In the case of this study, and in the WoW addiction story the other day, it was only a small population of the people who are addicted. If more people are not addicted than are addicted, then the activity is not addicting, the people are just addicts.
That doesn't make any sense. Not all people get addicted to alcohol, but it is entirely possible to become an alcoholic. And that doesn't mean the person was an addict before they started consuming alcohol.
If you take 100 people and give them herion every day for a week, 100 people will be addicted. If you take 100 people and make them smoke a pack a day for a week, they will be addicted. Chemically addicted.
Do you have the results of that study? I have personally known people who have had heroin every day for a week, and not become addicted, so it seems incorrect. Also, an addiction does not require that everyone exposed to a product will become addicted.
This is NOT the case with the internet and WoW. Not everyone is addicted. Only a small portion of the overall population. So there you have it. The internet is not addicting, the people who overuse it are addicts.
Again, logical fallacy. Just because every user is not addicted, does not mean that the activity cannot be addictive.
Yeah, I really wish they would ship punch-card readers, audio cassette drives, and 8" floppy drives with every PC sold. After all, if you don't want them, you can just not use them.
FireWire - which is technically superior to USB in most applications - has been a fairly dismal failure
Firewire is on every digital video camera worth buying, on the whole planet. Hardly a failure. In the digital video space, USB has been the failure - even though many cameras have USB ports, it rarely works properly for anything besides getting still images off the memory card. Even then, it often doesn't work very well.
Are you so sure? I would guess that many times more PCs had USB in 1998 than there were iMacs.
But nobody was using the USB ports. They were still using serial/parallel and PS/2 ports. Why is this so hard to understand? The iMac did hold the lion's-share of the USB peripheral market, even if there were more PCs with USB ports (which weren't being used.)
Still, it's questionable whether more PCs did have USB ports thasn iMacs. the iMac was massively successful, and many PC manufacturers did not add USB ports until very late in the game.
such as keyboards and mice and printers which then and now worked just as well with standard ports.
But what about other things, like scanners and external storage devices? They were much more annoying to use with the "standard" ports. Even printers and mouses were more annoying before USB. Sure, you could use them, but they were more of a PITA.
Assuming you actually mean striving, perhaps you can cite an example of how we're striving to dominate, say, Australia?
Easy, it's called the "Free Trade Agreement" and "Cultural Imperialism." The FTA means that Australia can't pass laws that conflict with US ideas of law, and Australia has to pass laws that the majority of the population are opposed to. Ironically, the FTA is the opposite of Free Trade. It basically says "we'll trade with you, only if you do what we say."
This is hardly what you make it out to be, a strange general idea that nations can only be allies or enemies.
Nonsense. That's exactly what he means. You are the one trying to twist it out of context. Bush means that if you don't support the methods that the US uses, then you are an enemy. So, a country that chooses a different approach against terrorism, is an enemy.
Beyond the words, that is exactly what Bush's actions have said too. And actions speak louder than words. Have you not also heard his diatribes on how criticizing his policies is "giving comfort to the enemy"? Translation: if you criticize Republicans, you are a terrorist supporter.
Refusing to assist in the apprehension of mass murderers seems like a pretty hostile action to me. I don't see much wrong with saying so.
That's not what Bush is talking about. He doesn't support a "law enforcement" approach. He supports all out wars with countries he doesn't like. This is what he's referring to in being "with us." Apprehending terrorists isn't enough. You have to buy into the whole imperialist agenda, or you are considered an enemy.
I'm sorry, I must have missed the point when slashdot became a discussion board for issues of general interest.
Of course you missed it, because it has always been that way.
I was under the impression it was for discussion of issues relating to science and technology.
No. It's "News for Nerds." Nerds are interested in more than just science and technology.
By the way, how could you miss the technology angle? This is about how the use of technology impacts society, and the ethical questions surrounding technology. Sounds like perfect nerd/technology discussion fodder to me.
I look forward to further slashdot articles such as "Ask Slashdot: What knitting needles are best for sweaters?" and "Everybody Loves Raymond Picked Up for Nth Season".
Yeah, because the internet will run out of space if slashdot posts too many articles. Oh noes! Somebody is interested in reading something that you don't approve of!
So then, isn't libel law a violation of the First Amendment? After all, it is the government enforcing restrictions of freedom of Speech. Plus, I'd say that they were blocked because they are racist, not because someone disagrees with their immigration policy.
the state of being enslaved to a habit or practice or to something that is psychologically or physically habit-forming, as narcotics, to such an extent that its cessation causes severe trauma.
There doesn't have to be a chemical or drug involved. It can be a psychological addiction or a habit. It's still an addiction. It doesn't have to be a substance, it can be an activity.
Well, it's pretty obvious: if they are playing the game to test or review it, and are being paid for those hours, then it's a part of the job. If they are just playing for fun, and not being paid, then they are doing personal gaming.
It's just as easy for other internet workers. Clue: commenting on slashdot is rarely part of one's job, unless you are a paid astroturfer or viral marketer or something. Most people know when they are doing something for their job, and when they are just goofing off. It's not that hard to tell.
It's those tube networks, Marge: they won't let me. One quality slashdot post after another, each one fresher and more brilliant than the last. If they only stumbled once, just gave us thirty minutes to ourselves, but they won't! They won't let me live!
If having an extreme political view is cause for censorship,/. should be high on the ban list.
No shit. I guarantee you that slashdot is already blocked by many systems around the world. But I'm not sure why you say slashdot has an "extreme political view" - opinions are quite diverse and usually pretty moderate around here.
Well it is news. Nerds read it. Therefore, it's news for nerds. More to the point, how is it not news for nerds? Who are you to say what is allowed to be discussed on slashdot?
No, private parties are free to censor. The First Amendment only makes it illegal for government to do.
Otherwise, newspapers would be forced to publish every goatse picture that a reader sends them. In fact, every publication would be forced to publish every single thing submitted to them, and editors would be criminals. You'd also need a forklift to collect the daily (hourly?) newspaper.
Well, I don't use blocking software, and I don't agree with censorship. But people choose to buy and use blocking products because they are into blocking and censorship. Surely they are free to block whatever they want, right? Ironically, is their right to censor a freedom of speech issue?
If any particular group can sue for being blocked, then shouldn't all blocking software be shut down? Or more likely, shouldn't they be able to block whatever they please? Either blocking should not be allowed for anybody, or blocking should be free-for-all.
Anything else is just inconsistent, and as the article states, favors those organizations with deep pockets and lawyers.
But do we need the giant screed about whether these people are white supremacists or not? Shouldn't that have been, oh, I dunno, edited out?
Why should it have been edited out? Surely it is extremely relevant to the question of whether they are a "hate" site or not. Isn't it really the crux of the issue?
So why have citizenship at all? If we are to treat any living human being on the planet as though they were citizens of the US, why have citizenship in the first place?
There's not really any good reason. But one reason is to identify where a person comes from, in order to deny/grant them rights.
Because US citizenship is valuable. It means something. It means our soldiers are fighting to protect you ("you" inspecific). It means our law enforcement works day and night to try to prevent crime and keep you safe. It means you can vote in elections and start a business and participate in our culture and economy as an equal
What a load of shit! It means none of those things. Soldiers are not fighting to protect you, they are fighting because they collect a paycheck. Likewise with law enforcement - they don't really give a crap, as long as they get paid. Many citizens are denied the right to vote, because of politicians trying to rig elections. Prisoners don't get to vote, despite being citizens. And there is no equal treatment in participation in the economy.
If you are an enemy combatant then don't expect us to coddle you as though you are a citizen who's committed a crime.
What the fuck does that mean, anyway? Why is not a captured "enemy combatant" a Prisoner of War? And since when did criminals get "coddled"?
War is not crime.. the criminal courts are no place to prosecute a war.
War is not a crime? So, it's perfectly OK, then? Newsflash - under the Geneva Convention, participants in a war get rights, too. I don't think you've bothered to actually inform yourself of anything, instead you choose to remain deliberately ignorant.
The Bill of Rights says "Congress shall make no law". The Declaration of Independence says "We hold these rights to be self-evident..."
Oh well, hazy memory.
Gosh, in Spain the legal age of consent is 13. According to your logic, all citizens of the world should have the same "right" because hey, if it's that's the law in Spain, why should it only apply to Spaniards?? How hypocritical and selfish of them!
No, you don't understand my point. If the people of Spain feel that their law is just, then they should feel it is just for any human. If they don't, then they should change their law. It's not that all laws should be applicable everywhere. It's that a country is hypocritical if it believes its laws should only grant people of their country privileges, but should be illegal for humans from elsewhere. After all, US politicians talk about "spreading democracy" around the world, so why should non-citizens be treated differently by US law?
Well, the Bill of Rights says that "we hold these rights to be self-evident" and there is nothing in the Constitution restricting the interpretation of law to US citizens.
Regardless of the legal mumbo-jumbo, how can you possibly subscribe to a system of human rights that you only believe apply to citizens of a certain country? Either those values are applicable to all of humanity, or your laws are based on hypocrisy and selfishness.
Slashdot Mirror
Welcome to slashdot! You can always read a literary journal, or peer-reviewed journal if you want a robust editorial process.
That doesn't make any sense. Not all people get addicted to alcohol, but it is entirely possible to become an alcoholic. And that doesn't mean the person was an addict before they started consuming alcohol.
If you take 100 people and give them herion every day for a week, 100 people will be addicted. If you take 100 people and make them smoke a pack a day for a week, they will be addicted. Chemically addicted.
Do you have the results of that study? I have personally known people who have had heroin every day for a week, and not become addicted, so it seems incorrect. Also, an addiction does not require that everyone exposed to a product will become addicted.
This is NOT the case with the internet and WoW. Not everyone is addicted. Only a small portion of the overall population. So there you have it. The internet is not addicting, the people who overuse it are addicts.
Again, logical fallacy. Just because every user is not addicted, does not mean that the activity cannot be addictive.
Yeah, I really wish they would ship punch-card readers, audio cassette drives, and 8" floppy drives with every PC sold. After all, if you don't want them, you can just not use them.
Firewire is on every digital video camera worth buying, on the whole planet. Hardly a failure. In the digital video space, USB has been the failure - even though many cameras have USB ports, it rarely works properly for anything besides getting still images off the memory card. Even then, it often doesn't work very well.
But nobody was using the USB ports. They were still using serial/parallel and PS/2 ports. Why is this so hard to understand? The iMac did hold the lion's-share of the USB peripheral market, even if there were more PCs with USB ports (which weren't being used.)
Still, it's questionable whether more PCs did have USB ports thasn iMacs. the iMac was massively successful, and many PC manufacturers did not add USB ports until very late in the game.
such as keyboards and mice and printers which then and now worked just as well with standard ports.
But what about other things, like scanners and external storage devices? They were much more annoying to use with the "standard" ports. Even printers and mouses were more annoying before USB. Sure, you could use them, but they were more of a PITA.
Easy, it's called the "Free Trade Agreement" and "Cultural Imperialism." The FTA means that Australia can't pass laws that conflict with US ideas of law, and Australia has to pass laws that the majority of the population are opposed to. Ironically, the FTA is the opposite of Free Trade. It basically says "we'll trade with you, only if you do what we say."
Tony Blair?
Halliburton?
Nonsense. That's exactly what he means. You are the one trying to twist it out of context. Bush means that if you don't support the methods that the US uses, then you are an enemy. So, a country that chooses a different approach against terrorism, is an enemy.
Beyond the words, that is exactly what Bush's actions have said too. And actions speak louder than words. Have you not also heard his diatribes on how criticizing his policies is "giving comfort to the enemy"? Translation: if you criticize Republicans, you are a terrorist supporter.
Refusing to assist in the apprehension of mass murderers seems like a pretty hostile action to me. I don't see much wrong with saying so.
That's not what Bush is talking about. He doesn't support a "law enforcement" approach. He supports all out wars with countries he doesn't like. This is what he's referring to in being "with us." Apprehending terrorists isn't enough. You have to buy into the whole imperialist agenda, or you are considered an enemy.
Of course you missed it, because it has always been that way.
I was under the impression it was for discussion of issues relating to science and technology.
No. It's "News for Nerds." Nerds are interested in more than just science and technology.
By the way, how could you miss the technology angle? This is about how the use of technology impacts society, and the ethical questions surrounding technology. Sounds like perfect nerd/technology discussion fodder to me.
I look forward to further slashdot articles such as "Ask Slashdot: What knitting needles are best for sweaters?" and "Everybody Loves Raymond Picked Up for Nth Season".
Yeah, because the internet will run out of space if slashdot posts too many articles. Oh noes! Somebody is interested in reading something that you don't approve of!
So then, isn't libel law a violation of the First Amendment? After all, it is the government enforcing restrictions of freedom of Speech. Plus, I'd say that they were blocked because they are racist, not because someone disagrees with their immigration policy.
addiction [uh-dik-shuhn] -noun
the state of being enslaved to a habit or practice or to something that is psychologically or physically habit-forming, as narcotics, to such an extent that its cessation causes severe trauma.
There doesn't have to be a chemical or drug involved. It can be a psychological addiction or a habit. It's still an addiction. It doesn't have to be a substance, it can be an activity.
It's just as easy for other internet workers. Clue: commenting on slashdot is rarely part of one's job, unless you are a paid astroturfer or viral marketer or something. Most people know when they are doing something for their job, and when they are just goofing off. It's not that hard to tell.
It's those tube networks, Marge: they won't let me. One quality slashdot post after another, each one fresher and more brilliant than the last. If they only stumbled once, just gave us thirty minutes to ourselves, but they won't! They won't let me live!
No shit. I guarantee you that slashdot is already blocked by many systems around the world. But I'm not sure why you say slashdot has an "extreme political view" - opinions are quite diverse and usually pretty moderate around here.
Well it is news. Nerds read it. Therefore, it's news for nerds. More to the point, how is it not news for nerds? Who are you to say what is allowed to be discussed on slashdot?
Otherwise, newspapers would be forced to publish every goatse picture that a reader sends them. In fact, every publication would be forced to publish every single thing submitted to them, and editors would be criminals. You'd also need a forklift to collect the daily (hourly?) newspaper.
Well, I don't use blocking software, and I don't agree with censorship. But people choose to buy and use blocking products because they are into blocking and censorship. Surely they are free to block whatever they want, right? Ironically, is their right to censor a freedom of speech issue?
If any particular group can sue for being blocked, then shouldn't all blocking software be shut down? Or more likely, shouldn't they be able to block whatever they please? Either blocking should not be allowed for anybody, or blocking should be free-for-all.
Anything else is just inconsistent, and as the article states, favors those organizations with deep pockets and lawyers.
Why should it have been edited out? Surely it is extremely relevant to the question of whether they are a "hate" site or not. Isn't it really the crux of the issue?
How is that a "militant" position?
The zombies are the ones screaming "BRRAAAAAAAIIIIINNNS!"
There's not really any good reason. But one reason is to identify where a person comes from, in order to deny/grant them rights.
Because US citizenship is valuable. It means something. It means our soldiers are fighting to protect you ("you" inspecific). It means our law enforcement works day and night to try to prevent crime and keep you safe. It means you can vote in elections and start a business and participate in our culture and economy as an equal
What a load of shit! It means none of those things. Soldiers are not fighting to protect you, they are fighting because they collect a paycheck. Likewise with law enforcement - they don't really give a crap, as long as they get paid. Many citizens are denied the right to vote, because of politicians trying to rig elections. Prisoners don't get to vote, despite being citizens. And there is no equal treatment in participation in the economy.
If you are an enemy combatant then don't expect us to coddle you as though you are a citizen who's committed a crime.
What the fuck does that mean, anyway? Why is not a captured "enemy combatant" a Prisoner of War? And since when did criminals get "coddled"?
War is not crime .. the criminal courts are no place to prosecute a war.
War is not a crime? So, it's perfectly OK, then? Newsflash - under the Geneva Convention, participants in a war get rights, too. I don't think you've bothered to actually inform yourself of anything, instead you choose to remain deliberately ignorant.
George Bush goes to work? That's shocking news. Did he take a break from his endless "ranch" vacations?
Oh well, hazy memory.
Gosh, in Spain the legal age of consent is 13. According to your logic, all citizens of the world should have the same "right" because hey, if it's that's the law in Spain, why should it only apply to Spaniards?? How hypocritical and selfish of them!
No, you don't understand my point. If the people of Spain feel that their law is just, then they should feel it is just for any human. If they don't, then they should change their law. It's not that all laws should be applicable everywhere. It's that a country is hypocritical if it believes its laws should only grant people of their country privileges, but should be illegal for humans from elsewhere. After all, US politicians talk about "spreading democracy" around the world, so why should non-citizens be treated differently by US law?
Regardless of the legal mumbo-jumbo, how can you possibly subscribe to a system of human rights that you only believe apply to citizens of a certain country? Either those values are applicable to all of humanity, or your laws are based on hypocrisy and selfishness.
Midgets can now get the handjobs they so desperately need.