And once OS 4 ships, what do those other platforms offer over it?
As long as the iPhone's only source of applications is the App Store, Android will always have an advantage.
But if you want more, here are a few: * The ability to install apps without relying on the app market * app development on any major platform * access to the OS source by developers * more devices with more variety in size, form factor, price, and power, and freedom from the tyranny of iTunes * No restriction on apps. Things like replacement dialers, Google Voice, replacement music players, and podcast downloaders are all things that were banned from the iTunes app store at one time or another. I have all those on my Droid. * Free navigation with Google Maps * I can install third party keyboards, such as Swype * Apps have more control over the hardware. (for example, I have an app that remembers to turn the ringer back on when I set it to vibe.) * Built-in tethering (on Android 2.2) and access to tethering via apps on 2.1 and older versions. AT&T iPhone users still can't tether their phones. * Some devices have additional features, such as HDMI out.
But the key factor is this: Since Android is open source, you're perfectly free to download the source, build a custom ROM, and install it on your device. That's the single, most important benefit of Android. Because of this, Android will be in the center of the newest, most innovative devices in the market, while iPhone OS will always be limited to just whatever Apple thinks its users need.
Except that we're casting companies as fictitious villains... not good guys.
Besides, even the Federation doesn't stop people from doing things their way: after all, Starfleet crew somehow get Latinum to gamble and spend at Quark's, and people are free to do anything they want - as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else. This is entirely 180 out from Apple's approach: Apple says you can't do anything they don't like.
If you're going to talk about Star Trek empires, Apple is more like the Romulan Empire than the Federation: absolute control, complete arrogance, and absolutely convinced that they can do nothing wrong: even to the point of blaming Vulcans for their own destruction (which Vulcans actually tried to prevent.)
You hit the nail on the head. I grew up hunting for new programs on dial-up BBS's, and let me tell you, there's nothing more "wild west" than the BBS scene was in the 80's and 90's. Somehow, despite the lack of a centralized app store, I managed to compile several hundred 1.44" floppy diskettes full of downloaded programs...
There's another way to look at this: the more times an article like this shows up in a respected blog or publication, the more seriously people will take it.
Perhaps the next guy who's debating whether to go Android or Apple will stop and think, "Dude.. I should get a Droid!"
Anyone who says Android can't compete head to head with any other mobile OS is either deluded or has not really checked it out.
The sad part is that he's totally wrong. You can't use an Android 2.x device and think of the platform as immature or incomplete. Sure, there are some differences between Android and iPhone OS, but there are also differences between both of those platforms and other mature platforms, such as Blackberry and Windows Mobile.
And I wouldn't call the apps store(s) a Wild West: there's ONE official Android app store. You can, of course, use the unofficial app stores as well, but anyone who buys a first-tier Android handset is going to have the Android Market right there on their phone. The fact that you're not limited to just the Android market is certainly not a drawback; it seems to me that this is exactly what the OP wants: an alternative market that is not controlled by the hardware manufacturer.
Apple is just now including features in the iPhone that were in Android from the start. In fact, every major new feature in iPhone OS 4 is already in another mobile platform. More Android handsets were activated Q1 2010 than iPhones. Android is making its way in to all kinds of devices, not just phones and PMP's.
The last thing I'd call Android at this point is "immature."
No... Bill should stay Borg. Microsoft is the precursor to the Borg: they want nothing less than to own every computer on the planet.
Google is the precursor to SkyNet. Think about it: Google owns a huge network of systems employing AI routines to parse natural-language databases. One day, Google's search engine will become sentient. So perhaps a Google logo with those red eyes would be appropriate satire.
Steve Jobs...he's more like Emperor Ming from Flash Gordon. He has immense power, but rather than use it for the betterment of his people (his customers), he makes arbitrary decisions for his own amusement. Attempts to appeal to him with logic fail. Attempts to sway his emotions fail. Even decisions that seem like they would harm Apple only make him stronger in the long run.
I never told the merchant my name. And the cashier never looked at my card to read it. So the fact that the credit card company encoded it onto a magnetic stripe, and then I scanned the card into the machine, should not mean that *I* gave the information. That would allow a big loophole.
I'd bet that if you check your credit card agreement, you'd find that they have the right to share information necessary for the transaction... which would include your name. The vendor is required to cross-check the name on your card with the name on your ID. They're also required to check that the name and number on the receipt match the name and number on the card. Finally, the signature on your ID is supposed to match the signature on the back of the card and the signature on the signed receipt. If any of those don't match, they're supposed to reject the card.
So if a checker is NOT looking at your card, they're actually putting the store at risk for a chargeback.
As to keeping the CC# on file: the approval number is only half the transaction. The physical CC# is the other. Once you've swiped your card, the rest of the transaction is between the CC processor and the merchant; if you don't like that, you'll have to take it up with Visa or Mastercard.
If you have a problem with that, or with a store tracking your purchase history, then there's always the cash option.
As people repeatedly pointed out to me when I spoke out against the Google Buzz privacy breach: the only sure way to ensure our privacy is to not give out the information in the first place.
What amazes me, Gorimek, is that you and I know this (that bug free code is hard.)
But an amazingly large number of people are willing to cry foul and call this intentional. Intentions won't really matter: it will hurt the company's credibility despite the fact that it's really a non-issue.
Does anybody remember the AOL swap file controversy? Essentially, the AOL client allocated unused space on your hard drive to use as a cache, and people found all kinds of snippets of data in there. Right or wrong, people claimed AOL was spying on them.
I guess people will believe what they want, regardless of what the truth is.
Take it from anyone who's ever been married to a vindictive spouse: anything that ANY other person hears is no longer private; I don't care if you're in the middle of the desert. The day you move out, your ex-wife (or husband) will call your most trusted family and/or friends and air all your dirty laundry.
The real question is "what will a company do with your 'private' information?" I think that on-line privacy policies are a good place to start; what we need now is legislation that forces companies to stick to those policies - despite their disclaimers that say "we're not liable if we break our own rules."
Actually, your name and credit card number are both encoded on the mag stripe on your card.
As to storing your credit card number: stores have always stored your credit card number as part of the transaction. Back in the pre-mag stripe days, they used an imprinting machine and made a copy of it. Today, it's just stored on a database somewhere.
The end result is the same: the number is required as part of the transaction, and the Track-9 data from your card is the only real proof that you were there for the transaction.
I do tend to agree that personal data should be kept private unless the user explicitly authorized to do so, but the question then becomes "what, exactly, is private?" You could have a whole discussion on just what is truly private information and how an automated system can determine this.
For the record, my simplistic answer is: anything a user enters in to a data system is private unless otherwise specified, either by context (a public forum) or explicit designation (a check-box that says "public" access).
...on the people in question.
My favorite setup is individual offices for day to day work, but with space for collaboration when the situation calls for it. (For example, we had a push to get a bunch of items fixed before a big release, so 3 of us got together in one big office and worked down the list.)
Good, dedicated coders will do the job anywhere, but having an arrangement that facilitates communication can help. For it to work, though, you need guys (or ladies) who can get along well together and will focus on work, rather than random chat.
That same arrangement makes it easier to goof off, too, and you could well find that instead of sharing code, they're sharing the latest YouTube videos. It also eliminates privacy, so if any of them have to take phone calls on a regular basis, you need to consider equipping them with laptops and making a "break-in" room available for calls and teleconferences.
It can also be rough on concentration, since some people can't tolerate chatter when trying to focus.
Whatever you do, don't create an environment where the boss is constantly looking over everyone's shoulder. That just raises the stress level, which will definitely increase errors.
Image-based installation management was a flawed solution, and in heterogeneous environments, it can never be a workable long-term solution. Even virtualized workstations will drift over time, and an image-based solution won't let you fix that. To deploy a new build, you'd have to blow away everyone's customizations and make them start from scratch... that's not a good solution.
To maintain user environments while updating software loads, you still need an incremental installation setup of some kind, so why not use THAT process to build up a new workstation? Use the automated tools to script a Windows installation. Once windows is up and running, you let your software management process take over and start installing drivers and applications to the desktop. When it's all done, you have a fully-configured workstation - one that didn't rely on a pre-configured image or a virtual machine.
Maybe, before lecturing someone else on their use of language, you should get your own language right.
The term "professional" has two different meanings: 1. Someone who gets paid for something, as opposed to someone who does it for free. This is usually applied to artists and athletes.
2. In the business world, a Professional is someone with a state license to perform their job. Doctors, lawyers, beauty providers, and building contractors are all required to get state licenses before being allowed to practice their Professions. Professionals can also be sued for malpractice, something that can't be done in the non-professional world.
To be perfectly clear: a career that does not have a state licensing structure is not a Profession. Since there is no state-mandated certification or licensing program, there's no such thing as an IT Professional. The requirements for Professionals to re-test and re-certify every few years is a legal requirement. A doctor simply can't practice medicine without his license - regardless of who he works for.
Now there ARE those of us who have acquired college degrees in various aspects of IT: software engineering, Information Technology, and Computer Science. We go to an employer, present our sheepskin, and get a job. Once we're hired, the employer usually doesn't ask us to go renew our BS's every n years. It's true that a company "can" ask you to do lots of things while on the job, including asking you to train or certify on your own dime. But legality aside, it's not particularly ETHICAL to ask an employee to spend hundreds or thousands of dollars to stay current "on paper". (How many of us have been to training classes that only taught us things we already knew?)
A good employer will either sponsor training classes or will pay you (or reimburse you) for work-related training. This is how its done in the quality organizations out there (I work for one, and they do provide training and foot the bill for it.) Since quality people do quality work, an employer that does otherwise needs to consider that the high employee turnover they're experiencing is negatively impacting their work product.
I don't think that word means what you think it means. Whatever you're describing, it's not Democracy. In a democracy, the rules of the majority are binding on the minority. What you describe, however, is essentially the absence of rule - or anarchy.
In a democracy, everyone votes, and everyone follows the rules established by that vote. So if 75% of the people in a pure Democracy decided that it was illegal to wear blue, then the azure lovers have no recourse; they must either abstain from wearing blue or face punishment. The key traits here are: voting, and that decisions of the majority bind the minority. Effectively, minorities have fewer rights than the majority, since they have less power to enforce their will.
In an anarchy, everyone has the same power as another. Blue lovers have the right to leave and form the Sapphire Republic, where everyone wears one article of blue clothing every day. If someone living in Sapphire decides they want to wear green instead, they can pull out of Sapphire and form the Shamrock Union.
And I don't think it actually works better: It's still very difficult to find FOSS applications for many tasks, and it's even more difficult to find FOSS that's equal to or better than commercial versions of the same applications. Anyone who's ever tried to run a project by committee knows that in reality, good old fashioned tyranny is probably the best way to actually get things done.
... in a glass of water. The thing was totally submerged. I took the batteries out and laid it on the counter for 2 days. I put them back in, and I'm still using it.
I live near the area where the cop was killed by his runaway car...
I couldn't believe it when I heard that the car's controls were entirely electronic. After this, I checked out my Dodge truck to be sure: I still have a mechanical throttle, brake, and gear selector, but I'm not entirely sure whether my key physically disconnects power to the ignition system; my car does have the 5-minute delay on accessory power when I turn off the motor.
Either way, it's getting a little scary to think that some cars are almost entirely controlled by software. Look at the Prius: the entire drive train is controlled exclusively by electronics.
Cars need a big, red panic button that will completely cut the power to the ignition and fuel delivery systems... this should never have happened.
Simple: if a control handles hover and click events separately, let the user tap once to hover, twice to "click." The Flash viewer could even give the user feedback by way of a draggable mouse cursor on the screen.
He's using this for media extenders. That pretty much requires more bandwidth than 10Mb... it'd be fine for things like on-line video, but it's not enough bandwidth to stream DVD or Hi-Def video from his media server.
Besides, the TV cable in his house is 75-ohm cable, which is incompatible with 10-base2 Ethernet (which is what you're describing.) 10-base2 requires 50 ohm cable.
Even the people who did the study aren't claiming the know the causal link: "Excessive internet use is associated with depression, but what we don't know is which comes first."
Of course, there is obviously a link of some kind between depression and extremely heavy use of chat rooms and social sites. I'll go along with that 100%. In every social site I've spent time on, the heaviest users were also the ones "on meds."
Of course, their sample is pretty small. If this ratio (15 people out of 1,300) holds true on a large scale, this might be something to add to the warning signs of depression.
I can just see the doctor's office flyers now: "Do you spend more than 4 hours a day on Facebook? You might just be depressed..."
Heh. That's exactly what I was thinking. "News Flash: Depressed people try to make themselves feel better by - gasp - talking to other people!"
Next they'll tell us that the leading cause of death is drinking water. "Everyone I know who's died drinks water or something that has water in it!" someone will say.
Slashdot Mirror
Silly rabbit, you know nobody reads Android news. It's only the iPhone that gets all the press.
Speaking of which, when did they say the Android-based robot maid would be in stores?
As long as the iPhone's only source of applications is the App Store, Android will always have an advantage.
But if you want more, here are a few:
* The ability to install apps without relying on the app market
* app development on any major platform
* access to the OS source by developers
* more devices with more variety in size, form factor, price, and power, and freedom from the tyranny of iTunes
* No restriction on apps. Things like replacement dialers, Google Voice, replacement music players, and podcast downloaders are all things that were banned from the iTunes app store at one time or another. I have all those on my Droid.
* Free navigation with Google Maps
* I can install third party keyboards, such as Swype
* Apps have more control over the hardware. (for example, I have an app that remembers to turn the ringer back on when I set it to vibe.)
* Built-in tethering (on Android 2.2) and access to tethering via apps on 2.1 and older versions. AT&T iPhone users still can't tether their phones.
* Some devices have additional features, such as HDMI out.
But the key factor is this: Since Android is open source, you're perfectly free to download the source, build a custom ROM, and install it on your device. That's the single, most important benefit of Android. Because of this, Android will be in the center of the newest, most innovative devices in the market, while iPhone OS will always be limited to just whatever Apple thinks its users need.
Hah! Someone finally got it! :-)
But remember...Jobs left Apple, only to come back years later, and Flash Gordon likewise ended with the words "The End?"
Except that we're casting companies as fictitious villains... not good guys.
Besides, even the Federation doesn't stop people from doing things their way: after all, Starfleet crew somehow get Latinum to gamble and spend at Quark's, and people are free to do anything they want - as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else. This is entirely 180 out from Apple's approach: Apple says you can't do anything they don't like.
If you're going to talk about Star Trek empires, Apple is more like the Romulan Empire than the Federation: absolute control, complete arrogance, and absolutely convinced that they can do nothing wrong: even to the point of blaming Vulcans for their own destruction (which Vulcans actually tried to prevent.)
Ha!
You hit the nail on the head. I grew up hunting for new programs on dial-up BBS's, and let me tell you, there's nothing more "wild west" than the BBS scene was in the 80's and 90's. Somehow, despite the lack of a centralized app store, I managed to compile several hundred 1.44" floppy diskettes full of downloaded programs...
There's another way to look at this: the more times an article like this shows up in a respected blog or publication, the more seriously people will take it.
Perhaps the next guy who's debating whether to go Android or Apple will stop and think, "Dude.. I should get a Droid!"
Anyone who says Android can't compete head to head with any other mobile OS is either deluded or has not really checked it out.
The sad part is that he's totally wrong. You can't use an Android 2.x device and think of the platform as immature or incomplete. Sure, there are some differences between Android and iPhone OS, but there are also differences between both of those platforms and other mature platforms, such as Blackberry and Windows Mobile.
And I wouldn't call the apps store(s) a Wild West: there's ONE official Android app store. You can, of course, use the unofficial app stores as well, but anyone who buys a first-tier Android handset is going to have the Android Market right there on their phone. The fact that you're not limited to just the Android market is certainly not a drawback; it seems to me that this is exactly what the OP wants: an alternative market that is not controlled by the hardware manufacturer.
Apple is just now including features in the iPhone that were in Android from the start. In fact, every major new feature in iPhone OS 4 is already in another mobile platform. More Android handsets were activated Q1 2010 than iPhones. Android is making its way in to all kinds of devices, not just phones and PMP's.
The last thing I'd call Android at this point is "immature."
No... Bill should stay Borg. Microsoft is the precursor to the Borg: they want nothing less than to own every computer on the planet.
Google is the precursor to SkyNet. Think about it: Google owns a huge network of systems employing AI routines to parse natural-language databases. One day, Google's search engine will become sentient. So perhaps a Google logo with those red eyes would be appropriate satire.
Steve Jobs...he's more like Emperor Ming from Flash Gordon. He has immense power, but rather than use it for the betterment of his people (his customers), he makes arbitrary decisions for his own amusement. Attempts to appeal to him with logic fail. Attempts to sway his emotions fail. Even decisions that seem like they would harm Apple only make him stronger in the long run.
I'd bet that if you check your credit card agreement, you'd find that they have the right to share information necessary for the transaction... which would include your name. The vendor is required to cross-check the name on your card with the name on your ID. They're also required to check that the name and number on the receipt match the name and number on the card. Finally, the signature on your ID is supposed to match the signature on the back of the card and the signature on the signed receipt. If any of those don't match, they're supposed to reject the card.
So if a checker is NOT looking at your card, they're actually putting the store at risk for a chargeback.
As to keeping the CC# on file: the approval number is only half the transaction. The physical CC# is the other. Once you've swiped your card, the rest of the transaction is between the CC processor and the merchant; if you don't like that, you'll have to take it up with Visa or Mastercard.
If you have a problem with that, or with a store tracking your purchase history, then there's always the cash option.
As people repeatedly pointed out to me when I spoke out against the Google Buzz privacy breach: the only sure way to ensure our privacy is to not give out the information in the first place.
What amazes me, Gorimek, is that you and I know this (that bug free code is hard.)
But an amazingly large number of people are willing to cry foul and call this intentional. Intentions won't really matter: it will hurt the company's credibility despite the fact that it's really a non-issue.
Does anybody remember the AOL swap file controversy? Essentially, the AOL client allocated unused space on your hard drive to use as a cache, and people found all kinds of snippets of data in there. Right or wrong, people claimed AOL was spying on them.
I guess people will believe what they want, regardless of what the truth is.
Take it from anyone who's ever been married to a vindictive spouse: anything that ANY other person hears is no longer private; I don't care if you're in the middle of the desert. The day you move out, your ex-wife (or husband) will call your most trusted family and/or friends and air all your dirty laundry.
The real question is "what will a company do with your 'private' information?" I think that on-line privacy policies are a good place to start; what we need now is legislation that forces companies to stick to those policies - despite their disclaimers that say "we're not liable if we break our own rules."
Actually, your name and credit card number are both encoded on the mag stripe on your card.
As to storing your credit card number: stores have always stored your credit card number as part of the transaction. Back in the pre-mag stripe days, they used an imprinting machine and made a copy of it. Today, it's just stored on a database somewhere.
The end result is the same: the number is required as part of the transaction, and the Track-9 data from your card is the only real proof that you were there for the transaction.
I do tend to agree that personal data should be kept private unless the user explicitly authorized to do so, but the question then becomes "what, exactly, is private?" You could have a whole discussion on just what is truly private information and how an automated system can determine this.
For the record, my simplistic answer is: anything a user enters in to a data system is private unless otherwise specified, either by context (a public forum) or explicit designation (a check-box that says "public" access).
...on the people in question. My favorite setup is individual offices for day to day work, but with space for collaboration when the situation calls for it. (For example, we had a push to get a bunch of items fixed before a big release, so 3 of us got together in one big office and worked down the list.) Good, dedicated coders will do the job anywhere, but having an arrangement that facilitates communication can help. For it to work, though, you need guys (or ladies) who can get along well together and will focus on work, rather than random chat. That same arrangement makes it easier to goof off, too, and you could well find that instead of sharing code, they're sharing the latest YouTube videos. It also eliminates privacy, so if any of them have to take phone calls on a regular basis, you need to consider equipping them with laptops and making a "break-in" room available for calls and teleconferences. It can also be rough on concentration, since some people can't tolerate chatter when trying to focus. Whatever you do, don't create an environment where the boss is constantly looking over everyone's shoulder. That just raises the stress level, which will definitely increase errors.
Image-based installation management was a flawed solution, and in heterogeneous environments, it can never be a workable long-term solution. Even virtualized workstations will drift over time, and an image-based solution won't let you fix that. To deploy a new build, you'd have to blow away everyone's customizations and make them start from scratch... that's not a good solution.
To maintain user environments while updating software loads, you still need an incremental installation setup of some kind, so why not use THAT process to build up a new workstation? Use the automated tools to script a Windows installation. Once windows is up and running, you let your software management process take over and start installing drivers and applications to the desktop. When it's all done, you have a fully-configured workstation - one that didn't rely on a pre-configured image or a virtual machine.
Maybe, before lecturing someone else on their use of language, you should get your own language right.
The term "professional" has two different meanings:
1. Someone who gets paid for something, as opposed to someone who does it for free. This is usually applied to artists and athletes.
2. In the business world, a Professional is someone with a state license to perform their job. Doctors, lawyers, beauty providers, and building contractors are all required to get state licenses before being allowed to practice their Professions. Professionals can also be sued for malpractice, something that can't be done in the non-professional world.
To be perfectly clear: a career that does not have a state licensing structure is not a Profession. Since there is no state-mandated certification or licensing program, there's no such thing as an IT Professional. The requirements for Professionals to re-test and re-certify every few years is a legal requirement. A doctor simply can't practice medicine without his license - regardless of who he works for.
Now there ARE those of us who have acquired college degrees in various aspects of IT: software engineering, Information Technology, and Computer Science. We go to an employer, present our sheepskin, and get a job. Once we're hired, the employer usually doesn't ask us to go renew our BS's every n years. It's true that a company "can" ask you to do lots of things while on the job, including asking you to train or certify on your own dime. But legality aside, it's not particularly ETHICAL to ask an employee to spend hundreds or thousands of dollars to stay current "on paper". (How many of us have been to training classes that only taught us things we already knew?)
A good employer will either sponsor training classes or will pay you (or reimburse you) for work-related training. This is how its done in the quality organizations out there (I work for one, and they do provide training and foot the bill for it.) Since quality people do quality work, an employer that does otherwise needs to consider that the high employee turnover they're experiencing is negatively impacting their work product.
This is why we need laws allowing judges to fine people for bringing trivial lawsuits. Aren't the courts jammed enough with legitimate cases?
How SHOULD the checker treat someone who creates costumes?
I don't think that word means what you think it means. Whatever you're describing, it's not Democracy. In a democracy, the rules of the majority are binding on the minority. What you describe, however, is essentially the absence of rule - or anarchy.
In a democracy, everyone votes, and everyone follows the rules established by that vote. So if 75% of the people in a pure Democracy decided that it was illegal to wear blue, then the azure lovers have no recourse; they must either abstain from wearing blue or face punishment. The key traits here are: voting, and that decisions of the majority bind the minority. Effectively, minorities have fewer rights than the majority, since they have less power to enforce their will.
In an anarchy, everyone has the same power as another. Blue lovers have the right to leave and form the Sapphire Republic, where everyone wears one article of blue clothing every day. If someone living in Sapphire decides they want to wear green instead, they can pull out of Sapphire and form the Shamrock Union.
And I don't think it actually works better: It's still very difficult to find FOSS applications for many tasks, and it's even more difficult to find FOSS that's equal to or better than commercial versions of the same applications. Anyone who's ever tried to run a project by committee knows that in reality, good old fashioned tyranny is probably the best way to actually get things done.
... in a glass of water. The thing was totally submerged. I took the batteries out and laid it on the counter for 2 days. I put them back in, and I'm still using it.
I live near the area where the cop was killed by his runaway car...
I couldn't believe it when I heard that the car's controls were entirely electronic. After this, I checked out my Dodge truck to be sure: I still have a mechanical throttle, brake, and gear selector, but I'm not entirely sure whether my key physically disconnects power to the ignition system; my car does have the 5-minute delay on accessory power when I turn off the motor.
Either way, it's getting a little scary to think that some cars are almost entirely controlled by software. Look at the Prius: the entire drive train is controlled exclusively by electronics.
Cars need a big, red panic button that will completely cut the power to the ignition and fuel delivery systems... this should never have happened.
Simple: if a control handles hover and click events separately, let the user tap once to hover, twice to "click." The Flash viewer could even give the user feedback by way of a draggable mouse cursor on the screen.
yeah... that won't work.
He's using this for media extenders. That pretty much requires more bandwidth than 10Mb... it'd be fine for things like on-line video, but it's not enough bandwidth to stream DVD or Hi-Def video from his media server.
Besides, the TV cable in his house is 75-ohm cable, which is incompatible with 10-base2 Ethernet (which is what you're describing.) 10-base2 requires 50 ohm cable.
Even the people who did the study aren't claiming the know the causal link: "Excessive internet use is associated with depression, but what we don't know is which comes first."
Of course, there is obviously a link of some kind between depression and extremely heavy use of chat rooms and social sites. I'll go along with that 100%. In every social site I've spent time on, the heaviest users were also the ones "on meds."
Of course, their sample is pretty small. If this ratio (15 people out of 1,300) holds true on a large scale, this might be something to add to the warning signs of depression.
I can just see the doctor's office flyers now: "Do you spend more than 4 hours a day on Facebook? You might just be depressed..."
Heh. That's exactly what I was thinking. "News Flash: Depressed people try to make themselves feel better by - gasp - talking to other people!" Next they'll tell us that the leading cause of death is drinking water. "Everyone I know who's died drinks water or something that has water in it!" someone will say.