There are multiple reasons why subpoena's are required of the police. I hope that you aren't advocating that we should surrender our civil rights.
I s'pose I did post in haste, at that. I posted sloppily and didn't check my terminology. I had thought the police would need a warrant for the information, not a subpoena, believing that the latter required that they have a charged suspect awaiting arraignment or trial. I see now that it's possible to get a subpoena as part of an investigation - although inasmuch as a warrant needs a judge's signature and a subpoena generally doesn't, I'd still prefer they use warrants.
Not doing it on request is a very sensible policy. Harassment seems just as likely as theft, or at least likely enough to be wary of. Many folks might buy a device for a significant other, then when their relationship hits the skids they may try to report it "stolen".
I also can't imagine the police ignoring a request like that. Even if it's a $300.00 device, I've never met a cop who won't pursue a theft if they think it's likely they'll catch the perpetrator and recover the item. For all the police's faults, ignoring a solvable, easily-prosecuted crime ain't one of 'em. Mind you, if a company won't cooperate with a police request relating to an investigation - subpoena or no - the company should be prosecuted itself.
Slashdot Mirror
While you call this important body of knowledge valueless, I do not and can do the things you describe. So therefor when and if the balloon goes up, my family will eat and be clothed while yours will starve and die naked in the cold. What a pitty.
You... hunt your own food... in Oakland. And tan your own leather? By the light of kerosene lamps. To wear on your horse while you ride to Burning Man. I think you'll be dead long before any of that is an issue. If it is an issue, I don't think you'll feed your family with cursive writing, man.
You don't believe in evidence. There either is evidence supporting your claim, or there isn't.
I said "I believe there is evidence". I'm'a assume English isn't your first language (for now; more on that below) and explain that the phrase means "I'm not certain, but I think evidence has been found".
But since you're calling me out on it, I'll look at your links. Link the first:
This powerful combination of two studies presents persuasive evidence that violent video games do indeed increase aggression in some players.
Link the second:
Playing violent video games like Doom, Wolfenstein 3D or Mortal Kombat can increase a person's aggressive thoughts, feelings and behavior both in laboratory settings and in actual life, according to two studies appearing in the April issue of the American Psychological Association's (APA) Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Furthermore, violent video games may be more harmful than violent television and movies because they are interactive, very engrossing and require the player to identify with the aggressor, say the researchers.
Link the third:
After 40+ years of research, one might think that debate about media violence effects would be over. An historical examination of the research reveals that debate concerning whether such exposure is a significant risk factor for aggressive and violent behavior should have been over years ago (Bushman & Anderson, 2001). Four types of media violence studies provide converging evidence of such effects: laboratory experiments, field experiments, cross-sectional correlation studies, and longitudinal studies (Anderson & Bushman, 2002a; Bushman & Huesmann, 2000).
Link the fourth:
The link between anger and aggression is far from clear, and they would like to see similar results reproduced with other test groups and using different games and experimental setups. It's also worth noting that they attempted to measure a wide range of additional factors during their study, but many of these measurements produced statistically insignificant or contradictory results.
This is the first one that doesn't claim the connection is well-established, but it does find a causative link between aggressive behavior and violent media. It attempts to establish that there is an additional factor. Link the fifth:
After an average playtime of 56 hours over the course of a month with âoeAsheronâ(TM)s Call 2,â a popular MMRPG, or âoemassively multi-layer online role-playing game,â researchers found âoeno strong effects associated with aggression caused by this violent game,â said Dmitri Williams, the lead author of the study.
Teenagers experiencing 56 hours of fantasy violence over one month and then self-assessing their feelings. 'Nuff said, I hope. Link the sixth:
A brain mechanism that may link violent computer games with aggression has been discovered by researchers in the US. The work goes some way towards demonstrating a causal link between the two - rather than a simple association.
Link the seventh:
After an average playtime of 56 hours over the course of a month...
Same as five.
isn't a "cold" actually a virus?
Yeah, enteroviruses. The cold used to be from rhinoviruses, but they got merged.* It's likely her doctor was concerned about opportunistic infections - such as pneumonia - and gave her antibiotics preventative-like. (In my opinion, doing so is usually overreacting, but I'm not a medical-type doctor and, if I were, I don't know anything about your sister. So do what the nice doctor tells you.)
* The recession impacts everything. I definitely didn't expect it, but then I never studied microeconomics.
Bollocks. Can you provide a single reference to a shark repellent which was proved or convincingly demonstrated to be effective and any evidence of a subsequent mutation that caused that species to be immune?
This demonstration is pretty darn convincing. Right? And sure enough, a later mutation came along with immunity. One day science will give us* bat-catshark repellent, but until then, I'm staying clear of any body of water larger than I can comfortably drink.
* And by "us" I mean "those of us who dress up light a creature of the night to strike fear into the hearts of criminals".
At all the mexican food restaurants here in Texas, they hang a (sealed) ziploc bag filled with water above the door. Somehow they believe that it repels mosquitos and flies. So many places do it, you'd think it would have to work, but I can't see how. Anybody have any ideas?
I believe the theory is that flies avoid it to avoid getting snapped up by the fish found in running water. Whether it works or not is still unclear but unlikely. One researcher says "no, under fluorescent or incandescent lighting", but surprisingly there doesn't seem to be much research.
Not disagreeing with anything you said but this is clearly not a game for kids, and is not marketed as such.
Hm? Of course not. I disagree with the ban. I just object to analogizing the impact of film and video games - they're different media that stimulate different parts of the brain. They are different and should be treated differently: Specifically, age limitations based on content should probably be slightly lower with film than games.
As I said, I'm not aware of any negative impact on adults, and even if there were I dislike the notion that the government should protect us from it. There's a long slippery slope there, and the bottom isn't pretty - it ends with the government criminalizing caffeine, loud voices, and anything colored bright red.
I've no problem with age-restricting the purchase of games, with a reasonable upper limit. But I wouldn't support an outright ban even on a game in which you played a rapist pedophile on an rampage through a nursery school with a rusty letter opener.
This is different than the evening news? I'm all for sex over violence and a happy world but honestly the stuff that happens in that description is up nightly on TV.My friend down in AU says he watched 28 days/weeks later, so how is this any different?
Well, don't take this as support of the ban, but there is a difference between totally passively watching violence (and simulated violence) and actively controlling simulated violence. Different bits of the brain get used, and I believe there's some evidence that both can negatively impact social development in children, with the latter having a measurably stronger impact. I'm not aware of any research showing that either adversely affects adult behavior when viewed as an adult.
cardboard does not act as a Farady cage and the computer will leak large amounts of radio frequency interference so will not be legal in most countries.
That's pretty easy to solve with a few cents worth of aluminum.
It's not possible. Only ionizing radiation can alter DNA.
That's not strictly true. If you get DNA hot enough it can denature, but the most likely effect is that it'll simply stop working. It's barely, theoretically, possible to bombard DNA with non-ionizing radiation, cool it again careful-like, and end up with a mutation. But of course that ain't gonna happen because of a nearby microwave tower. For that matter, it ain't gonna happen even if you try to do it, unless you try an awful lot and get very lucky.
If this guy thinks it's a reasonable concern, I'm surprised he hasn't sold his garlic farm and spent all the cash on used lottery tickets.
and the article glosses over that MOST water supplies in the USA are so heavily chlorinated, that the chance of this happening are nearly ZERO.
Au contraire. Truth is not arrived at by listening to the voices in your head,* but by rigorous scientific study. For example, let's have a look at Chlorine Susceptibility of Mycobacterium avium and Effect of Growth in Biofilms on Chlorine Susceptibility of Mycobacterium avium and Mycobacterium intracellulare, two entirely independent studies.
It would appear that those published, peer-reviewed studies disagree with you. In particular, a quote from the former:
. . . M. avium has been isolated from a variety of sources, including municipal drinking water systems . . .
Whether M. avium is worth any worry is up for debate. Whether it exists in our water supplies is not. It probably isn't a great cause for concern, although it's nice to know that it's being looked into with more thoroughness than someone waving vaguely and going "naaaaah".
* Which I assume also whisper to you that the best way to denote emphasis is by capitalizing words in their entirety. They're wrong about that, too.
I think the etymology is a little unclear. A troll is a nasty forum denizen, but trolling is probably derived from "trawling for noobs".
Ha! Well played. You almost got me, but it is first thing in the morning.
It seems foolish to base a scientific study off of some scientist's ability to objectively judge facial expressions in infants.
That's not what the study measured. It used quantifiable criteria. The conclusions are debatable, but you have to read the study before you're entitled to an opinion.
That's not science.
That's not reading.
Alan Detrich pulled 'em out of the ground.
Correction: He dug up a couple-few of 'em, including the Tyrannosaur, but not all.
The real tragedy is that most of these fossils probably came from private digs. Like archeology, paleontology relies on context. The location where it was found, it's position in the geological strata, other fossils found with it. All these factors can enrich our understanding of these species.
Alan Detrich pulled 'em out of the ground. I can't imagine why you'd worry just because he's a lunatic. He fancies himself a sculptor, he's a staunch proponent of intelligent design who ran for the Kansas Board of Education and famously called those who oppose him "evil-lutionists", and he owns a private fossil excavation company. I can't for the life of me see any reason to be concerned.
I cannot figure out who is selling these things.
The Detrich Fossil Company. It's a Kansas-based company that excavates and resells dino fossils owned by Alan Detrich. He owns Samson and the Kansas Kingfish, at least - I'm only assuming the others belong to him.
Other than the TRex, the prices were not all that bad. Sure, out of my price range. But $500k for a triceratops (I know its something else) seems pretty good.
Funny, that; I felt the same way except it was the shark jaws that I felt seemed over the top. Tyrannosaur bones're the highest-valued dino bones in general - even a single tooth can be pricey. Giant, prehistoric shark jaws are neat, but not all that different from today's sharks, plus they aren't actually, y'know... dinosaurs. Carcharocles teeth aren't terribly rare, either - you can buy one for fifty bucks or so. If the jaws had some of the original teeth, the price'd be a little more reasonable, but those were "close enough" teeth purchased later.
Having done a lot of fishing in my youth this is a common mistake and I actually thought that internet 'trolling' was called that because it's like fishing for a response in the open waters of the internet. I know that's not the case but it seems a more appropriate origin than some fantasy description of a grotesque creature.
Hm? That's exactly what trolling on the 'net means - "trolling for newbies", as in fishing. Linky.
In other words: "We didn't like the result we got, so we massaged the data until we got something we liked, and called that our method."
You said just about all there is to be said. They changed their method to make the results match their hypothesis. They acknowledge poor methodology in their data collection, so even the original results are suspect. The only place this paper ought've been published is in a landfill. Beale and Bond should go back to 101-level courses, and the headline of this story should be "Don't Publish Research With Obvious Flaws".
I'm not sure how you solve the problem of the estimated population of the earth in, say, 200 years if it continues increasing at the current rate.
If I were a betting man, I'd put my chips on nanotechnology to handle the bulk of it. But lots of people have proposed - and are working on - quite a few plausible solutions, including, but not limited to, colonization of other planets, arcologies on- and off-planet, and more efficient production of energy and crops.
Nobody's sure how it will be solved, but your lack of ideas appears to stem from a lack of looking for them.
You also need to be certified as a First Responder, because quite often you're the first on the scene and that means you're the first to provide medical support. So, yes, firefighters DO need to be smart.
The ability to take training does not imply "smart", at least not in the way I understand the word. In my experience, the average firefighter is just about average in intelligence, or perhaps slightly above-average. A few are very smart, and a few are dumber'n rocks. This seems t'be true in virtually every profession that isn't pure manual labor but doesn't require much in the way of critical thinking.
Would that recording from your camera be admissable if the recording system is not inside a black box that you cannot open yourself without leaving traces?
From the site:
It is possible American Family might request Teen Safe Driver output from customers in some situations involving the claims process, for instance, as part of an accident investigation. The information also is subject to being subpoenaed by other parties in a legal proceeding.
I just bought a new Zippo not long ago, and its awesome.
I was indulging in a little sarcasm up there. Sorry it didn't come across clear-like, but I don't actually believe that the 1970s were a halcyon period of consumer perfection - although I think the parent to my post does.
There was a short period of time when companies actually made sure their products were usable by people. That was in 1970s.
Yes. All companies during that decade had perfect products, a feat never achieved before or since. A Sears n' Roebuck stove from 1898 was as likely to be a piece of crap as a Zippo lighter is today.
Electronics then were not complicated, but sophisticated enough. And Walkmans would actually work.
Oh, electronics. My iPod works fine. So does my TI calculator and my Motorola cell phone.
The rot started with Sound Blaster. It was an Industry standard as opposed to open standard.
Yeah, Sound Blaster was notorious for shenanigans like EBCDIC. Oh, wait, that was someone else, long before Creative Labs existed.
There are multiple reasons why subpoena's are required of the police. I hope that you aren't advocating that we should surrender our civil rights.
I s'pose I did post in haste, at that. I posted sloppily and didn't check my terminology. I had thought the police would need a warrant for the information, not a subpoena, believing that the latter required that they have a charged suspect awaiting arraignment or trial. I see now that it's possible to get a subpoena as part of an investigation - although inasmuch as a warrant needs a judge's signature and a subpoena generally doesn't, I'd still prefer they use warrants.
I also can't imagine the police ignoring a request like that. Even if it's a $300.00 device, I've never met a cop who won't pursue a theft if they think it's likely they'll catch the perpetrator and recover the item. For all the police's faults, ignoring a solvable, easily-prosecuted crime ain't one of 'em. Mind you, if a company won't cooperate with a police request relating to an investigation - subpoena or no - the company should be prosecuted itself.