Not exactly the actual study, but at least closer to the source. Assuming this and the post article are appealing to the same research (its difficult to say for sure since the article never says anything specific about the actual study, which is strange because I was under the impression that it was considered good journalism to cite your sources), it does appear certain parts were left out of the article, including
children and adolescents who are attracted to the violent content in the games are likely to be more vulnerable to the effects of that exposure
and
Both Nicoll and Kieffer say that the recent changes that put age limits and rating systems on games make it more difficult for young children to purchase and play these video games. But, say the psychologists, "future research needs to explore why many children and adolescents prefer to play a violent video game rather than play outside, and why certain personalities are drawn to these types of games."
"I also have to wonder about possible bias. The APA funded this study, and it wouldn't exactly be surprising if an association of psychologists (i.e. people who get paid to cure insanity) wanted to suggest that a fairly popular hobby like playing video games turns children into sociopaths."
Well I don't see anything about them funding it, just publishing it. But if true, wouldn't that make them want to play up the other more complex causes of human behavior? I mean if problem children can be cured by taking away their video games, they would be out of business.
Yeah, whenever someone blames parents for the crimes their kids commit, they point their fingers at the video game industry. A debate on whether or not parents should take some responsibility turns into a rant about video games and music and violent movies. Whats up with that? I mean supporters of video games would never try to turn the discussion on the impact of video games into a debate on whether or not parents should be blamed.
"Apparently, you need to learn the difference between the count of glaciers vs. size of glaciers."
No, I intentially used the measure that took in account the mass of the glacier. A few small alpine glaciers melting isn't going to have the same effects as Antartica melting.
"Yes, BS needs to be stopped, but I would say that I will listen to real experts, rather than self-proclaimed nobodies."
Good point, I'll start by ignoring AC's on/. for whom debating consists of nothing more than ad hominems and straw men.
The very fact that you do not understand the difference between engineering and science proves that you are full of bull. Being a janitor is not the same as a research position.
Actually the peak in winter temperatures in the 50's lasted more like 10 years according to your own graph. Each of those tick marks on the x axis represents 5 years. And the spike in the late 90's lasted how long?
Looking at the average numbers are distorted because the temperatures in the early part of the century were radically cooler than anything else (and they rose back up well before the massive increase in industrialization in the postwar years). But even if you do, the "average winter tempature" in the past decade or so is max, maybe 1 or two degrees above the mean for the past century. That does not back your disputed claim that winters today are "nothing like" those in the 50's - 70's. Feel free to admit you were wrong any time now.
"This is not true, because it is inaccurate. No scientist thought or believed that atoms consisted of electrons orbiting atoms. It is more accurate to say that at one time, the best theory, which had the fewest weaknesses and was based upon empirical data and scientific methodology, was the model that electrons orbited protons."
Please look back at my origional post. You will see that I did not say "most scientists believed atoms consisted of electrons orbiting protons", I said "most people believed...". I considered arguing that there was a time when the best available model accepted by scientists was that electrons orbited protons. But the guy I was talking to was most obviously not a scientistst and obviously was taking this in as a belief, not merely "the best model". Thus I felt arguing about beliefs of people would be more effective.
"All you have is your beliefs, which you are free to have, so long as you are aware that they are both irrelevant and unnecesary to the scientific discussion of "scientific conclusions". "
Are you implying that I said I believe global warming won't happen? I did not. The only belief I even implied was a belief in the scientific method.
"Well, first off, the vast majority of glaciers is not in the south pole. Antarctica simply has monster ones. There are glaciers spread throughout the world."
90% of all ice on this whole damn spinning rock is located on Antartica. While the phrase "vast majority" is of course relative, I would consider that far beyond the neccessary requirements.
For some more information on a subject you know nothing about, click here.
"Actually, global warming is a fact."
See, this is the type of thing we need to fight. People who don't know the difference between hypotheses, theories, and facts. Or people so closed minded they refuse to believe anything other than what the celebrities on TV tell them.
"The global temperatures are increasing."
You mean the "average ground temperatures of various cities is increasing". Well we know that, and we know what is causing it. Increased development warms the local area. Large concrete buildings and asphalt streets get warmer than medows and forests. Thats not global warming.
"The ocean temperatures are rising"
And you thought the Texans were distorting data? More reading material for you.
Thanks. Your newer graphs show that its getting cooler again, which again refutes your point that "USA winters are not like they were in the 50's,60's and 70'". Do you know how to read a graph? When the line goes down, that means its getting colder.
"While there is one large spike in the 50's, the average for it is still quite a bit below current stuff."
And while there was a spike in the late 90's, the 30 year average falls "quite a bit" (meaning a degree or two, yeah a 36 degree winter is "nothing like" a 34 degree winter) below the various spikes. Whats your point?
"Yes, but most of the ppl who are credible AND have a fair amount of evidence are the ones who are sounding off on man made global warming."
And once those who were the most credible and those who had a fair amount of evidence supporting them supported the idea that the Earth was a couple thousand years old, and thought time was absolute, and etc. Were you supposed to have a point?
"In addition, every time some lunatic fringe group comes up with something to try and destroy the core researchers premises, they get shot down. Good example is the group from Texas, who had satellite evidence that temps were not changing. But once it was closely examined, it turned out that their work was shoddy. Basically, they had major flaws with the data and had not done their homework."
One group in Texas is not every "lunatic fringe group" (aka someone who disagrees with you on something).
"Another example is the melting of glaciars by all areas, except at the extreme poles where they are growing;"
Well the vast majority of all glaciers are those on the South pole, so a small number of glaciers have been shrinking (as they have been doing since the end of the last ice age) while most have been growing. Thats potentially interesting, but not definitive proof of anything.
"apparently with increasing temperature raises the humidity. At first, though, the none-global warming ppl used the polar glaciars as evidence to refute it."
Yes, with the addition of new evidence, scientists had to modify the global warming hypothesis. Thats because unlike settled fact (under which you apparently try to classify global warming), scientific theories and hypotheses have to adjust as knowledge grows.
Yep, leave it to those Americans to oppose a plan which may delay global warming by a few years just because it will devestate their economy (and with it any chance to come up with a technological solution that might actually do something). Why couldn't they just go with a useless knee-jerk reaction to make all the other countries happy? Damn that free will of theirs, it will doom us all.
You do realize that just because a majority of people believe one thing does not make it true, right? At one point in time, most people believed the world was only a few thousand years old. At another point in time people thought time was absolute. At another, people thought atoms consisted of a proton with electrons orbiting around it.
The Earth's climate in the future is even more difficult to know because it consists of predictions of specific future events. With the previous examples we have physical evidence to look at. Here, the best we can do is look at previous data, make models, and make a guess as to what will happen. One hypothesis is that we will have runaway positive feedback which will work to warm the Earth's global climate. Another is that changes in the sun's sunspots will send the Earth less solar energy and will cool the climate (and if you RTFA, that is what the Russians were basing their predictions on). Another theory (if you believe cheesy Hollywood movies) is that the thermal conveyor will shutdown. There are dozens more, and plenty of other plausible (and not so plausible) theories we have not thought of. Betting on the results isn't too much different from betting on who wins a football game.
The only thing we know for sure is that our planet's climate is very dynamic and depends on many factors.
Google doesn't need that army of PhDs anymore. They have all these reporters thinking up ideas for them.
Out of curiosity, why does it have to be Google that invents all this stuff? Is Google the only company these reporters know about? There was a time when if someone came up with what they thought was a good idea they would find a VC to fund a startup and try to become dot com billionares, now they just offer up everything they have to Google.
Yes, the change was very small, just like the proposed change (which happens to be a change back to the old definition). No conditional logic would be needed. Why the fuck do you think it would be?
Sheesh, are you trying to be difficult? A change from definition A to B was in your own words minor, but you think a change from definition B to A would be too major? Feel free to just admit you were wrong.
"What do you mean Gaming isn't benificial? Have you looked at a video game's complexity today as compared to a game like monopoly?"
Yep, games help teach us how to act in the real world. Now if someone threatens me, thanks to my video game lessons I know all I need to do is press Right+B and a fireball will shoot out of my hands...
The problem is that people are using video games as a substitue for real life. If you just play them once in a while, its fine but many people take it way too far. People don't stay up all night every night playing monopoly games.
"If video games make people happy, it's benificial to the society, is it not? "
When you have an incident like at my little brother's graduation when I had to tell my youngest little brother to stop playing his game boy five times during the national anthem alone, no thats not benificial to society.
"Video games also provide many people, myself included with much needed outlets for destructive energy."
The fact that you need such an outlet is a problem.
How are you going to store it? Hydrogen is a gas except at very cold temperatures or very high pressures, and thus it is going to take up much more space than gasoline in the fuel tank.
Yeah, that would be like sites like/. allowing anonymous cowards to post messages...
Actually many offices (including mine) do have methods for anonymous communication, with the goal to help get potential whistle-blowers to report something.
"The fundamental difference the GP was alluding to was with respect to changes in definition which preserve the defined value, and changes in definition that don't."
Those old changes changed the defined value as well. In fact, what the origional poster was proposing would be to move it back to the older definition in order to get the "ideal" 24 hour days.
"All you have to do is come out with a new version of the library with the new algorithm replacing the old. Nothing will break unless you change the way the function relates to programs that use it."
Yes, changing APIs are generally a bad thing to do. However, changing the implementation can be bad as well if it causes failures in new areas or the potential margins of error, which changes in the fundemental algorithms in mathematical libraries often cause.
the fraction 1/31,556,925.9747 of the tropical year for 1900 January 0 at 12 hours ephemeris time.
to
the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium-133 atom.
The Romans were the last bunch of people to mess with the calander? You mean nothing concerning it has changed since the fall of the Roman Empire? I seem to remember something about some guy named Gregory in there somewhere...
And does this mean the Romans had leap seconds where they adjusted their atomic clocks to keep in synch with the sun?
I know much of/. will be complaining about how this is about the Bush Administration attacking science in their quest to please big business, but in reality from a purely scientific stance this makes sense. The definition of a second hasn't been linked to the Earth's orbit since 1967, so why should we keep on pretending it still is?
"What a lot of baloney. Non-disclosure agreements are what's used to protect confidential information."
And non-compete agreements are used along with non-disclosure agreements to ensure that. If you go to a new company and work on the exact same thing you were working on at your previous job, its going to be very difficult for you to not use what you were working on before at your new job.
"
Anyway, if you'll remember the analogy was supposed to be about how specialization is necessary in certain cases."
I'm sorry, I was assuming you meant for your post to be relevant to the current discussion on noncompete agreements.
"Umm.. heart surgeons DON'T spend time learning about dermatology. "
Do you honestly think they spend 8 years in pre-med/med school and another couple of years in their residency doing nothing but learning about how to operate on the heart? No, they build up a broad knowledge base on medicine. A cardiologist won't know as much about the skin as a dermatologist, but that doesn't mean they are going to ignore that (or any) part of the body.
Why? The human body is a complex interconnected system. You can't treat one part of it without knowing how the rest of the body will react.
How do I know this? I know a number of med school students. But if you'd prefer, I can check with some of them when I get back from vacation.
Slashdot Mirror
Not exactly the actual study, but at least closer to the source. Assuming this and the post article are appealing to the same research (its difficult to say for sure since the article never says anything specific about the actual study, which is strange because I was under the impression that it was considered good journalism to cite your sources), it does appear certain parts were left out of the article, including
and"I also have to wonder about possible bias. The APA funded this study, and it wouldn't exactly be surprising if an association of psychologists (i.e. people who get paid to cure insanity) wanted to suggest that a fairly popular hobby like playing video games turns children into sociopaths."
Well I don't see anything about them funding it, just publishing it. But if true, wouldn't that make them want to play up the other more complex causes of human behavior? I mean if problem children can be cured by taking away their video games, they would be out of business.
What were we talking about again?
No, I intentially used the measure that took in account the mass of the glacier. A few small alpine glaciers melting isn't going to have the same effects as Antartica melting.
"Yes, BS needs to be stopped, but I would say that I will listen to real experts, rather than self-proclaimed nobodies."
Good point, I'll start by ignoring AC's on /. for whom debating consists of nothing more than ad hominems and straw men.
The very fact that you do not understand the difference between engineering and science proves that you are full of bull. Being a janitor is not the same as a research position.
Looking at the average numbers are distorted because the temperatures in the early part of the century were radically cooler than anything else (and they rose back up well before the massive increase in industrialization in the postwar years). But even if you do, the "average winter tempature" in the past decade or so is max, maybe 1 or two degrees above the mean for the past century. That does not back your disputed claim that winters today are "nothing like" those in the 50's - 70's. Feel free to admit you were wrong any time now.
Please look back at my origional post. You will see that I did not say "most scientists believed atoms consisted of electrons orbiting protons", I said "most people believed...". I considered arguing that there was a time when the best available model accepted by scientists was that electrons orbited protons. But the guy I was talking to was most obviously not a scientistst and obviously was taking this in as a belief, not merely "the best model". Thus I felt arguing about beliefs of people would be more effective.
"All you have is your beliefs, which you are free to have, so long as you are aware that they are both irrelevant and unnecesary to the scientific discussion of "scientific conclusions". "
Are you implying that I said I believe global warming won't happen? I did not. The only belief I even implied was a belief in the scientific method.
90% of all ice on this whole damn spinning rock is located on Antartica. While the phrase "vast majority" is of course relative, I would consider that far beyond the neccessary requirements.
For some more information on a subject you know nothing about, click here.
"Actually, global warming is a fact."
See, this is the type of thing we need to fight. People who don't know the difference between hypotheses, theories, and facts. Or people so closed minded they refuse to believe anything other than what the celebrities on TV tell them.
"The global temperatures are increasing."
You mean the "average ground temperatures of various cities is increasing". Well we know that, and we know what is causing it. Increased development warms the local area. Large concrete buildings and asphalt streets get warmer than medows and forests. Thats not global warming.
"The ocean temperatures are rising"
And you thought the Texans were distorting data? More reading material for you.
"While there is one large spike in the 50's, the average for it is still quite a bit below current stuff."
And while there was a spike in the late 90's, the 30 year average falls "quite a bit" (meaning a degree or two, yeah a 36 degree winter is "nothing like" a 34 degree winter) below the various spikes. Whats your point?
And once those who were the most credible and those who had a fair amount of evidence supporting them supported the idea that the Earth was a couple thousand years old, and thought time was absolute, and etc. Were you supposed to have a point?
"In addition, every time some lunatic fringe group comes up with something to try and destroy the core researchers premises, they get shot down. Good example is the group from Texas, who had satellite evidence that temps were not changing. But once it was closely examined, it turned out that their work was shoddy. Basically, they had major flaws with the data and had not done their homework."
One group in Texas is not every "lunatic fringe group" (aka someone who disagrees with you on something).
"Another example is the melting of glaciars by all areas, except at the extreme poles where they are growing;"
Well the vast majority of all glaciers are those on the South pole, so a small number of glaciers have been shrinking (as they have been doing since the end of the last ice age) while most have been growing. Thats potentially interesting, but not definitive proof of anything.
"apparently with increasing temperature raises the humidity. At first, though, the none-global warming ppl used the polar glaciars as evidence to refute it."
Yes, with the addition of new evidence, scientists had to modify the global warming hypothesis. Thats because unlike settled fact (under which you apparently try to classify global warming), scientific theories and hypotheses have to adjust as knowledge grows.
Yep, what a radical change from the 50's.
Yep, leave it to those Americans to oppose a plan which may delay global warming by a few years just because it will devestate their economy (and with it any chance to come up with a technological solution that might actually do something). Why couldn't they just go with a useless knee-jerk reaction to make all the other countries happy? Damn that free will of theirs, it will doom us all.
The Earth's climate in the future is even more difficult to know because it consists of predictions of specific future events. With the previous examples we have physical evidence to look at. Here, the best we can do is look at previous data, make models, and make a guess as to what will happen. One hypothesis is that we will have runaway positive feedback which will work to warm the Earth's global climate. Another is that changes in the sun's sunspots will send the Earth less solar energy and will cool the climate (and if you RTFA, that is what the Russians were basing their predictions on). Another theory (if you believe cheesy Hollywood movies) is that the thermal conveyor will shutdown. There are dozens more, and plenty of other plausible (and not so plausible) theories we have not thought of. Betting on the results isn't too much different from betting on who wins a football game.
The only thing we know for sure is that our planet's climate is very dynamic and depends on many factors.
Out of curiosity, why does it have to be Google that invents all this stuff? Is Google the only company these reporters know about? There was a time when if someone came up with what they thought was a good idea they would find a VC to fund a startup and try to become dot com billionares, now they just offer up everything they have to Google.
So because you are unable to understand the concept of a logical argument, I should defend myself against a claim I never made?
I give up. You obviously don't have a clue what you are talking about.
Sheesh, are you trying to be difficult? A change from definition A to B was in your own words minor, but you think a change from definition B to A would be too major? Feel free to just admit you were wrong.
Yep, games help teach us how to act in the real world. Now if someone threatens me, thanks to my video game lessons I know all I need to do is press Right+B and a fireball will shoot out of my hands...
The problem is that people are using video games as a substitue for real life. If you just play them once in a while, its fine but many people take it way too far. People don't stay up all night every night playing monopoly games.
"If video games make people happy, it's benificial to the society, is it not? "
When you have an incident like at my little brother's graduation when I had to tell my youngest little brother to stop playing his game boy five times during the national anthem alone, no thats not benificial to society.
"Video games also provide many people, myself included with much needed outlets for destructive energy."
The fact that you need such an outlet is a problem.
How are you going to store it? Hydrogen is a gas except at very cold temperatures or very high pressures, and thus it is going to take up much more space than gasoline in the fuel tank.
Actually many offices (including mine) do have methods for anonymous communication, with the goal to help get potential whistle-blowers to report something.
"The fundamental difference the GP was alluding to was with respect to changes in definition which preserve the defined value, and changes in definition that don't."
Those old changes changed the defined value as well. In fact, what the origional poster was proposing would be to move it back to the older definition in order to get the "ideal" 24 hour days.
"All you have to do is come out with a new version of the library with the new algorithm replacing the old. Nothing will break unless you change the way the function relates to programs that use it."
Yes, changing APIs are generally a bad thing to do. However, changing the implementation can be bad as well if it causes failures in new areas or the potential margins of error, which changes in the fundemental algorithms in mathematical libraries often cause.
Aside from the fact that it does state that, as the previous poster pointed out, this was just a recommendation to the UN, not a law in itself.
The definition of the second has changed several times. In fact it has changed three times in the past 50 years, the most recent change being in 1997.
And does this mean the Romans had leap seconds where they adjusted their atomic clocks to keep in synch with the sun?
I know much of /. will be complaining about how this is about the Bush Administration attacking science in their quest to please big business, but in reality from a purely scientific stance this makes sense. The definition of a second hasn't been linked to the Earth's orbit since 1967, so why should we keep on pretending it still is?
And non-compete agreements are used along with non-disclosure agreements to ensure that. If you go to a new company and work on the exact same thing you were working on at your previous job, its going to be very difficult for you to not use what you were working on before at your new job.
" Anyway, if you'll remember the analogy was supposed to be about how specialization is necessary in certain cases."
I'm sorry, I was assuming you meant for your post to be relevant to the current discussion on noncompete agreements.
"Umm.. heart surgeons DON'T spend time learning about dermatology. "
Do you honestly think they spend 8 years in pre-med/med school and another couple of years in their residency doing nothing but learning about how to operate on the heart? No, they build up a broad knowledge base on medicine. A cardiologist won't know as much about the skin as a dermatologist, but that doesn't mean they are going to ignore that (or any) part of the body.
Why? The human body is a complex interconnected system. You can't treat one part of it without knowing how the rest of the body will react.
How do I know this? I know a number of med school students. But if you'd prefer, I can check with some of them when I get back from vacation.