I'm also a "Ribbon" hater, so I suspect that at least part of the problem is the user getting something other than what he expects. Still, kids are very keen learners, so the 8-year-old's sentiments probably carry more weight than that of an old "fuddy-duddy" like me.:-) Like other "mobile-type" interfaces, it doesn't surprise me that it works for those wanting to do only a small number of simple tasks--like the 4-year-old does. Personally, I'm rather nonplussed about the trend of making all GUIs like mobile GUIs; why do we have a nice, big LCD, keyboard, and mouse if we're going to pretend we have to use a finger or stylus for everything?
Of course, I don't like Unity, either, as one might expect--but I know that a lot of other people do (and don't). Sometimes, I think that GUI designers of the day are changing everything just because they're bored...and I wish they'd stop!/rant
So, I briefly tried Windows 8 Consumer Preview months ago, and found it utterly counterintuitive. Still, seeing as I ran out of patience after about 10 minutes, it's possible I just never got to the "good part." I don't presently have the energy to download and fiddle with it again, so I'm requesting input from those who are doing/have done so.
A lot of people seem to have complained about how "bad" it is, but until now, they may have just been going from a buggy "Preview" copy. Can those who have tried this latest version confirm or deny my initial assessment? Do the people on Slashdot think this is going to be another Windows Vista (or worse)? (Any bets on how long it'll take for MS to fire Steve Ballmer, if the latter?);-)
More importantly, will future versions of DirectX be available in Windows 7? That's basically the only reason I still use Windows--for games...(Steam can't come to Linux fast enough, IMHO.)
This seems like a very cool idea, but I can't help but think that any system like this that goes "widespread" will be a prime target for crackers looking to do a little terrorism. Seeing as many public-use devices--pacemakers, and others that have been reported on Slashdot--utterly fail to be secure against such attacks--and since this one requires wireless receiving wireless signals in order to function, it's only a matter of time before an enterprising "cyberterrorist" decides to cause a pileup. Therefore, I question the wisdom of enacting such systems, even though the technology is cool, and could be very helpful if it worked properly (and reliably).
I often wonder if a Shweeb-like system, modified with partial motorization for long stretches of (high-speed) highway, uphill areas, etc. might be a more sensible approach. Sometimes advanced technology doesn't make things "better," despite how fun it is to think so.
Good grief. The woman's standing in a (figurative) public library and pulling loaded bookshelves full of Internet Retribution down on her head, yet nobody's claimed it for The Schwager Effect yet?
At least Streisand just made herself look foolish. This woman appears to be trying to destroy herself.
Haha. We should so try to make that into a "replacement meme" for the antiquated "Streisand Effect." I doubt that many young people even remember why that lady's famous (I don't, and I'm 30...but I also live under a rock). At least this would make a great Wikipedia page/story...if it isn't taken down by threats of litigation!:-D
libel and slander from an internet post. wonder how that shit works.
LOL if "libel and slander" from internet posts was that easy to prosecute, we'll all have been litigated into homeless oblivion by now.
Heck, I bet even this post makes somebody think they/someone are/is being defamed, slandered, or caused "emotional distress," somehow. In fact, I think it would be awesome to see this post modded down as a "Troll." (Please?) I would get a good laugh out of that...though if others did, too, it would surely get modded back up as "Funny."
I think this is less an issue of games/porn making men socially awkward, and more a matter of games/porn giving men something to do instead of learning to not be awkward.
Tell me this: how many teenage boys do you know who are utterly socially awkward? Those of us old enough to remember when not all (or most) teenage boys had easy access to games/porn will recall that teenage boys--with a few exceptions--are awkward by default. As we get older, we (are supposed to) spend time with girls/women, wherein we learn to be more confident/attractive to the opposite sex, as well as figuring out how to not be complete social dunces in other arenas. We learn how to (temporarily) set aside our male angst (sexual and otherwise) when appropriate, so we don't seem repulsive to anyone who isn't similarly "afflicted."
So, what video games and pornography do isn't making men/boys awkward socially (including, but not only with women/girls), but it allows those of us who get too into games/porn to avoid learning how to not be awkward.
Please note that I'm not saying that video games are "evil," or that this is unavoidable for those who want to step outside their comfort zones once-in-a-while. (I personally think that porn is always at least somewhat degenerate--no matter how attractive it may be to us with overflowing testosterone; but that's not a point I care to discuss here, and is irrelevant the current point.)
Thus, along with the problems mentioned in the article, there is also a cure: find a way to hang out with some real, live females! This is, and will likely always remain, an age-old problem that's simply a bit exaggerated under current circumstances. Sure, some of us here are in the "geek in mom's basement" category; but I doubt that most of us really are, no matter how well we identify with that predicament.
Aside from having a person who's willing to "chap a few (or a lot of) hides" in order to do what he thinks is right, in government, it would certainly make it a LOT harder to extradite him if he were to become a senator. Just how many world leades get extradited? Not many, I recon.
As an American, I won't claim to know the intracacies of Australian government/politics, but at least on the surface, running/getting elected sounds like a smart thing for Assange to do...assuming nobody assassinates him for it.
Considering just how widely abused SMS messaging is--both by people who use it when they really shouldn't, and the phone companies who charge much more per-message than they have any reason to--and how much of a pain-in-the-backside the protocol is to work with (requiring little short of a full PBX gateway to interface it with a computer), I'm quite inclined to jump for joy at this finding.
On the downside, a decent data plan is even MORE expensive, and the messaging protocols are fractious and often both proprietary and frequently problematic. (Facebook, MSN, AIM, Yahoo, I'm looking at you.) Yes, Jabber is becoming much more common as a basis IM networks, but it's rarely used strictly "as-is," as opposed to screwing it all up a-la-Facebook, such that generic, multi-IM clients are never "problem-free" when trying to use "Jabber" via those networks...and having more and more private entities with draconian views of "openness" wanting and inventing their own networks really only makes things worse.
I long for the days when text-only messaging (with possible data, voice, and video OPTIONS) will cease to be expensive, fractious, and (to greatly simplify the issue) buggy, and will become as easy to work with as good-old-fashioned telephones used to be--or as close to it as a human interface will allow. If some "open" method truly gains overwhelming traction in its own right, and phone companies somehow don't charge your limbs of to use it, we'll get a chance to see such an illusive, magical beast as this. Until then, I suspect we're stuck in "IM/SMS purgatory," with no "paddle" available for this particular "creek."
Of course, only a global lack of manual digits or a complete ban on text messaging of any kind will prevent people from using it very stupidly. Oh, well.
Since nobody's yet posted the comment (or it's below my viewing threshold):
Premise: The International Olympic Committee's job/duty during the selection process is (at least officially) to make sure a place will be decent for those going to see the Olympics to stay and travel in. Also, it's supposed to check for logistical concerns relative to safety, access to venues, etc. A place that's not suitable is to be rejected, and a more/the most suitable place chosen.
Premise: Allowing bidders to "rig" a showing in such a way as hinders the IOC from properly assessing the above factors is problematic in fulfilling the purpose of the above selection requirements, and is therefore so undesirable as to preclude decent selection, short of basically random chance.
Premise: Bribery, "cheating," and other unethical acts are considered highly undesirable for any worthwhile organization to espouse or allow. An organization that systematically accepts and encourages such acts is not, in its present form, a worthwhile organization.
Premise: Britain has just admitted to such unethical acts as above, and the IOC isn't doing anything about it. It's also noted that the IOC's contract includes many terms and practices that are unethical and/or illegal under international law, and the laws of many nations, individually (including requirements about printing currency; forcing applicants to sign a binding contract to do a ton of expensive stuff before they're actually given anything; etc.).
Conclusion: The IOC is not a worthwhile organization (in its present form), and it does not fulfill at least some of the important (presumed official) purposes of that organization.
Conclusion: The continuation of this organization (in its current form) results from something entirely separate from its utility at fulfilling the sensible goals mentioned above, and almost certainly has something to do with the unethical practices being espoused.
just how they test a lightbulb to verify it actually lasts 20 years--without spending 20 years testing a bunch of them.
I'm aware that stress tests can be devised to (supposedly) simulate the accelerated passage of time, but just what do those tests involve? I suspect:
1) Increased voltage and/or current. This will alter the conditions away from reality by increasing acute stress on the bulb, and favoring highly conductive substances that might be less durable, long-term. Example (using a non-LED bulb): Gold is a poorer conductor than iron, but gold doesn't rust. More electricity will favor iron, since it can take more heat without melting, and will produce less heat, overall. Iron tarnishes easily, though, such that any imperfection of the vacuum will result in a shortened lifespan, when compared with gold. (There are reasons why the data media of the Voyager spacecraft were made of gold...) 2) Extra-severe, fast-paced (simulated) weather conditions. Rapid changes in severe temperatures (i.e. very hot to very cold) will favor elasticity over other forms of durability. Therefore, the bulbs with more pliable/expandable exteriors (and interiors, to a lesser degree) will last longer during the stress test. However, there's no guarantee that those same materials will, say, oxidize slower, react better to the presence of hand oils (which are very bad for typical light bulbs), etc. Also, moisture tests (fog, rain, etc.) will favor exteriors made out of non-rusting metals (for the contacts, at least), and that will have basically the opposite effect from what the inner components will experience: the outside of the bulb needs to be sturdy, so that it won't warp over time or have problems if it gets accidentally bumped. (For $60, it should darn well tolerate a light thrashing...) If the outside is made of softer, non-tarnishing metals, it will cause warping, which could destroy the seals between the outside and the inside. Also, it might eventually warp to a degree, such that it can't make good contact with the power source.
I'm sure there are more items that belong on the above list, and I'm also sure that there's plenty I don't know about the topic; but given how we were promised longer life from compact halogen bulbs--that actually turned out to be at least as flimsy as traditional incandescent ones (and put more strain on the power plants, besides)--I think there's every reason to be skeptical about trusting that a fancy new $60 light bulb will last such a long time as 20 years. Personally, I'm inclined to call the claim B.S. and be done with it.
"...the bulb that won a $10 million government contest...and Philips was the only entrant."
I wonder how they won...
Somehow, this seems typical of the government's philosophy on bringing in the private sector...
I guess the $60 light bulb will become an accessory to the $200 toilet seat and $16 M16 round. Man, that's gonna be one cool bathroom set. *rolls eyes*
He was put out of business and lost tens of millions of dollars from the raid. His punishment has already been served, without trial, and without due process.
This pretty aptly sums up the whole situation. Please continue to mod-up parent.
Yesterday, I sent in a letter to Wally Herger, who is the Representative for my district. I spoke with the secretary, and informed her that I wanted to send in a thought-out letter. She directed me to their web site, which, as it turns out, was broken (404 after clicking "submit"). Of course, such a submission would likely not be taken note of, but I suspect that telling the person it's coming, and your own email address can help.
Ultimately, though, I ended up asking how to send it in, since email was broken, and she gave me their fax number (which, as it happens was also on the web site). I faxed the letter in, then called to confirm its receipt (including number of pages).
I haven't yet gotten a response from the Representative, and I don't know for certain that I will, but I do suspect that calling ahead, then getting it there by fax, followed-up by calling to verify they received it is a decent way to go. Also, if the submission looks like a well-thought-out and respectful essay or similar at first glance (mine was 4 pages long, and I took pains to make it look fairly professional), it'll probably have less chance of being filed in the "round bin" (A.K.A. trashcan).
Sorry I can't offer any better advice than that; hopefully it helps, though.
There have been multiple studies about how excessive gaming can lead to depression, and even a behavioral addiction. While I'm sure that taking this position is going to be massively unpopular among the/. crowd, I've experienced both the depressive and addictive aspect of video games, myself. Of course, I still love gaming, but I've found that if I don't exert some control over how much I play, my depression gets worse, and yes, I do get addicted (complete with a sort of emotional "withdrawal" when I stop playing).
That being said, it may well be the nature of the games I play: mostly ultra-violent FPS games, and a few RPGs (Skyrim, etc.). While it's surely also unpopular to remind people about the article on/. a while back about such games "turning-off" certain parts of the brain (especially the area that more-or-less monitors whether our actions are considered "acceptable;" I don't remember the name for it), I'll point the phenomenon out, anyway. Notably, other parts of the brain are stimulated in much the opposite way (motor cortex, etc.), and can find benefit therein. (Link contains a good info-graphic.) http://ansonalex.com/infographics/effect-video-games-brain/
Don't take this as me saying "video games are evil," because I don't believe that. Still, misuse can be a problem and can actually cause episodes of depression, as I've experienced, myself.
These researchers have probably hit on something important, and it would seem that the nature of the game plays a major role in how it affects a person. Congrats to them for being sensible about studying these things (rather than basing their findings on ideology). I should probably point out that this article deals only with comparison to traditional "talk therapy"--which not everyone finds helpful (and whose efficacy is extremely dependent on who's doing it)--and that this probably isn't dealing with severe, chemical depression, so much as socially-induced depression (which is certainly just as valid; it's simply different). Still, that the program was this helpful is quite remarkable.
Quila, What you say is quite valid; I don't think there's much there worth refuting. I have a couple of disagreements that I'll outline here, but otherwise, your premises and conclusions were quite lucid.
1) Christianity (thankfully) out-grew its "ultra-violent rampage phase" during the middle ages (well it lasted into the 18th century a bit, but mostly...). We're all at least cursorily familiar with the atrocities committed "in the name of God" during the crusades, as well as before and after, at the behest of certain very powerful churches (mostly the Catholic one--though I don't mean to disparage modern Catholics). During that era, the Muslims were basically peaceful (that is, relative to the brutishness of the period) until the Christians decided to start killing them all and stealing their lands, women, etc. Of course, the Muslims did fight tooth-and-nail to drive back the Christian offensive, but by most accounts they were quite right to defend what was already theirs. My point here is that while Christianity had its nasty period during a time when the Muslims weren't particularly nasty, the tables are largely reversed in our day. They, too will grow out of it (hopefully soon), but until then, everyone else basically has to put up with their crap (that is, the crap of the extremists among them) and try to contain the madness.
2) Your assertions about how a religion is seen are well-placed. I'm personally familiar with this topic (but won't get into how, in this conversation, since there are "hostiles" about), so I understand that it doesn't take many misguided individuals to ruin public perception of a belief system. I suspect that this is related to the "pattern-matching" parts of our brains that tell us to avoid eating at a restaurant because at some point we got sick there. Just as it could have been a single bad cook who got us sick, it can just as easily be a single bad Muslim who got our friends killed; but our brains are wired to avoid danger, not poor deductions: even though 95% of Muslims are just fine as people, the 5% gives plenty of reason to be afraid and worried. So, while it's not fair to the decent Muslims, it's a part of human (and probably mammal) psychology that we won't easily overcome--and sometimes we're right to be afraid.
3) I don't know exactly how much you wish to tie your current points into the article-at-hand, but for completeness, I'll address the matter somewhat briefly. We don't know (from the article, at least) that religious zealots are responsible for this tragedy. Your point about the "bad Muslim" influence on the government of Afghanistan is warranted, though I wouldn't go so far as to say it can be deduced that religion was involved (not that I think you're claiming that, either). While it's likely that at least some portion of twisted Muslim beliefs contribute to the act of terrorism and the government's weak response, both, I do hesitate to assume that this is definitely what happened/is happening. It might be naive of me to fail to make that connection willingly, but I find that the world's opinion about the Arab/Muslim world already causes the good people of those lands enough trouble without my adding to it. Yes, there's reason to suspect religious involvement, as well as good reason to be prepared to defend against it as the situation warrants; I simply choose to keep suspicions as suspicions until there's at least some proof to the contrary. Likewise, I wouldn't condone a preemptive strike on anyone unless they were to pose an imminent and credible threat. I know that this isn't proactive, but too much pro-action can really hurt people, and I find that to be a matter of great consideration for me (though I don't expect others to agree with me).
Anyway, thanks for your well-thought-out reply; it's given me some things to think about.
Oddly, I haven't said anything about "my" deity, or any supposed laws that anyone else "should" be obeying. Also, you've missed the point of my writing any of that:
Logic and empirical evidence (as to our current understanding of those things) are innately ill-equipped to deal with religion, regardless of whether one is proving or disproving. Of course, the burden of proof lies on one trying to prove the existence of deity, but that's beside the current point (and I haven't actually claimed otherwise, anyway). The point is that a thing that can't be proven by an ill-equipped method may still exist, even though there is currently no way to prove as much. No, you don't have to believe that a God exists, and I'm not asking you to. I'm simply pointing out the stupidity/futility of demanding an empirical, logical proof for something that empirical logic (as we know it) simply cannot prove.
Also, you've horribly offended my spell checker (or lack thereof)--but it's not nearly so offended as you seem to have become; my apologies go out to your delicate sensibilities. (There, now you have an almost-decent reason to be offended. Feel better?) Incidentally, I might also be a prophet (or so evidence indicates):
OK...now that I've attempted to prove by decent logic and inference several points of view that are unpopular with most Slashdotters, let the modding-down and flaming commence against me. I think I'll view it as a merit badge of sorts.;-D
"everyone must take compulsory vaccine to avoid pandemic" "those refusing will be held in 'quaranteen'"
Everybody else will become autistic.
So long as the autistic folks remember to let everyone else out, then those who refused to take said vaccine will instantly conquer the world!
Of course, most of the fuss over (not) taking vaccines is simple hysteria (with a side of conspiracy theories), but since a few vaccines have actually caused problems in the past (epilepsy in a person I know, for example), there's no telling which part of this hysteria (if any) is justified, today. Ugh.
Bravo, icebike; my hat is off to your wisdom and diction.:-)
Relatedly, now that GEGL is sufficiently venerable to be included into GIMP, will we be seeing a modernized re-implementation of GEGL, soon? We have to think ahead so that future versions of GIMP will have something to build upon, you know. We wouldn't want them to fall behind. X-\
Of course, 10 years from now, older versions of Photoshop might be released under the GPL, and then we wouldn't need GIMP. *ducks behind something*
Would you like to offer an alternative explanation? And TFA does mention a religious connection: "Education for women was outlawed by the Taliban government from 1996-2001 as un-Islamic."
I seem to have pressed the wrong "reply" button. Please see my response to couchslug, above. I cover replies to him and you, both, in that message.
Being theism-free is "being theism-free". Understanding that superstition is not supported by evidence is not strictly necessary to being free of theism, as one may merely be indifferent to teachings of witch-doctors.
Prove your god exists or fuck off. Do it now. Here. Immediately, with no Faith as a requirement for belief. If your Sky Fairie is real, prove it and end the discussion for all time.
Excellent points, but the points you've just made are not the ones you think they are.
If I understand correctly, you believe that being concerned with deity is invalid. Hence, you have a specific belief about how ideas of deity ought to be treated. Thanks for the clarification.
Furthermore, I would note that the concept of "faith" and "proof" are yet at-debate amongst mathematicians, who have yet to determine what about geometric proof or logic--in any of their various forms (current/past) make them provable at all. According to "Godel, Escher, Bach," by Douglass Hofstadter (with works cited therein), this very problem of circular proof requirements (called "Strange Loops")--such as, geometric proofs are valid because we can prove them with geometric proofs (or with logic, which, itself requires proof, and on and on)--has been a topic of major debate and study since before the 20th century, and remains so to this day. Principia Mathematica was written to deal with this problem (through the creation of non-self-referencing sets, and complex rules that govern them), until an enterprising individual by the name of Kurt Godel proved that the system of Principia Mathematica can only function insomuch as it can prove that it is, itself, valid--which violates many of the essential, core doctrines that make it valid at all, since in PM, no system or statement is allowed to refer to itself; thus:
"Principia Mathematica is valid becaue of X Y Z..."
...violates heirarchical system theory, and therefore INVALIDATES Principia Mathematica. Of course, further systems have been developed, but as Dr. Hofstadter so well indicates in his Pulitzer-winning discourse, none have adequately exorcised the problem of Strange Loops, and as such, no form of mathematical logic (including that used in a formal debate) has yet been determined to be indisputably valid, itself.
So, with relation to proving that there is or is not a God (or multiple):
Religion cannot prove the existance of God, even if he manefested himself in-person and said "hi," because the idea of a deity is an inherently religious belief, and could be seen with roughly equal validity as a manefestation of technology, biology, or physics; thus, no miracle at all can ever possibly be considered a miracle, unless one first subscribes to the religious idea of miracles--and thereby violates any probihition against circular logic by requiring self-evident proof.
Likewise, religion cannot be DIS-proven, since in order to do so, one must accumulate the sum total of all possible knowledge and understanding, and then use that understanding to say, in essence, "there's nothing else out there"--which, itself is a circular statement that's predicated on the truthfulness of the presumption that all knowledge has, in fact, been acquired and understood, already.
Therefore, the best that either side can ever prove, in isolation from faith of any kind (A.K.A. assumptions)--whether it be faith in the completeness of the set of knowledge being used, or faith that an un-provable religious belief is correct, despite a lack of deductive evidence--is that neither position is, in fact, able to be proven at this time.
Therefore, to state that a conversation or theory about religion or deity is, in the first place, invalid commits the "begging the question" logical fallacy by requiring the conclusion that deity cannot exist to be true, before one can deduce that conversation about deity is false--which, as deduced above, cannot be done with logic or mathematics as we currently u
...they're afraid to accuse people whom they think poisoned over a hundred schoolgirls, for fear that they'll tick the criminals off (and have trouble as a result). Sure, angering terrorists (or whatever they're calling these scoundrels--if anything) is likely to provoke them to try other acts of terrorism. What are you going to do, though, let them get away with it? I can't see how that won't encourage further acts of terror just as thoroughly (if not necessarily as quickly).
Side note: yes, Afghanistan is strongly Muslim, and yes there are some extremists who utterly pervert and abuse that faith; but unless there's some mention in TFA about religious motivations, let's please not jump to inflammatory conclusions about this being faith-motivated. In point of fact, this sort of thing has happened here in the USA, as recently as in the 20th century, so let's not throw stones based on our dominant religions (including atheism and agnosticism--which are, of course beliefs about God, if only by denial and uncertainty) being somehow superior to theirs. Horrible people exist in all countries, and infest all religions, as you should all well know.
Slashdot Mirror
Gotta love being modded "flamebait" for trying to talk seriously about something that occurs to me. :-(
Thanks to those who replied (even those who disagree with me).
Thanks for the comments.
I'm also a "Ribbon" hater, so I suspect that at least part of the problem is the user getting something other than what he expects. Still, kids are very keen learners, so the 8-year-old's sentiments probably carry more weight than that of an old "fuddy-duddy" like me. :-) Like other "mobile-type" interfaces, it doesn't surprise me that it works for those wanting to do only a small number of simple tasks--like the 4-year-old does. Personally, I'm rather nonplussed about the trend of making all GUIs like mobile GUIs; why do we have a nice, big LCD, keyboard, and mouse if we're going to pretend we have to use a finger or stylus for everything?
Of course, I don't like Unity, either, as one might expect--but I know that a lot of other people do (and don't). Sometimes, I think that GUI designers of the day are changing everything just because they're bored...and I wish they'd stop! /rant
So, I briefly tried Windows 8 Consumer Preview months ago, and found it utterly counterintuitive. Still, seeing as I ran out of patience after about 10 minutes, it's possible I just never got to the "good part." I don't presently have the energy to download and fiddle with it again, so I'm requesting input from those who are doing/have done so.
A lot of people seem to have complained about how "bad" it is, but until now, they may have just been going from a buggy "Preview" copy. Can those who have tried this latest version confirm or deny my initial assessment? Do the people on Slashdot think this is going to be another Windows Vista (or worse)? (Any bets on how long it'll take for MS to fire Steve Ballmer, if the latter?) ;-)
More importantly, will future versions of DirectX be available in Windows 7? That's basically the only reason I still use Windows--for games...(Steam can't come to Linux fast enough, IMHO.)
This seems like a very cool idea, but I can't help but think that any system like this that goes "widespread" will be a prime target for crackers looking to do a little terrorism. Seeing as many public-use devices--pacemakers, and others that have been reported on Slashdot--utterly fail to be secure against such attacks--and since this one requires wireless receiving wireless signals in order to function, it's only a matter of time before an enterprising "cyberterrorist" decides to cause a pileup. Therefore, I question the wisdom of enacting such systems, even though the technology is cool, and could be very helpful if it worked properly (and reliably).
I often wonder if a Shweeb-like system, modified with partial motorization for long stretches of (high-speed) highway, uphill areas, etc. might be a more sensible approach. Sometimes advanced technology doesn't make things "better," despite how fun it is to think so.
Good grief. The woman's standing in a (figurative) public library and pulling loaded bookshelves full of Internet Retribution down on her head, yet nobody's claimed it for The Schwager Effect yet?
At least Streisand just made herself look foolish. This woman appears to be trying to destroy herself.
Haha. We should so try to make that into a "replacement meme" for the antiquated "Streisand Effect." I doubt that many young people even remember why that lady's famous (I don't, and I'm 30...but I also live under a rock). At least this would make a great Wikipedia page/story...if it isn't taken down by threats of litigation! :-D
libel and slander from an internet post. wonder how that shit works.
LOL if "libel and slander" from internet posts was that easy to prosecute, we'll all have been litigated into homeless oblivion by now.
Heck, I bet even this post makes somebody think they/someone are/is being defamed, slandered, or caused "emotional distress," somehow. In fact, I think it would be awesome to see this post modded down as a "Troll." (Please?) I would get a good laugh out of that...though if others did, too, it would surely get modded back up as "Funny."
X-D
I think this is less an issue of games/porn making men socially awkward, and more a matter of games/porn giving men something to do instead of learning to not be awkward.
Tell me this: how many teenage boys do you know who are utterly socially awkward? Those of us old enough to remember when not all (or most) teenage boys had easy access to games/porn will recall that teenage boys--with a few exceptions--are awkward by default. As we get older, we (are supposed to) spend time with girls/women, wherein we learn to be more confident/attractive to the opposite sex, as well as figuring out how to not be complete social dunces in other arenas. We learn how to (temporarily) set aside our male angst (sexual and otherwise) when appropriate, so we don't seem repulsive to anyone who isn't similarly "afflicted."
So, what video games and pornography do isn't making men/boys awkward socially (including, but not only with women/girls), but it allows those of us who get too into games/porn to avoid learning how to not be awkward.
Please note that I'm not saying that video games are "evil," or that this is unavoidable for those who want to step outside their comfort zones once-in-a-while. (I personally think that porn is always at least somewhat degenerate--no matter how attractive it may be to us with overflowing testosterone; but that's not a point I care to discuss here, and is irrelevant the current point.)
Thus, along with the problems mentioned in the article, there is also a cure: find a way to hang out with some real, live females! This is, and will likely always remain, an age-old problem that's simply a bit exaggerated under current circumstances. Sure, some of us here are in the "geek in mom's basement" category; but I doubt that most of us really are, no matter how well we identify with that predicament.
Aside from having a person who's willing to "chap a few (or a lot of) hides" in order to do what he thinks is right, in government, it would certainly make it a LOT harder to extradite him if he were to become a senator. Just how many world leades get extradited? Not many, I recon.
As an American, I won't claim to know the intracacies of Australian government/politics, but at least on the surface, running/getting elected sounds like a smart thing for Assange to do...assuming nobody assassinates him for it.
Fair enough. (Though I don't see why my post above was moderated, "Troll.")
Considering just how widely abused SMS messaging is--both by people who use it when they really shouldn't, and the phone companies who charge much more per-message than they have any reason to--and how much of a pain-in-the-backside the protocol is to work with (requiring little short of a full PBX gateway to interface it with a computer), I'm quite inclined to jump for joy at this finding.
On the downside, a decent data plan is even MORE expensive, and the messaging protocols are fractious and often both proprietary and frequently problematic. (Facebook, MSN, AIM, Yahoo, I'm looking at you.) Yes, Jabber is becoming much more common as a basis IM networks, but it's rarely used strictly "as-is," as opposed to screwing it all up a-la-Facebook, such that generic, multi-IM clients are never "problem-free" when trying to use "Jabber" via those networks...and having more and more private entities with draconian views of "openness" wanting and inventing their own networks really only makes things worse.
I long for the days when text-only messaging (with possible data, voice, and video OPTIONS) will cease to be expensive, fractious, and (to greatly simplify the issue) buggy, and will become as easy to work with as good-old-fashioned telephones used to be--or as close to it as a human interface will allow. If some "open" method truly gains overwhelming traction in its own right, and phone companies somehow don't charge your limbs of to use it, we'll get a chance to see such an illusive, magical beast as this. Until then, I suspect we're stuck in "IM/SMS purgatory," with no "paddle" available for this particular "creek."
Of course, only a global lack of manual digits or a complete ban on text messaging of any kind will prevent people from using it very stupidly. Oh, well.
Since nobody's yet posted the comment (or it's below my viewing threshold):
Premise: The International Olympic Committee's job/duty during the selection process is (at least officially) to make sure a place will be decent for those going to see the Olympics to stay and travel in. Also, it's supposed to check for logistical concerns relative to safety, access to venues, etc. A place that's not suitable is to be rejected, and a more/the most suitable place chosen.
Premise: Allowing bidders to "rig" a showing in such a way as hinders the IOC from properly assessing the above factors is problematic in fulfilling the purpose of the above selection requirements, and is therefore so undesirable as to preclude decent selection, short of basically random chance.
Premise: Bribery, "cheating," and other unethical acts are considered highly undesirable for any worthwhile organization to espouse or allow. An organization that systematically accepts and encourages such acts is not, in its present form, a worthwhile organization.
Premise: Britain has just admitted to such unethical acts as above, and the IOC isn't doing anything about it. It's also noted that the IOC's contract includes many terms and practices that are unethical and/or illegal under international law, and the laws of many nations, individually (including requirements about printing currency; forcing applicants to sign a binding contract to do a ton of expensive stuff before they're actually given anything; etc.).
Conclusion: The IOC is not a worthwhile organization (in its present form), and it does not fulfill at least some of the important (presumed official) purposes of that organization.
Conclusion: The continuation of this organization (in its current form) results from something entirely separate from its utility at fulfilling the sensible goals mentioned above, and almost certainly has something to do with the unethical practices being espoused.
Have I missed anything?
just how they test a lightbulb to verify it actually lasts 20 years--without spending 20 years testing a bunch of them.
I'm aware that stress tests can be devised to (supposedly) simulate the accelerated passage of time, but just what do those tests involve? I suspect:
1) Increased voltage and/or current. This will alter the conditions away from reality by increasing acute stress on the bulb, and favoring highly conductive substances that might be less durable, long-term. Example (using a non-LED bulb): Gold is a poorer conductor than iron, but gold doesn't rust. More electricity will favor iron, since it can take more heat without melting, and will produce less heat, overall. Iron tarnishes easily, though, such that any imperfection of the vacuum will result in a shortened lifespan, when compared with gold. (There are reasons why the data media of the Voyager spacecraft were made of gold...)
2) Extra-severe, fast-paced (simulated) weather conditions. Rapid changes in severe temperatures (i.e. very hot to very cold) will favor elasticity over other forms of durability. Therefore, the bulbs with more pliable/expandable exteriors (and interiors, to a lesser degree) will last longer during the stress test. However, there's no guarantee that those same materials will, say, oxidize slower, react better to the presence of hand oils (which are very bad for typical light bulbs), etc. Also, moisture tests (fog, rain, etc.) will favor exteriors made out of non-rusting metals (for the contacts, at least), and that will have basically the opposite effect from what the inner components will experience: the outside of the bulb needs to be sturdy, so that it won't warp over time or have problems if it gets accidentally bumped. (For $60, it should darn well tolerate a light thrashing...) If the outside is made of softer, non-tarnishing metals, it will cause warping, which could destroy the seals between the outside and the inside. Also, it might eventually warp to a degree, such that it can't make good contact with the power source.
I'm sure there are more items that belong on the above list, and I'm also sure that there's plenty I don't know about the topic; but given how we were promised longer life from compact halogen bulbs--that actually turned out to be at least as flimsy as traditional incandescent ones (and put more strain on the power plants, besides)--I think there's every reason to be skeptical about trusting that a fancy new $60 light bulb will last such a long time as 20 years. Personally, I'm inclined to call the claim B.S. and be done with it.
"...the bulb that won a $10 million government contest...and Philips was the only entrant."
I wonder how they won...
Somehow, this seems typical of the government's philosophy on bringing in the private sector...
I guess the $60 light bulb will become an accessory to the $200 toilet seat and $16 M16 round. Man, that's gonna be one cool bathroom set.
*rolls eyes*
He was put out of business and lost tens of millions of dollars from the raid. His punishment has already been served, without trial, and without due process.
This pretty aptly sums up the whole situation. Please continue to mod-up parent.
Yesterday, I sent in a letter to Wally Herger, who is the Representative for my district. I spoke with the secretary, and informed her that I wanted to send in a thought-out letter. She directed me to their web site, which, as it turns out, was broken (404 after clicking "submit"). Of course, such a submission would likely not be taken note of, but I suspect that telling the person it's coming, and your own email address can help.
Ultimately, though, I ended up asking how to send it in, since email was broken, and she gave me their fax number (which, as it happens was also on the web site). I faxed the letter in, then called to confirm its receipt (including number of pages).
I haven't yet gotten a response from the Representative, and I don't know for certain that I will, but I do suspect that calling ahead, then getting it there by fax, followed-up by calling to verify they received it is a decent way to go. Also, if the submission looks like a well-thought-out and respectful essay or similar at first glance (mine was 4 pages long, and I took pains to make it look fairly professional), it'll probably have less chance of being filed in the "round bin" (A.K.A. trashcan).
Sorry I can't offer any better advice than that; hopefully it helps, though.
There have been multiple studies about how excessive gaming can lead to depression, and even a behavioral addiction. While I'm sure that taking this position is going to be massively unpopular among the /. crowd, I've experienced both the depressive and addictive aspect of video games, myself. Of course, I still love gaming, but I've found that if I don't exert some control over how much I play, my depression gets worse, and yes, I do get addicted (complete with a sort of emotional "withdrawal" when I stop playing).
Here's a reference, though better ones are surely out there:
http://www.videogamingaddiction.com.au/how-to-avoid-video-game-addiction-depression/
That being said, it may well be the nature of the games I play: mostly ultra-violent FPS games, and a few RPGs (Skyrim, etc.). While it's surely also unpopular to remind people about the article on /. a while back about such games "turning-off" certain parts of the brain (especially the area that more-or-less monitors whether our actions are considered "acceptable;" I don't remember the name for it), I'll point the phenomenon out, anyway. Notably, other parts of the brain are stimulated in much the opposite way (motor cortex, etc.), and can find benefit therein. (Link contains a good info-graphic.)
http://ansonalex.com/infographics/effect-video-games-brain/
Don't take this as me saying "video games are evil," because I don't believe that. Still, misuse can be a problem and can actually cause episodes of depression, as I've experienced, myself.
These researchers have probably hit on something important, and it would seem that the nature of the game plays a major role in how it affects a person. Congrats to them for being sensible about studying these things (rather than basing their findings on ideology). I should probably point out that this article deals only with comparison to traditional "talk therapy"--which not everyone finds helpful (and whose efficacy is extremely dependent on who's doing it)--and that this probably isn't dealing with severe, chemical depression, so much as socially-induced depression (which is certainly just as valid; it's simply different). Still, that the program was this helpful is quite remarkable.
Quila,
What you say is quite valid; I don't think there's much there worth refuting. I have a couple of disagreements that I'll outline here, but otherwise, your premises and conclusions were quite lucid.
1) Christianity (thankfully) out-grew its "ultra-violent rampage phase" during the middle ages (well it lasted into the 18th century a bit, but mostly...). We're all at least cursorily familiar with the atrocities committed "in the name of God" during the crusades, as well as before and after, at the behest of certain very powerful churches (mostly the Catholic one--though I don't mean to disparage modern Catholics). During that era, the Muslims were basically peaceful (that is, relative to the brutishness of the period) until the Christians decided to start killing them all and stealing their lands, women, etc. Of course, the Muslims did fight tooth-and-nail to drive back the Christian offensive, but by most accounts they were quite right to defend what was already theirs. My point here is that while Christianity had its nasty period during a time when the Muslims weren't particularly nasty, the tables are largely reversed in our day. They, too will grow out of it (hopefully soon), but until then, everyone else basically has to put up with their crap (that is, the crap of the extremists among them) and try to contain the madness.
2) Your assertions about how a religion is seen are well-placed. I'm personally familiar with this topic (but won't get into how, in this conversation, since there are "hostiles" about), so I understand that it doesn't take many misguided individuals to ruin public perception of a belief system. I suspect that this is related to the "pattern-matching" parts of our brains that tell us to avoid eating at a restaurant because at some point we got sick there. Just as it could have been a single bad cook who got us sick, it can just as easily be a single bad Muslim who got our friends killed; but our brains are wired to avoid danger, not poor deductions: even though 95% of Muslims are just fine as people, the 5% gives plenty of reason to be afraid and worried. So, while it's not fair to the decent Muslims, it's a part of human (and probably mammal) psychology that we won't easily overcome--and sometimes we're right to be afraid.
3) I don't know exactly how much you wish to tie your current points into the article-at-hand, but for completeness, I'll address the matter somewhat briefly. We don't know (from the article, at least) that religious zealots are responsible for this tragedy. Your point about the "bad Muslim" influence on the government of Afghanistan is warranted, though I wouldn't go so far as to say it can be deduced that religion was involved (not that I think you're claiming that, either). While it's likely that at least some portion of twisted Muslim beliefs contribute to the act of terrorism and the government's weak response, both, I do hesitate to assume that this is definitely what happened/is happening. It might be naive of me to fail to make that connection willingly, but I find that the world's opinion about the Arab/Muslim world already causes the good people of those lands enough trouble without my adding to it. Yes, there's reason to suspect religious involvement, as well as good reason to be prepared to defend against it as the situation warrants; I simply choose to keep suspicions as suspicions until there's at least some proof to the contrary. Likewise, I wouldn't condone a preemptive strike on anyone unless they were to pose an imminent and credible threat. I know that this isn't proactive, but too much pro-action can really hurt people, and I find that to be a matter of great consideration for me (though I don't expect others to agree with me).
Anyway, thanks for your well-thought-out reply; it's given me some things to think about.
Have a good one.
--Dane
LOL.
Oddly, I haven't said anything about "my" deity, or any supposed laws that anyone else "should" be obeying. Also, you've missed the point of my writing any of that:
Logic and empirical evidence (as to our current understanding of those things) are innately ill-equipped to deal with religion, regardless of whether one is proving or disproving. Of course, the burden of proof lies on one trying to prove the existence of deity, but that's beside the current point (and I haven't actually claimed otherwise, anyway). The point is that a thing that can't be proven by an ill-equipped method may still exist, even though there is currently no way to prove as much. No, you don't have to believe that a God exists, and I'm not asking you to. I'm simply pointing out the stupidity/futility of demanding an empirical, logical proof for something that empirical logic (as we know it) simply cannot prove.
Also, you've horribly offended my spell checker (or lack thereof)--but it's not nearly so offended as you seem to have become; my apologies go out to your delicate sensibilities. (There, now you have an almost-decent reason to be offended. Feel better?) Incidentally, I might also be a prophet (or so evidence indicates):
OK...now that I've attempted to prove by decent logic and inference several points of view that are unpopular with most Slashdotters, let the modding-down and flaming commence against me. I think I'll view it as a merit badge of sorts. ;-D
X-D
"everyone must take compulsory vaccine to avoid pandemic"
"those refusing will be held in 'quaranteen'"
Everybody else will become autistic.
So long as the autistic folks remember to let everyone else out, then those who refused to take said vaccine will instantly conquer the world!
Of course, most of the fuss over (not) taking vaccines is simple hysteria (with a side of conspiracy theories), but since a few vaccines have actually caused problems in the past (epilepsy in a person I know, for example), there's no telling which part of this hysteria (if any) is justified, today. Ugh.
Bravo, icebike; my hat is off to your wisdom and diction. :-)
Relatedly, now that GEGL is sufficiently venerable to be included into GIMP, will we be seeing a modernized re-implementation of GEGL, soon? We have to think ahead so that future versions of GIMP will have something to build upon, you know. We wouldn't want them to fall behind. X-\
Of course, 10 years from now, older versions of Photoshop might be released under the GPL, and then we wouldn't need GIMP. *ducks behind something*
Good insights, AC and Tweezak. Thanks for the clarification.
Would you like to offer an alternative explanation? And TFA does mention a religious connection: "Education for women was outlawed by the Taliban government from 1996-2001 as un-Islamic."
I seem to have pressed the wrong "reply" button. Please see my response to couchslug, above. I cover replies to him and you, both, in that message.
Being theism-free is "being theism-free". Understanding that superstition is not supported by evidence is not strictly necessary to being free of theism, as one may merely be indifferent to teachings of witch-doctors.
Prove your god exists or fuck off. Do it now. Here. Immediately, with no Faith as a requirement for belief. If your Sky Fairie is real, prove it and end the discussion for all time.
Excellent points, but the points you've just made are not the ones you think they are.
If I understand correctly, you believe that being concerned with deity is invalid. Hence, you have a specific belief about how ideas of deity ought to be treated. Thanks for the clarification.
Furthermore, I would note that the concept of "faith" and "proof" are yet at-debate amongst mathematicians, who have yet to determine what about geometric proof or logic--in any of their various forms (current/past) make them provable at all. According to "Godel, Escher, Bach," by Douglass Hofstadter (with works cited therein), this very problem of circular proof requirements (called "Strange Loops")--such as, geometric proofs are valid because we can prove them with geometric proofs (or with logic, which, itself requires proof, and on and on)--has been a topic of major debate and study since before the 20th century, and remains so to this day. Principia Mathematica was written to deal with this problem (through the creation of non-self-referencing sets, and complex rules that govern them), until an enterprising individual by the name of Kurt Godel proved that the system of Principia Mathematica can only function insomuch as it can prove that it is, itself, valid--which violates many of the essential, core doctrines that make it valid at all, since in PM, no system or statement is allowed to refer to itself; thus:
"Principia Mathematica is valid becaue of X Y Z..."
...violates heirarchical system theory, and therefore INVALIDATES Principia Mathematica. Of course, further systems have been developed, but as Dr. Hofstadter so well indicates in his Pulitzer-winning discourse, none have adequately exorcised the problem of Strange Loops, and as such, no form of mathematical logic (including that used in a formal debate) has yet been determined to be indisputably valid, itself.
So, with relation to proving that there is or is not a God (or multiple):
Religion cannot prove the existance of God, even if he manefested himself in-person and said "hi," because the idea of a deity is an inherently religious belief, and could be seen with roughly equal validity as a manefestation of technology, biology, or physics; thus, no miracle at all can ever possibly be considered a miracle, unless one first subscribes to the religious idea of miracles--and thereby violates any probihition against circular logic by requiring self-evident proof.
Likewise, religion cannot be DIS-proven, since in order to do so, one must accumulate the sum total of all possible knowledge and understanding, and then use that understanding to say, in essence, "there's nothing else out there"--which, itself is a circular statement that's predicated on the truthfulness of the presumption that all knowledge has, in fact, been acquired and understood, already.
Therefore, the best that either side can ever prove, in isolation from faith of any kind (A.K.A. assumptions)--whether it be faith in the completeness of the set of knowledge being used, or faith that an un-provable religious belief is correct, despite a lack of deductive evidence--is that neither position is, in fact, able to be proven at this time.
Therefore, to state that a conversation or theory about religion or deity is, in the first place, invalid commits the "begging the question" logical fallacy by requiring the conclusion that deity cannot exist to be true, before one can deduce that conversation about deity is false--which, as deduced above, cannot be done with logic or mathematics as we currently u
...they're afraid to accuse people whom they think poisoned over a hundred schoolgirls, for fear that they'll tick the criminals off (and have trouble as a result). Sure, angering terrorists (or whatever they're calling these scoundrels--if anything) is likely to provoke them to try other acts of terrorism. What are you going to do, though, let them get away with it? I can't see how that won't encourage further acts of terror just as thoroughly (if not necessarily as quickly).
Side note: yes, Afghanistan is strongly Muslim, and yes there are some extremists who utterly pervert and abuse that faith; but unless there's some mention in TFA about religious motivations, let's please not jump to inflammatory conclusions about this being faith-motivated. In point of fact, this sort of thing has happened here in the USA, as recently as in the 20th century, so let's not throw stones based on our dominant religions (including atheism and agnosticism--which are, of course beliefs about God, if only by denial and uncertainty) being somehow superior to theirs. Horrible people exist in all countries, and infest all religions, as you should all well know.