This is a lame "embraced" and "extended" version of an old demo effect that was first demonstrated in the early 90's, if not earlier.
Obviously the entire "zoomed-out" image is not stored. The "zoomed-in" images are stored, but to make the effect work a series of intermediate images has to be stored between each "zoom stage". For example, in one implementation, when "zooming" through the intermediate stage between a "larger" and "smaller" image, for each series of frames an "outside" or "boundary" image is stored in full resolution and that image is zoomed ( and clipped against the view port boundaries ) until it is outside the view port while at the same time the "internal" image is enlarged until it fills the viewport and then the process is repeated again with the "internal image" now consisting of the next "boundary" image surrounding another "internal image".
Go to Pouet and you'll find many demonstrations of this effect.
"Roku" Kanji : å... , Hiragana ãã , Katakana ãfã( pronunciation approximated by "row"-"koo" ) is the word for the number 6 in Japanese. Don't know why Netflix chose it as a name for their player. ( maybe it's just a coincidence )
if the cells of a zygote or embryoblast are genetically modified in place without disrupting its structure so that it would develop into an embryo if allowed to proceed along its current course then it falls into a gray area.
Exactly.:) In my opinion, this is the "start" of a Human life, since the cell mass' structure hasn't been destroyed, and if allowed to continue development would form a viable Human being.
First, I haven't RTFA due to the/. effect but I can tell you that the "thorny moral questions" being raised are caused by the media's incorrect use of the word "embryo" -- either to cater to a dumbed down audience or to be "politically (in)correct" such as to not anger the fundies too much.
There are *2* stages of development before the blob of a few hundred cells is considered an "embryo". First, there's the formation of the zygote after fertilization, and then there's the formation of the blastocyst. The blastocyst is basically a hollow fluid filled sphere consisting of an outer layer of trophoblast cells which eventually become the placenta and an inner blob of cells called the embryoblast which eventually forms the embryo after the blastocyst phase.
When talking of "embryos", scientists are usually talking about the extracted embryoblast cells which are pluripotent stem cells. These cells are *NOT* viable and are just that : cells -- they're not going to grow into a baby, or an "embryo" for that matter. Even I would be upset if it were found out that the real embryo, after the start of cell differentiation, had been tampered with.
To conclude, stem cells are not embryos -- they're just a multiplying blob of undifferentiated pluripotent Human cells and as such, they should be put in the same class as pond scum, although pond scum is actually far more highly developed -- the aforementioned stem cells cannot survive outside of a Petri dish (unless they're implanted into another nutrient source, such as the Human body for purposes of healing)
Opensource developers have put an enormous effort into the GNU Classpath Projectwhich has almost reached 1.0 status and that aims to be a free implementation of the Java class libraries. Indeed, who can calculate the man-years that have gone into this project? I can't believe it will just up and die when Sun opensources Java. Will we have two diverging implementations or will they merge?
I remember the excitement surrounding the release of the "K8" as well as the "K9" both of which were expected to be ground-up architectural reworks. Indeed AMD was working on the "K8L" which was to be 8 issue superscalar among other things -- basically the Alpha EV8 reborn.
Hmmmm.... I thought I remembered the expected ground-up rework being referred to as the "K8L" . I think I meant "K9". ( there is contradictory information regarding this )
The Core 2 is effectively wider than Barcelona. The Barcelona is very much like the K8 in the front end, with only 3 "complex", full-time instruction decoders. The Core 2 has three "simple" decoders, and one "complex" decoder, with macro-op fusion (possibly decoding 5 x86 instructions with Penryn). The Barcelona is only capable of dispatching 3 uops to the next stage of the pipeline, whereas the Core 2 can possibly dispatch 4 (5 if you count uop fusion). Thanks for the info. I did know that the Barcelona was just an update of the K8 architecture, which, was an (significant) update of the K7 architecture.... you can see where this is going. AMD chose to take the road that results in continuous cruft buildup on the traveler -- exactly analogous to the bloatware road that Microsoft is on. They both lead to the same outcome: performance/capability hitting a brick wall because of the law of diminishing returns (or Amdahl's Law in AMD's case) and a need to create a new architecture from the ground up which AMD *failed* to do and believe me they had the chance.
I remember the excitement surrounding the release of the "K8" as well as the "K9" both of which were expected to be ground-up architectural reworks. Indeed AMD was working on the "K8L" which was to be 8 issue superscalar among other things -- basically the Alpha EV8 reborn. But, instead we got a micro-architectural rework of AMD's previous K7 architecture -- the biggest mistake in AMD's history.
The only other significant performance difference between the architectures is the cache architecture, where Intel has been running circles around AMD for years now (and there's plenty of material on why Intel's cache is so much faster than AMD's). Hopefully, when AMD transitions to Z-RAM this situation can be reversed -- that is, if AMD even exists by then.
This may be a little off-topic, but I've been trying to find out exactly what architectural difference is responsible for the Intel Core having a higher IPC than the AMD Barcelona.
I've looked at all manner of micro-architectural diagrams and descriptions of both architectures, yet I am unable to pinpoint any obvious reason for the Core's higher IPC. Perhaps I'm overlooking something simple -- that would be just like me.
Can anyone provide some elucidation for this topic?
The iPhones retarded lack of Adobe Flash and Sun Java support makes its web browsing experience, for me at least, abysmal.
Until the iPhone can hold a candle to one of these
running Xubuntu ( Ubuntu + Xfce ) , then I will just consider it a toy, with its one redeeming feature being multi-touch integrated with a great UI.
With the money this guy has surely he could afford to build a version of the Analytical Engine.
It's not a giant leap for the machinists involved in such a project, given that the fine specifications for the various gears, wheels and cogs is a no-brainer for today's technology -- all the parts could be laser cut by a robot. It would be truly awe-inspiring to see the first computer functioning in all its glory, for indeed it is Turing complete and lays out many of the concepts used in modern digital computers.
Hmmm, I dare say that's shorter than the C# version, if you remove the comments. Oh and it will run Linux, if you have enough coal and are willing to wait a few years for X to load.;) (it does have a graphical output device) As for a beowulf cluster, that might help performance, although your interconnect mechanism would probably be pneumatic ie. tubes (that's what the Internet is made of anyway right?) and the cluster size would require a few tens of millions of units.;)
While I agree with free speech, I think that access to such information should be limited to those who have sufficient information to prove themselves non-suicidal -- exactly like getting a gun license.
So what you're saying is you think your own post should be illegal because you can't be trusted not to say what you just did? What an, umm, interesting concept.
You misunderstand. I meant the protections only on web-sites whose sole purpose is to disseminate suicide techniques and are biased in favor of using them. I'm not telling anyone to kill themselves.
First, "protections on sites"? I think you mean "restrictions on sites."
True.
Second, you do understand that what you propose is impossible to legislate, right?
Yes.
Both the criteria you list as restrictions are subjective and dependent upon the intent of the site operator. Who is to say what is biased in favor and what is simply informative? It speaks to the mental state of the person who created the site, a so called "thought crime" law. Who is to say if a site's sole purpose is to disseminate suicide techniques? If they also have one article about what their favorite food is, does that mean they can ignore this law?
We already have a law that would fit what you refer to above : It's called the DMCA.
I didn't say banned, I said "controlled", and only in the instance of sites that promote suicide and furthermore only in the instance that the user is suicidal.
So how exactly is a site operator supposed to determine if a given user is suicidal? How do you stop suicidal people from going to a site without restricting it to other people? Note, this has to pass constitutional muster such that it cannot allow the government to monitor who reads it because it cannot potentially create a "chilling effect" as per other supreme court ruling on free speech.
I imagine that such a system could be in place in the far future.
you should start setting an example and stop your own speech on the matter first.
See my comments above.
I did, but maybe it is my opinion that your real intent was just to inform people how to commit suicide. Maybe you're trying to encourage suicide under the guise of doing the opposite. Since we cannot read your thoughts, who is to say?
True again.
I'm also not sure you can claim to be in favor of free speech and then propose a huge restriction on free speech.
I was referring to a very small subset of speech, and any one who is non-suicidal would be free to access it.
Yes, that is what everyone who wants to restrict free speech says. No one wants to stop people from talking. They just want to make it illegal to print blasphemy in order to save people's souls.
Irrelevant. I'm agnostic and as such I don't even believe in blasphemy, nor souls.
Or maybe they're in favor of free speech, they just want to ban speech about granting "negros" freedom from slavery, since such speech is unnatural and promotes illegal acts like theft of slaves. All other speech is fine.
More irrelevancy. I'll restrict from using the term "straw man" as you seem to have a problem with it.
Being in favor of free speech means it applies to both speech you like and speech you don't like.
Yes, I know. Please don't patronize me.
If you don't support the rights of people to say things you completely disagree with and think are horrible, then you are not in favor of free
While I agree with free speech, I think that access to such information should be limited to those who have sufficient information to prove themselves non-suicidal -- exactly like getting a gun license.
So what you're saying is you think your own post should be illegal because you can't be trusted not to say what you just did? What an, umm, interesting concept.
You misunderstand. I meant the protections only on web-sites whose sole purpose is to disseminate suicide techniques and are biased in favor of using them. I'm not telling anyone to kill themselves.
If you think such speech should be banned, maybe
I didn't say banned, I said "controlled", and only in the instance of sites that promote suicide and furthermore only in the instance that the user is suicidal.
you should start setting an example and stop your own speech on the matter first.
See my comments above.
I'm also not sure you can claim to be in favor of free speech and then propose a huge restriction on free speech.
I was referring to a very small subset of speech, and any one who is non-suicidal would be free to access it.
I believe that such a license ( like a drinking license ) is necessary because suicide is usually the result of psychotic depression -- which was induced by bipolar disorder in this case.
So you propose restricting everyone's rights to prevent the mentally ill from hearing things, and you think this would work?
Firstly, you are pulling a straw man by referring to the mentally ill -- most of the mentally ill are not suicidal. And again, I was not referring to everyone, but only to the suicidal, and only in the very restricted sense of accessing web sites that promote suicide.
Are you proposing a great internet firewall of the US, like the one China has, to protect us from all this free information on the internet? Do you think the danger this poses in terms of potential censorship and misinformation is less important than keeping suicidal people from having this information?
Again you're pulling a straw man here. I never said or implied any of the above.
Also, committing suicide is a crime in the U.S.,although I don't know how the authorities will penalize you when you're dead, so maybe it should be attempted suicide.
Suicide is not a crime in the US. Attempted suicide is a crime... although maybe we should ask if it should be.
As such, web sites that disseminate this information are complicit in murder.
First, suicide or attempted suicide and murder are not the same things. We also have Web sites that give specific advice on how to commit murders, but they are perfectly legal. To be complicit in murder you have to specifically be involved in a murder, not simply provide information.
True, my statement was more emotional than rational.
I wish I could find out where she gathered the Advil advice and crack the skull of whomever put it up.
Yeah, there is no better tribute to a person who killed themselves than to kill someone else who told them how to do it less painfully.
You like straw man arguments don't you? Are you so naive as to think that I was being literal?
I suspect you're feeling more than thinking rationally. I suspect that you have not thought this through.
A little of both.
America was founded on the idea of personal freedom. The only reason attempted suicide is a crime is because of the religious ramifications, something which is unconstitutio
It's a shame about your friend, but if you're going to assign blame for her death, I would think free speech on the internet would be very far down on your list.
Well, my post was an emotional knee jerk reaction. I'm the last person to support censorship as I'm an Agnostic Libertarian.:)
Why are you not blaming advil? Why are you not blaming the store which sold her such a quantity of the drug?
Indeed I think they are culpable as well.
Indeed, if your friend was bipolar, why are you not blaming her support network... her physicians, family, or friends?
Well, the doctors really couldn't do much without her family cooperating and giving them vital information about her condition so I wouldn't blame them. But, although I'd like to blame the family, they are just ignorant -- if they had known what the outcome of their inaction would be they would have acted very differently.
You claim that websites that disseminate such information are complicit in murder. Are you so sure that there was a direct casual link between this website and your friend's suicide?
I cannot demonstrate such a link, but the information provided in this case was unfortunately just what she was looking for as I believe she would only kill herself by overdosing on some substance -- namely medications.
In other words, but for this website, your friend would never have been able to commit suicide using any other methods?
I believe she would have tried to overdose on another medication that would not have been fatal had she not seen the information on the Advil.
While I agree with free speech, I think that access to such information should be limited to those who have sufficient information to prove themselves non-suicidal -- exactly like getting a gun license. With such conditions placed on access to information (and who are the gatekeepers?), you most assuredly do not agree with free speech.
You are correct in that my comments contradict my statement that I believe in free speech. I do believe in free speech, I would even die to protect it. In fact when I wrote about my belief in free speech I was aware of the fallacy, but too angry/emotional to care.
You believe in very limited "approved" speech, not free speech.
Agreed. Although I intended that the "approved" speech be accessible by those who could demonstrate that they were not suicidal, which would be most of the population. Still, the concept is untenable. Perhaps something milder should be required, such as a warning, a statement that the information should not be used to commit suicide --that it is wrong--, and pointers to various suicide support sites
It isn't normal to prefer death to another day of life.
No shit.
It seems to me that people who attempt suicide do so because a) they don't know how to make or keep friends
This is pure and utter bullshit.Like the other poster, you've just demonstrated your complete lack of knowledge when it comes to these issues. There is no connection between people that commit suicide and their "not having friends" as the condition that precipitates the suicide is an illness. Why don't you go to NAMI's website and read some basic information on mental illness.
, b) they are subject to chronic unendurable pain of some kind,
I can see the straw man being set up here. We're not talking about self-euthanasia. Please be relevant or shut up.
c) they actually have a chemical imbalance in the brain
You seem to have gotten one point right by chance. But the "chemical imbalance" is usually a genetic or congenital structural defect in the brain.
(and I'm not talking about "you're unhappy, here's some more happy chemicals, that'll fix it"),
And I have no idea what you're talking about. From what you've said, specifically your apparent disdain for Psychiatry and the bigotrous words in which you've framed it, I can deduce that you're either a Cruise like ignoramus when it comes to psychiatry, or just talking out of your ass with respect to the subject at hand.
or d) they don't see any future for their family -- but they have life insurance.
Wrong and right. In this case the person who commits suicide is suffering from psychotic depression. And "they don't see any future for their family" again indicates that you're talking BS as suicide in these cases is usually triggered by a person's devaluing their own life -- because of psychotic depression.
For a), they need friends.
I'll give you that.
But if they had friends whom they valued, they wouldn't be in situation a) to begin with.
So, if they had friends then "whom they valued" (a friend you don't value is not a friend) they would "know how to make or keep friends"-- which can be reduced to "If they had friends they'd know how to keep or make friends". This is a tautology at best.
Since they could always have changed the pattern of behavior that led them to that situation, and they still can, I have limited sympathy for them.
This is pure bullshit. As stated in my previous remarks, and backed up by the personal experiences of those who have mental illness and the mental health community, they can "change their behavior" just as much as an epileptic or someone with diabetes "can change their behavior". Descartes wants his 18th century mind-body separation philosophy back. And as for having "limited sympathy" I do have sympathy for you, sympathy for your wretched condition of unkindness, which is one of the greatest factors in what makes the World suck.
For b), c), and d), friends won't help.
Wrong again. Friends always help.
The best help for b) and d) is some good advice on suicide techniques,
You are truly a narcissist. The best advice for someone who is seriously mentally ill and not in control of their actions is to tell them how to commit suicide? Maybe your advice for someone with a broken leg is to cut it off? I'm sure the loved ones of those who are suffering will agree with you.
and the best help for c) is a doctor. Now, granted, for c) they might not be able to get a doctor until they actually make the attempt. That's where friends can come in handy: to help get a doctor and to help pick up the pieces.
Suicide isn't selective when it comes to the number of friends you have. Even if someone has no friends, a neighbor or acquaintance can have them committed if they are danger to themselves.
Hey, hey, hey... take it easy now. Her suicide was HER CHOICE
You've just demonstrated that you know nothing of mental illness and depression/suicide in particular. As I stated in my other post "the rational mind takes over and the irrational emotional mind takes control" -- it's a choice just like suffering an epileptic fit is a choice.
and your suffering is YOUR OWN RESPONSIBILITY.
I have no idea what this means, but it's a non sequitur at best. What it does show is that again you have no knowledge of the subject at hand, and in particular, the Human Condition. Your statement is akin to saying that "the pain from your cancer is your own responsibility".
Trying to justify outright censorship because you're hurting is IRRATIONAL.
You're pulling a straw man argument here. Firstly, as I stated in my other post, I'm not for censorship, but for controls on such information that could be fatal in the hands of someone who is psychotic. Everyone here seems to have no problems with controls such as rating systems and sexual content. I see such things as antiquated and only still in effect because of the "Christian" "conservatives" that constitute most of this country's population. I wouldn't miss them. But, you object to controls on information that can kill? Can you say hypocrite?
If you want sympathy for irrational concepts, you're in the wrong place.
Indeed I am in the wrong place as everything you've said typifies the abject ignorance of the general population when it comes to mental illness. I thought it might be different here. And the only thing here that is irrational is your blindness and hypocritical condescension on a topic you obviously have no clue about.
Maybe the moron that modded this as "Flamebait" should consider the *horrible* emotional suffering that I, and other suicide survivors, experience. This has been the most painful experience in my life -- the suffering is beyond description. Ever heard of sympathy? You'll be wanting it if ever one of your loved ones dies before their time.
Last year a girl I had known all my life committed suicide using information she had gathered from the web -- she was only 19. Specifically she bought a bottle of 1000 Advil pills and took them all. The information provided on the web indicated that this was one of the best ways of avoiding resuscitation as it causes almost all of your organs to fail and hence your probability of dying 99% with little chance of being saved. After this happened my life went into an emotional free fall. I'll never be the same. While I agree with free speech, I think that access to such information should be limited to those who have sufficient information to prove themselves non-suicidal -- exactly like getting a gun license. I fear though that the realization of an "I'm not suicidal" license is far away -- look at the military : they're recruiting the mentally ill. I believe that such a license ( like a drinking license ) is necessary because suicide is usually the result of psychotic depression -- which was induced by bipolar disorder in this case. When you've gone psychotic your rational mind shuts down and the irrational emotional mind takes control -- basically no one's home. Also, committing suicide is a crime in the U.S.,although I don't know how the authorities will penalize you when you're dead, so maybe it should be attempted suicide. As such, web sites that disseminate this information are complicit in murder. Fuck them. I wish I could find out where she gathered the Advil advice and crack the skull of whomever put it up.
For a while I've been looking for a gadget that integrates cell-phone/pda/computer/web/internet/mp3-player functionality. I thought I had found it with the iPhone but not so. The iPhone's idiotic lack of Flash and Java renders it useless to me as almost all the sites I frequent require Flash and my most visited sites require Java. Add to that a closed and proprietary software architecture and you've got yourself an iBrick. I've thought about purchasing a Linux based Nokia n810 but again it suffers from a dismal web browsing experience. So, the only option left is an ultra tiny sub-notebook ala oqo . Unfortunately, not only are these unavailable in the United States but they cost a sh*tload -- we're talking upwards of $3600. Something tells me they don't cost that much in Japan. Man I wish I had one of these:
For a rootkit, the lower the level it can modify the system at, the better. We've seen this progression, from user-mode,to kernel mode hooks,to kernel mode data structures etc. So, obviously the rootkit authors know that their current methods will be obsolete in the near future, and have "lowered the bar" (pun intended;) to the MBR. (Heh, that also rhymes;) Anyway, if you think this is the last safe haven for rootkits, you're wrong -- really wrong. How about a rootkit that splits itself into tiny chunks, compresses them, and then inserts them into the free space available on the various BIOS's in your system eg. Video, Hard Drive, RAID Controller etc.? Impossible you say, well, I advise you to watch this presentation :
Systems with the ability to boot from a storage device other than a hard drive, say, a USB drive, are especially vulnerable, as the rootkit doesn't have to gain access to the BIOSs via the OS. Instead, it modifies the boot sector of the USB drive and then, upon bootup, after the BIOS boots off the USB drive, hides itself via the previously mentioned technique, so as to ensure it will run even if the boot sector of the USB drive is modified. This is possible as, upon bootup, the BIOS scans for memory mapped expansion ROMs (the previously mentioned BIOS's spread throughout your system) and then transfers control to each one.
Note that I said I'd be happy if they only beefed up the speaker.
The sound quality of the ringer/speakerphone is crap compared to a high quality cell phone.
And, I think in the case of a "normal" cell phone, like a Motorola Razr, there's a lot less
room for the battery, yet the phone still gets a lot more than four hours on a single charge.
If you search through the various Apple/iPhone forums, you'll find something that users
are particularly annoyed at : speakerphone mode, and the speaker in general. One of the major
problems is that its maximum volume is abysmally low. How hard is it or how much cost does
it take to put in a beefier microspeaker? Probably next to nothing. Are they trying to save
a few pennies? I'd like something ala the Qtek 9000. Not only does this thing have stereo sound
but it has about everything but the kitchen sink. If they'd just go with dual speakers on the iPhone
I'd be happy though.
Slashdot Mirror
Go to Pouet and you'll find many demonstrations of this effect.
jdb2
Here's the solution to that :
Roku in Japanese Script
jdb2
jdb2
jdb2
jdb2
Exactly. :) In my opinion, this is the "start" of a Human life, since the cell mass' structure hasn't been destroyed, and if allowed to continue development would form a viable Human being.
jdb2
There are *2* stages of development before the blob of a few hundred cells is considered an "embryo". First, there's the formation of the zygote after fertilization, and then there's the formation of the blastocyst. The blastocyst is basically a hollow fluid filled sphere consisting of an outer layer of trophoblast cells which eventually become the placenta and an inner blob of cells called the embryoblast which eventually forms the embryo after the blastocyst phase.
When talking of "embryos", scientists are usually talking about the extracted embryoblast cells which are pluripotent stem cells. These cells are *NOT* viable and are just that : cells -- they're not going to grow into a baby, or an "embryo" for that matter. Even I would be upset if it were found out that the real embryo, after the start of cell differentiation, had been tampered with.
To conclude, stem cells are not embryos -- they're just a multiplying blob of undifferentiated pluripotent Human cells and as such, they should be put in the same class as pond scum, although pond scum is actually far more highly developed -- the aforementioned stem cells cannot survive outside of a Petri dish (unless they're implanted into another nutrient source, such as the Human body for purposes of healing)
jdb2
jdb2
Hmmmm.... I thought I remembered the expected ground-up rework being referred to as the "K8L" . I think I meant "K9". ( there is contradictory information regarding this )
jdb2
jdb2
Can anyone provide some elucidation for this topic?
jdb2
Until the iPhone can hold a candle to one of these running Xubuntu ( Ubuntu + Xfce ) , then I will just consider it a toy, with its one redeeming feature being multi-touch integrated with a great UI.
See my previous post on this topic : http://mobile.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=513868&cid=22992830
jdb2
Here are some links :
http://www.fourmilab.ch/babbage/
The obligatory 99-bottles-of-beer-on-the-wall in punched card Analytical Engine assembly language :
http://99-bottles-of-beer.net/language-babbage's-analytical-machine-79.html
Hmmm, I dare say that's shorter than the C# version, if you remove the comments. Oh and it will run Linux, if you have enough coal and are willing to wait a few years for X to load. ;) (it does have a graphical output device) As for a beowulf cluster, that might help performance, although your interconnect mechanism would probably be pneumatic ie. tubes (that's what the Internet is made of anyway right?) and the cluster size would require a few tens of millions of units. ;)
jdb2
While I agree with free speech, I think that access to such information should be limited to those who have sufficient information to prove themselves non-suicidal -- exactly like getting a gun license.
So what you're saying is you think your own post should be illegal because you can't be trusted not to say what you just did? What an, umm, interesting concept.
You misunderstand. I meant the protections only on web-sites whose sole purpose is to disseminate suicide techniques and are biased in favor of using them. I'm not telling anyone to kill themselves.
First, "protections on sites"? I think you mean "restrictions on sites."
True.
Second, you do understand that what you propose is impossible to legislate, right?
Yes.
Both the criteria you list as restrictions are subjective and dependent upon the intent of the site operator. Who is to say what is biased in favor and what is simply informative? It speaks to the mental state of the person who created the site, a so called "thought crime" law. Who is to say if a site's sole purpose is to disseminate suicide techniques? If they also have one article about what their favorite food is, does that mean they can ignore this law?
We already have a law that would fit what you refer to above : It's called the DMCA.
I didn't say banned, I said "controlled", and only in the instance of sites that promote suicide and furthermore only in the instance that the user is suicidal.
So how exactly is a site operator supposed to determine if a given user is suicidal? How do you stop suicidal people from going to a site without restricting it to other people? Note, this has to pass constitutional muster such that it cannot allow the government to monitor who reads it because it cannot potentially create a "chilling effect" as per other supreme court ruling on free speech.
I imagine that such a system could be in place in the far future.
you should start setting an example and stop your own speech on the matter first.
See my comments above.
I did, but maybe it is my opinion that your real intent was just to inform people how to commit suicide. Maybe you're trying to encourage suicide under the guise of doing the opposite. Since we cannot read your thoughts, who is to say?
True again.
I'm also not sure you can claim to be in favor of free speech and then propose a huge restriction on free speech.
I was referring to a very small subset of speech, and any one who is non-suicidal would be free to access it.
Yes, that is what everyone who wants to restrict free speech says. No one wants to stop people from talking. They just want to make it illegal to print blasphemy in order to save people's souls.
Irrelevant. I'm agnostic and as such I don't even believe in blasphemy, nor souls.
Or maybe they're in favor of free speech, they just want to ban speech about granting "negros" freedom from slavery, since such speech is unnatural and promotes illegal acts like theft of slaves. All other speech is fine.
More irrelevancy. I'll restrict from using the term "straw man" as you seem to have a problem with it.
Being in favor of free speech means it applies to both speech you like and speech you don't like.
Yes, I know. Please don't patronize me.
If you don't support the rights of people to say things you completely disagree with and think are horrible, then you are not in favor of free
While I agree with free speech, I think that access to such information should be limited to those who have sufficient information to prove themselves non-suicidal -- exactly like getting a gun license.
So what you're saying is you think your own post should be illegal because you can't be trusted not to say what you just did? What an, umm, interesting concept.
You misunderstand. I meant the protections only on web-sites whose sole purpose is to disseminate suicide techniques and are biased in favor of using them. I'm not telling anyone to kill themselves.
If you think such speech should be banned, maybe
I didn't say banned, I said "controlled", and only in the instance of sites that promote suicide and furthermore only in the instance that the user is suicidal.
you should start setting an example and stop your own speech on the matter first.
See my comments above.
I'm also not sure you can claim to be in favor of free speech and then propose a huge restriction on free speech.
I was referring to a very small subset of speech, and any one who is non-suicidal would be free to access it.
I believe that such a license ( like a drinking license ) is necessary because suicide is usually the result of psychotic depression -- which was induced by bipolar disorder in this case.
So you propose restricting everyone's rights to prevent the mentally ill from hearing things, and you think this would work?
Firstly, you are pulling a straw man by referring to the mentally ill -- most of the mentally ill are not suicidal. And again, I was not referring to everyone, but only to the suicidal, and only in the very restricted sense of accessing web sites that promote suicide.
Are you proposing a great internet firewall of the US, like the one China has, to protect us from all this free information on the internet? Do you think the danger this poses in terms of potential censorship and misinformation is less important than keeping suicidal people from having this information?
Again you're pulling a straw man here. I never said or implied any of the above.
Also, committing suicide is a crime in the U.S. ,although I don't know how the authorities will penalize you when you're dead, so maybe it should be attempted suicide.
Suicide is not a crime in the US. Attempted suicide is a crime... although maybe we should ask if it should be.
As such, web sites that disseminate this information are complicit in murder.
First, suicide or attempted suicide and murder are not the same things. We also have Web sites that give specific advice on how to commit murders, but they are perfectly legal. To be complicit in murder you have to specifically be involved in a murder, not simply provide information.
True, my statement was more emotional than rational.
I wish I could find out where she gathered the Advil advice and crack the skull of whomever put it up.
Yeah, there is no better tribute to a person who killed themselves than to kill someone else who told them how to do it less painfully.
You like straw man arguments don't you? Are you so naive as to think that I was being literal?
I suspect you're feeling more than thinking rationally. I suspect that you have not thought this through.
A little of both.
America was founded on the idea of personal freedom. The only reason attempted suicide is a crime is because of the religious ramifications, something which is unconstitutio
Well, my post was an emotional knee jerk reaction. I'm the last person to support censorship as I'm an Agnostic Libertarian.
Why are you not blaming advil? Why are you not blaming the store which sold her such a quantity of the drug?
Indeed I think they are culpable as well.
Indeed, if your friend was bipolar, why are you not blaming her support network... her physicians, family, or friends?
Well, the doctors really couldn't do much without her family cooperating and giving them vital information about her condition so I wouldn't blame them. But, although I'd like to blame the family, they are just ignorant -- if they had known what the outcome of their inaction would be they would have acted very differently.
You claim that websites that disseminate such information are complicit in murder. Are you so sure that there was a direct casual link between this website and your friend's suicide?
I cannot demonstrate such a link, but the information provided in this case was unfortunately just what she was looking for as I believe she would only kill herself by overdosing on some substance -- namely medications.
In other words, but for this website, your friend would never have been able to commit suicide using any other methods?
I believe she would have tried to overdose on another medication that would not have been fatal had she not seen the information on the Advil.
While I agree with free speech, I think that access to such information should be limited to those who have sufficient information to prove themselves non-suicidal -- exactly like getting a gun license. With such conditions placed on access to information (and who are the gatekeepers?), you most assuredly do not agree with free speech.
You are correct in that my comments contradict my statement that I believe in free speech. I do believe in free speech, I would even die to protect it. In fact when I wrote about my belief in free speech I was aware of the fallacy, but too angry/emotional to care.
You believe in very limited "approved" speech, not free speech.
Agreed. Although I intended that the "approved" speech be accessible by those who could demonstrate that they were not suicidal, which would be most of the population. Still, the concept is untenable. Perhaps something milder should be required, such as a warning, a statement that the information should not be used to commit suicide --that it is wrong--, and pointers to various suicide support sites
jdb2
No shit.
It seems to me that people who attempt suicide do so because a) they don't know how to make or keep friends
This is pure and utter bullshit.Like the other poster, you've just demonstrated your complete lack of knowledge when it comes to these issues. There is no connection between people that commit suicide and their "not having friends" as the condition that precipitates the suicide is an illness. Why don't you go to NAMI's website and read some basic information on mental illness.
, b) they are subject to chronic unendurable pain of some kind,
I can see the straw man being set up here. We're not talking about self-euthanasia. Please be relevant or shut up.
c) they actually have a chemical imbalance in the brain
You seem to have gotten one point right by chance. But the "chemical imbalance" is usually a genetic or congenital structural defect in the brain.
(and I'm not talking about "you're unhappy, here's some more happy chemicals, that'll fix it"),
And I have no idea what you're talking about. From what you've said, specifically your apparent disdain for Psychiatry and the bigotrous words in which you've framed it, I can deduce that you're either a Cruise like ignoramus when it comes to psychiatry, or just talking out of your ass with respect to the subject at hand.
or d) they don't see any future for their family -- but they have life insurance.
Wrong and right. In this case the person who commits suicide is suffering from psychotic depression. And "they don't see any future for their family" again indicates that you're talking BS as suicide in these cases is usually triggered by a person's devaluing their own life -- because of psychotic depression.
For a), they need friends.
I'll give you that.
But if they had friends whom they valued, they wouldn't be in situation a) to begin with.
So, if they had friends then "whom they valued" (a friend you don't value is not a friend) they would "know how to make or keep friends"-- which can be reduced to "If they had friends they'd know how to keep or make friends". This is a tautology at best
Since they could always have changed the pattern of behavior that led them to that situation, and they still can, I have limited sympathy for them.
This is pure bullshit. As stated in my previous remarks, and backed up by the personal experiences of those who have mental illness and the mental health community, they can "change their behavior" just as much as an epileptic or someone with diabetes "can change their behavior". Descartes wants his 18th century mind-body separation philosophy back. And as for having "limited sympathy" I do have sympathy for you, sympathy for your wretched condition of unkindness, which is one of the greatest factors in what makes the World suck.
For b), c), and d), friends won't help.
Wrong again. Friends always help.
The best help for b) and d) is some good advice on suicide techniques,
You are truly a narcissist. The best advice for someone who is seriously mentally ill and not in control of their actions is to tell them how to commit suicide? Maybe your advice for someone with a broken leg is to cut it off? I'm sure the loved ones of those who are suffering will agree with you.
and the best help for c) is a doctor. Now, granted, for c) they might not be able to get a doctor until they actually make the attempt. That's where friends can come in handy: to help get a doctor and to help pick up the pieces.
Suicide isn't selective when it comes to the number of friends you have. Even if someone has no friends, a neighbor or acquaintance can have them committed if they are danger to themselves.
jdb2
You've just demonstrated that you know nothing of mental illness and depression/suicide in particular. As I stated in my other post "the rational mind takes over and the irrational emotional mind takes control" -- it's a choice just like suffering an epileptic fit is a choice.
and your suffering is YOUR OWN RESPONSIBILITY.
I have no idea what this means, but it's a non sequitur at best. What it does show is that again you have no knowledge of the subject at hand, and in particular, the Human Condition. Your statement is akin to saying that "the pain from your cancer is your own responsibility".
Trying to justify outright censorship because you're hurting is IRRATIONAL.
You're pulling a straw man argument here. Firstly, as I stated in my other post, I'm not for censorship, but for controls on such information that could be fatal in the hands of someone who is psychotic. Everyone here seems to have no problems with controls such as rating systems and sexual content. I see such things as antiquated and only still in effect because of the "Christian" "conservatives" that constitute most of this country's population. I wouldn't miss them. But, you object to controls on information that can kill? Can you say hypocrite?
If you want sympathy for irrational concepts, you're in the wrong place.
Indeed I am in the wrong place as everything you've said typifies the abject ignorance of the general population when it comes to mental illness. I thought it might be different here. And the only thing here that is irrational is your blindness and hypocritical condescension on a topic you obviously have no clue about.
jdb2
Maybe the moron that modded this as "Flamebait" should consider the *horrible* emotional suffering that I, and other suicide survivors, experience. This has been the most painful experience in my life -- the suffering is beyond description. Ever heard of sympathy? You'll be wanting it if ever one of your loved ones dies before their time.
jdb2
Last year a girl I had known all my life committed suicide using information she had gathered from the web -- she was only 19. Specifically she bought a bottle of 1000 Advil pills and took them all. The information provided on the web indicated that this was one of the best ways of avoiding resuscitation as it causes almost all of your organs to fail and hence your probability of dying 99% with little chance of being saved. After this happened my life went into an emotional free fall. I'll never be the same. While I agree with free speech, I think that access to such information should be limited to those who have sufficient information to prove themselves non-suicidal -- exactly like getting a gun license. I fear though that the realization of an "I'm not suicidal" license is far away -- look at the military : they're recruiting the mentally ill. I believe that such a license ( like a drinking license ) is necessary because suicide is usually the result of psychotic depression -- which was induced by bipolar disorder in this case. When you've gone psychotic your rational mind shuts down and the irrational emotional mind takes control -- basically no one's home. Also, committing suicide is a crime in the U.S. ,although I don't know how the authorities will penalize you when you're dead, so maybe it should be attempted suicide. As such, web sites that disseminate this information are complicit in murder. Fuck them. I wish I could find out where she gathered the Advil advice and crack the skull of whomever put it up.
jdb2
Here's the original from February 14 :
http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/02/14/223241
jdb2
For a while I've been looking for a gadget that integrates cell-phone/pda/computer/web/internet/mp3-player functionality. I thought I had found it with the iPhone but not so. The iPhone's idiotic lack of Flash and Java renders it useless to me as almost all the sites I frequent require Flash and my most visited sites require Java. Add to that a closed and proprietary software architecture and you've got yourself an iBrick. I've thought about purchasing a Linux based Nokia n810 but again it suffers from a dismal web browsing experience. So, the only option left is an ultra tiny sub-notebook ala oqo . Unfortunately, not only are these unavailable in the United States but they cost a sh*tload -- we're talking upwards of $3600. Something tells me they don't cost that much in Japan. Man I wish I had one of these:
http://www.dynamism.com/ux/gallery.shtml
Nuke vista and install your favorite Linux distribution and you've got yourself the holy grail of technology convergence.
jdb2
For a rootkit, the lower the level it can modify the system at, the better. We've seen this progression, from user-mode,to kernel mode hooks,to kernel mode data structures etc. So, obviously the rootkit authors know that their current methods will be obsolete in the near future, and have "lowered the bar" (pun intended ;) to the MBR. (Heh, that also rhymes ;) Anyway, if you think this is the last safe haven for rootkits, you're wrong -- really wrong. How about a rootkit that splits itself into tiny chunks, compresses them, and then inserts them into the free space available on the various BIOS's in your system eg. Video, Hard Drive, RAID Controller etc.? Impossible you say, well, I advise you to watch this presentation :
http://youtube.com/watch?v=G26oZtzluAQ&fmt=6
Systems with the ability to boot from a storage device other than a hard drive, say, a USB drive, are especially vulnerable, as the rootkit doesn't have to gain access to the BIOSs via the OS. Instead, it modifies the boot sector of the USB drive and then, upon bootup, after the BIOS boots off the USB drive, hides itself via the previously mentioned technique, so as to ensure it will run even if the boot sector of the USB drive is modified. This is possible as, upon bootup, the BIOS scans for memory mapped expansion ROMs (the previously mentioned BIOS's spread throughout your system) and then transfers control to each one.
Something to think about.
jdb2
Note that I said I'd be happy if they only beefed up the speaker.
The sound quality of the ringer/speakerphone is crap compared to a high quality cell phone.
And, I think in the case of a "normal" cell phone, like a Motorola Razr, there's a lot less
room for the battery, yet the phone still gets a lot more than four hours on a single charge.
jdb2
If you search through the various Apple/iPhone forums, you'll find something that users
are particularly annoyed at : speakerphone mode, and the speaker in general. One of the major
problems is that its maximum volume is abysmally low. How hard is it or how much cost does
it take to put in a beefier microspeaker? Probably next to nothing. Are they trying to save
a few pennies? I'd like something ala the Qtek 9000. Not only does this thing have stereo sound
but it has about everything but the kitchen sink. If they'd just go with dual speakers on the iPhone
I'd be happy though.
jdb2