Let us refer to the definition of "anxiety disorder", shalt we?
anxiety disorder Any of various disorders in which anxiety is either the primary disturbance or is the result of confronting a feared situation or object; they include obsessive-compulsive disorder and posttraumatic stress disorder. http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=anxiety%2 0disorder
Indeed, very often anxiety is caused by excessive caffeine consumption. While it isn't obsessive-compulsive disorder by any means, caffeine-induced anxiety can very well be considered an anxiety disorder.
As somebody in the medical field (or soon to be), are you a proponent of using drugs to treat anxiety? I've heard reports that some of the drugs frequently have awful side effects, and can become very addicting and very difficult to ease off of. There have even been consumer lawsuits against various pharmas, if I'm not mistaken.
That said, if such a test were used to identify those suffering from such illnesses, would you as a clinician prescribe such drugs, or would you focus on alternative therapies?
Maybe they'll stick the needle in the patient's urinary tract. If he or she can handle having a tube of metal stuck in his or her pee hole, then perhaps he or she isn't so anxious after all.
While I'm not a doctor, a lot of the most anxious people I know are heavy consumers of caffeine. They're the sort of people who drink three cups in the morning, followed by a Coke while at work, and then another cup of coffee and a chocolate bar snack on the way home, followed by a couple of cups of tea with dinner. And then they can't sleep, so they need to repeat the cycle again the next day, for years on end.
The was one fellow I worked with, Trent, who was in that cycle, and was always very anxious and irritable. He eventually decided to just cut out caffeine completely. So he started drinking fruit juices instead of coffee, water instead of Coke. He stopped eating chocolate. And soon after dropping caffeine from his diet he found he was able to concentrate more, was far more efficient at work, and was a whole lot less anxious.
So perhaps a good way to eliminate some forms of anxiousness is to stop consuming caffeine.
Be thankful that Slashdot isn't like GameFAQs. Take a look at all of the rules they have there. Did you know that you can be banned from those forums if you use a line consisting of more than three characters to separate your posts from your signature? The rules are that fucking strict, and that fucking pointless. And as such the place is an utter shithole for true, open, thought-provoking discussion.
Now, let's be fair. At least Slashdot has a fairly public moderating system, unlike a dictatorship like GameFAQs. You can still see any and all posts that have been moderated down, unlike at GameFAQs, where they're deleted outright. At least you can say what you want here, even if it may take people browsing at -1 for it to be seen. Contrast that to GameFAQs, where once deleted your post is not seen by anyone.
The moderators themselves at GameFAQs are most likely the worst problem, secondary to the absurdly complicated and intrusive forum rules. A lone moderator can delete your posts, even on the basis of just not liking you as a person. While that can happen here to some extent, at least other moderators can come around later and fix a mistake or abuse.
Funnily enough, at GameFAQs you can contest certain moderations. Of course, your appeal goes right to the moderator who either fucked up or intentionally abused their power in the first place. So the vast majority of the time you have no recourse when you have become the victim of a rogue moderator. At least here there are other moderators who can come along and remedy the problem.
Every time that someone talks about how horrible it is here at Slashdot, I just think about GameFAQs, and how truly horrible their system is. At least here we can express some disappointment with the Slashdot system. At GameFAQs you would have most likely been banned.
BBC is reporting that an estimated 20000 people (at the very least) are dead in Pakistan and India. Compare that to the 1200 or so people killed in the southern US, or even the 3000 killed on Sept. 11, 2001.
At least Page is able to put his loss in perspective. It takes a real man to be able to do that.
Like I was saying, it is small, extremist groups who want this sort of legislation passed. And since they're not representative of the entire populace, such legislation should not be passed, regardless of how much such interest groups bitch and moan.
And I'm thankful I don't live in California. I live in Britain, not that Britain is much (if at all) better. Politicians all over the western world lack the balls to stand up to these extremist groups. They're far more harmful to democracy and freedom than any terrorist group, for instance, ever could be.
If he did not want to sign this bill, then he should have not signed it, regardless of how much political pressure he was under. Freedom of expression for the Californian citizenry is far more important than him having to tolerate pressure from a few anti-violence extremists for a little while.
You do realize that a checkers game written in Java running on a J2ME-enabled cell phone doesn't compare to any significant client application, correct?
Don't forget that John Carmack published an article discussing his dislike of J2ME.
Will it really increase the cost, however? I mean, it costs far more for a nurse to care for an elderly patient. If the patients can care for themselves, then that reduces the number of nurses required. I would be inclined to say that a nurse costs far more than $14000, and you have to keep paying each nurse's salary each year! Devices like these may works for many years, perhaps even with minimal upkeep costs. Thus your taxes may very well decrease because of technology such as this.
These sound like a fantastic pet! They appear nowhere near as fake as the various robotic dogs, but offer the benefit of requiring infrequent "care". This is the kind of a pet that incompetent children should have. It doesn't matter if the child doesn't feed the pet on a daily basis.
It's been shown time and time again that when sales fall, then the consumers don't remain "consumers", but soon become defendants in civil lawsuits. Either way, the media companies get money from the consumers.
All this talk about corporations being hurt by this is a side show. The real victims are the consumers. This will cause massive confusion. People will wonder why some movies will play in their PS3, but not on the XBox 360. With such confusion, people will be less inclined to give such media out as gifts. I mean, no grandma will get her grandkids a movie that they may not be able to play.
While Java is often suitable for enterprise apps or web based apps, it just isn't useful for consumer-grade application development. That's why we haven't seen any serious and widely-accepted office suites or web browsers written in Java, for instance, even after ten years.
wxWidgets is LGPL. You should be able to dynamically link to it while still licensing your software as you see fit. It may have a static linking clause, allowing you to link statically instead of only dynamically. You'll want to check on that, though.
What about using FOX? It's far lighter than wxWidgets or QT, while still offering a decent cross-platform GUI. And it's LGPL, with static linking exceptions.
While I'm sure it's a fantastic solution under Linux or some other UNIX-like system, GTK+ is noticeably different under Windows. Users of GTK+ Windows apps (such as GAIM) often can tell that it's not a "real" Windows app.
And if it barely works on Mac OS X, and it isn't really suitable for serious, large-scale Windows apps, then perhaps it really isn't all that useful.
Perhaps it is still better to stick with a cross platform C++ framework like wxWidgets or QT. They offer many of the benefits of Java and.NET, without many of the nasties.
Perhaps Java will be a more useful option once GNU Classpath matures a bit more, and GCJ support under Windows is improved. Indeed, a GCJ+SWT+Java solution could be quite powerful. You get the benefits of native compilation, with the benefits of the semi-portable SWT, and the benefits of Java, for desktop application/client development. Best of all, you lose most of the crud of the JRE (or the.NET CLR equivalent).
And if the GNU Classpath support for Swing and AWT improves, then there'll be an option available for existing programs.
Perhaps the KDE project should take this as a warning, too. They're also heavily dependent on a third-party piece of software: TrollTech's QT.
Suppose TrollTech were to be bought out tomorrow, and they stopped releasing their work as open source software. While QT is open source software and could thus be forked, would the KDE project be able to muster together the talent to continue developing it? Or would it stagnate, in turn harming the entire KDE project? Has the project looked into the possibility of that happening, and if so, what are their contingency plans?
It doesn't matter if they're donating their time/services or getting paid. If what they're doing end up being more harmful than good (ie. running servers so as to have quarterly security breaches), then the project is better off if they get rid of such a volunteer.
If somebody were to volunteer their cleaning services at a church, for instance, and proceeded to repeatedly damage the pews and the flooring, then they would be politely asked to stop volunteering. It's time for SpreadFirefox to to the same, so as to protect the data of the site's users.
I find it's difficult to trust any "journalist". Take the complete failure of the journalistic trade before and during the ongoing war in Iraq, for instance. That's proof enough that the vast majority of journalists aren't qualified to perform their job.
Unlike engineering or medicine, for instance, there is no penalty for those journalists who fail to do their job properly. The complete lack of accountability had resulted in most mainstream newspapers, magazines and television news programs being nothing but farcery.
No, I don't. Mainly because Microsoft has very little interest in the W3C standards. Then again, IE isn't a Firefox-derived browser. Those in the Mozilla community generally have a greater respect for standards.
Slashdot Mirror
Indeed, very often anxiety is caused by excessive caffeine consumption. While it isn't obsessive-compulsive disorder by any means, caffeine-induced anxiety can very well be considered an anxiety disorder.
As somebody in the medical field (or soon to be), are you a proponent of using drugs to treat anxiety? I've heard reports that some of the drugs frequently have awful side effects, and can become very addicting and very difficult to ease off of. There have even been consumer lawsuits against various pharmas, if I'm not mistaken.
That said, if such a test were used to identify those suffering from such illnesses, would you as a clinician prescribe such drugs, or would you focus on alternative therapies?
Maybe they'll stick the needle in the patient's urinary tract. If he or she can handle having a tube of metal stuck in his or her pee hole, then perhaps he or she isn't so anxious after all.
While I'm not a doctor, a lot of the most anxious people I know are heavy consumers of caffeine. They're the sort of people who drink three cups in the morning, followed by a Coke while at work, and then another cup of coffee and a chocolate bar snack on the way home, followed by a couple of cups of tea with dinner. And then they can't sleep, so they need to repeat the cycle again the next day, for years on end.
The was one fellow I worked with, Trent, who was in that cycle, and was always very anxious and irritable. He eventually decided to just cut out caffeine completely. So he started drinking fruit juices instead of coffee, water instead of Coke. He stopped eating chocolate. And soon after dropping caffeine from his diet he found he was able to concentrate more, was far more efficient at work, and was a whole lot less anxious.
So perhaps a good way to eliminate some forms of anxiousness is to stop consuming caffeine.
Be thankful that Slashdot isn't like GameFAQs. Take a look at all of the rules they have there. Did you know that you can be banned from those forums if you use a line consisting of more than three characters to separate your posts from your signature? The rules are that fucking strict, and that fucking pointless. And as such the place is an utter shithole for true, open, thought-provoking discussion.
Now, let's be fair. At least Slashdot has a fairly public moderating system, unlike a dictatorship like GameFAQs. You can still see any and all posts that have been moderated down, unlike at GameFAQs, where they're deleted outright. At least you can say what you want here, even if it may take people browsing at -1 for it to be seen. Contrast that to GameFAQs, where once deleted your post is not seen by anyone.
The moderators themselves at GameFAQs are most likely the worst problem, secondary to the absurdly complicated and intrusive forum rules. A lone moderator can delete your posts, even on the basis of just not liking you as a person. While that can happen here to some extent, at least other moderators can come around later and fix a mistake or abuse.
Funnily enough, at GameFAQs you can contest certain moderations. Of course, your appeal goes right to the moderator who either fucked up or intentionally abused their power in the first place. So the vast majority of the time you have no recourse when you have become the victim of a rogue moderator. At least here there are other moderators who can come along and remedy the problem.
Every time that someone talks about how horrible it is here at Slashdot, I just think about GameFAQs, and how truly horrible their system is. At least here we can express some disappointment with the Slashdot system. At GameFAQs you would have most likely been banned.
Indeed, there are people far worse off.
BBC is reporting that an estimated 20000 people (at the very least) are dead in Pakistan and India. Compare that to the 1200 or so people killed in the southern US, or even the 3000 killed on Sept. 11, 2001.
At least Page is able to put his loss in perspective. It takes a real man to be able to do that.
Like I was saying, it is small, extremist groups who want this sort of legislation passed. And since they're not representative of the entire populace, such legislation should not be passed, regardless of how much such interest groups bitch and moan.
And I'm thankful I don't live in California. I live in Britain, not that Britain is much (if at all) better. Politicians all over the western world lack the balls to stand up to these extremist groups. They're far more harmful to democracy and freedom than any terrorist group, for instance, ever could be.
It seems he may be unfit to be a politician.
If he did not want to sign this bill, then he should have not signed it, regardless of how much political pressure he was under. Freedom of expression for the Californian citizenry is far more important than him having to tolerate pressure from a few anti-violence extremists for a little while.
You do realize that a checkers game written in Java running on a J2ME-enabled cell phone doesn't compare to any significant client application, correct?
Don't forget that John Carmack published an article discussing his dislike of J2ME.
Will it really increase the cost, however? I mean, it costs far more for a nurse to care for an elderly patient. If the patients can care for themselves, then that reduces the number of nurses required. I would be inclined to say that a nurse costs far more than $14000, and you have to keep paying each nurse's salary each year! Devices like these may works for many years, perhaps even with minimal upkeep costs. Thus your taxes may very well decrease because of technology such as this.
These sound like a fantastic pet! They appear nowhere near as fake as the various robotic dogs, but offer the benefit of requiring infrequent "care". This is the kind of a pet that incompetent children should have. It doesn't matter if the child doesn't feed the pet on a daily basis.
It's been shown time and time again that when sales fall, then the consumers don't remain "consumers", but soon become defendants in civil lawsuits. Either way, the media companies get money from the consumers.
All this talk about corporations being hurt by this is a side show. The real victims are the consumers. This will cause massive confusion. People will wonder why some movies will play in their PS3, but not on the XBox 360. With such confusion, people will be less inclined to give such media out as gifts. I mean, no grandma will get her grandkids a movie that they may not be able to play.
While Java is often suitable for enterprise apps or web based apps, it just isn't useful for consumer-grade application development. That's why we haven't seen any serious and widely-accepted office suites or web browsers written in Java, for instance, even after ten years.
wxWidgets is LGPL. You should be able to dynamically link to it while still licensing your software as you see fit. It may have a static linking clause, allowing you to link statically instead of only dynamically. You'll want to check on that, though.
What about using FOX? It's far lighter than wxWidgets or QT, while still offering a decent cross-platform GUI. And it's LGPL, with static linking exceptions.
While I'm sure it's a fantastic solution under Linux or some other UNIX-like system, GTK+ is noticeably different under Windows. Users of GTK+ Windows apps (such as GAIM) often can tell that it's not a "real" Windows app.
And if it barely works on Mac OS X, and it isn't really suitable for serious, large-scale Windows apps, then perhaps it really isn't all that useful.
Perhaps it is still better to stick with a cross platform C++ framework like wxWidgets or QT. They offer many of the benefits of Java and .NET, without many of the nasties.
Perhaps Java will be a more useful option once GNU Classpath matures a bit more, and GCJ support under Windows is improved. Indeed, a GCJ+SWT+Java solution could be quite powerful. You get the benefits of native compilation, with the benefits of the semi-portable SWT, and the benefits of Java, for desktop application/client development. Best of all, you lose most of the crud of the JRE (or the .NET CLR equivalent).
And if the GNU Classpath support for Swing and AWT improves, then there'll be an option available for existing programs.
Perhaps the KDE project should take this as a warning, too. They're also heavily dependent on a third-party piece of software: TrollTech's QT.
Suppose TrollTech were to be bought out tomorrow, and they stopped releasing their work as open source software. While QT is open source software and could thus be forked, would the KDE project be able to muster together the talent to continue developing it? Or would it stagnate, in turn harming the entire KDE project? Has the project looked into the possibility of that happening, and if so, what are their contingency plans?
It doesn't matter if they're donating their time/services or getting paid. If what they're doing end up being more harmful than good (ie. running servers so as to have quarterly security breaches), then the project is better off if they get rid of such a volunteer.
If somebody were to volunteer their cleaning services at a church, for instance, and proceeded to repeatedly damage the pews and the flooring, then they would be politely asked to stop volunteering. It's time for SpreadFirefox to to the same, so as to protect the data of the site's users.
I find it's difficult to trust any "journalist". Take the complete failure of the journalistic trade before and during the ongoing war in Iraq, for instance. That's proof enough that the vast majority of journalists aren't qualified to perform their job.
Unlike engineering or medicine, for instance, there is no penalty for those journalists who fail to do their job properly. The complete lack of accountability had resulted in most mainstream newspapers, magazines and television news programs being nothing but farcery.
Yeah, I do. Spread your ass cheeks and I'll deliver it straight to your anus.
It's difficult to tell when a raging liberal like rovingeyes is joking or not.
No, I don't. Mainly because Microsoft has very little interest in the W3C standards. Then again, IE isn't a Firefox-derived browser. Those in the Mozilla community generally have a greater respect for standards.
In all seriousness, though, it's a bunch of FireFox developers who're whacking FireFox into a new form.
Is this offshoot officially associated with the Mozilla Foundation/Mozilla Corporation in any way, like Firefox itself is?