I'm sorry, how does that make the athletics comparison weaker? In TFA it spells out that kids at the top of their classes are taking these drugs to try and get a lead on their competition for ivy league and other highly competitive spots. They are already working hard and performing well. This is exactly like the sports analogy - top players looking for that little bit more. If the article was about highschool dropout material taking drugs to try and recover from 3 years of sloth, sure maybe you'd have a point.
I agree with you on your second point though. I doubt taking these drugs can be sustained throughout a person's life, and at some point they could become a crutch that is tough to do without. Particularly since some of this stuff is addictive.
I don't think it's that good a question. In engineering, for example, there is stuff that you just have to learn. For most people it really isn't interesting. But you have to learn it because it's a tool that engineers use (or that they could be expected to use). I wouldn't expect differential equations to be taken out of an engineering curriculum just because "they're no fun". Perhaps in arts subjects, where what is being studied is decided by the fact that someone finds it interesting, things are different.
I'm just trying to picture in my head the kind of mentality that makes someone write a post like this. Proclaiming "wisdom follows" and then proceeding with a diatribe that demonstrates almost total lack of understanding of british society? This isn't informative, it's a demonstration of north american ignorance and naiivety. It reminds me of an environmentalist friend of mine who once tried to convince me that the chinese "worship nature" and so they'd never face environmental problems like we do. It just boggles the mind that such misconceptions can remain unbroken in people until adulthood. And if you don't know about a subject (particularly if that subject is people) why would you feign familiarity with them?/rant
Like I said before, I can understand your side of the argument. I play poker and see no problem in that. But it seems to me there is a huge undefined grey area: cigarettes are legal but pot and crack aren't, scientology is legal but pyramid schemes aren't and so on. Laws against harming yourself are not consistent across all areas. I'm not saying the line should be drawn at gambling in any of its forms, but I can see why it sometimes is.
I'm not sure why you pull raising children into this, I don't know anyone that thinks letting their kids play online poker is a required part of their upbringing.
I'm a little torn on this issue. On the one hand, I would like to believe adults can make their own decisions and should be allowed to gamble their money away if they wish. On the other hand, I can understand why gambling is illegal in some places because people are simply too stupid or weak willed to recognize and kick a gambling addiction. This seems just as true for online gambling, and if anything I think the anonymity it affords makes it more insipid than "old fashioned" gambling. Part of me wants to say "too bad" for the saps out there, but I can't help but think that you're exposing these (admittedly weak) people to a dangerous environment for the petty enjoyment of others. Gambling is a lot of fun for most people, but it can devastate the lives of a few. I'm not sure I agree with the black and white decision that the former justifies the latter, although most of the posts so far appear to do so.
You know, I'm not American, but I can't just let that one pass. The US is nothing like Nazi Germany or the USSR for reasons obvious to most. Monitoring phone calls is not the same as concentration camps, secret police and absence of democracy. And wire taps were used by America and the other allies before, during and after world war 2. America isn't perfect, but don't make comparisons that are a hair away from the obscene.
Perhaps they won't release it on China google for fear of having the information requisitioned by the chinese government. They did that for gmail.
Fortunately the average user is not a "chinese journalists nor anyone whose "browsing notes" are of interest to anyone. I suspect the same applies to you.
Yeah google trends seems pretty cool, but 2 things spring to mind.
1)There must be some kind of scaling going on with the numbers, no? How could a country like Pakistan with about 1.7 million internet users have more searches for "Sex" than the US with over 200 million internet users? Similar sitatuation for uncommon languages. Is the data done as a percentage of total searches from that region or in that language?
2)Is the city thing actually accurate? At university, google maps used to figure out I was in Vancouver no problem, but now I'm in Calgary and it doesn't even center on Canada. Wouldn't maps and trends try and figure out my location in the same manner (I would guess by the location of my ISP)
Man, when you put it that way, I can't afford not to shell out $600 for one of these babies! I mean I'll be able to watch movies with.. more.. stuff on them..
But seriously, I don't think there's nearly as much impetus to go from DVDs to Blueray as from tapes to DVDs. I think both next gen DVD formats are going to find that out fairly paintfully.
People who drive the safest cars and do so extremely safely still get in car accidents. Is that not pretty similar? The argument is not that Lance Armstrong would have lower health care bills, but that a company would insure people like him for less because on average they have fewer illnesses. Just like car insurance... Also, I think it's pretty bizarre to say there's "no money in health care". People are willing to pay money to make themselves healthy, doctors are willing to do that for a fee. Sounds like a pretty solid economic foundation to me. Cruel, at times, but valid.
The french already have a full sized aircraft carrier, the Charles de Gaulle. As to what they will do with it, I presume the same thing America does with her carriers: project their power overseas. Many make the argument that America should encourage Europe to develop a more powerful military to reduce the strain on their taxpayers to "patrol the world".
I didn't say they wouldn't catch much crime - I said they wouldn't catch much crime that normal people would do. Clearly in Britain cameras are effective at 1) deterring crimes in public places and 2) tracking down criminals after they commit crimes. As for not catching big crimes - the nature of cameras being that they need a huge amount of combing over to produce results means they tend to only be used for big crimes - like child abductions or the London bombings last year. Whether this is "good reason" enough to install cameras in America, I don't know and think that the police would be a better judge of that. But I suspect there are a number of inner city ganglands whose law abiding citizens could only benefit from cameras. As far as the facial recognition and tracking of individuals over the camera networks - I personally don't think that's likely to be effective any time soon, and as such fall into the realm of paranoia. Clearly steps need to be taken to prevent corruption in the system, but I don't think it's an insurmountable feat. This all said, I don't think there's a hope in hell of widespread camera use becoming a reality - it's too easy for both political parties in America to score points opposing the idea, whether it can work effectively and safely or not. As I can see reading most of the people's comments here, pragmatism is at the bottom of many peoples' lists when it comes to police surveilance.
What's the issue here really? That Americans don't trust their police and government as much as the British do their's? Do Americans simply value their privacy more than Brits? Do they think the government actually cares about most of the things, mundane and otherwise, that they do on the streets, and do they care more if the government sees them doing those things? My personal belief is none of the above - cameras in public places are the sort of thing that people like slashdot readers, no matter where they're from in the world, throw up a bunch of shit about and then hardly notice once they're installed. That certainly seems to have been the course of events in England. That and maybe a more ingrained tendency to distrust and to try to spite police and authority in general in America than Britain. I agree cameras in private places are too far - unless the owner gives permission to deal with a crime problem. But in public places, you can be seen by a cop anyway. Why is being seen by a camera any more authoritarian than being seen by a cop, except that it is better at its job? Are streetlights a bad idea too because they make it easier for cops to watch us at night? I know for a fact that I'd feel safer walking down a street in a shitty neighborhood if there was a camera watching. Lastly, what exactly are they going to catch normal people doing in public places that is illegal? Not much - they are going to catch things like burglary, vandalism, muggings, harassment and maybe the occasional abduction. Bad ass as I'm sure the average slashdot reader is, what do you have to fear from cameras in public places, other than a slipery slope argument? Prostitution charges at worse...
You guys are using twisted logic. This guy was responding to this:
"At least, they wont be too "human" and so, they will not destroy and kill other species only for fun. This right, we cannot give to any other animal, because we can easily lost our "superiority"."
That's the guy who thinks animals are morally superior because they "don't kill others for fun". Note that he's both totally wrong and a tree hugger.
In Canada at least, you're not supposed to call yourself an engineer unless you graduate from recognized engineering school. There are a couple of exceptions (driving trains etc) but I'm pretty sure "broadcast engineers" isn't one of them. I'm not saying these people are not as valuable as "real" engineers or aren't as good at their jobs, but I doubt they are officially recognized as engineers or that the numbers in this article include them.
As the other responders to your post pointed out, OEMs can bundle alternatives to media player, just not uninstall it. The real question is why should a government be able to say what features an operating system should come with. Playing media is a major part of what people use computers for. Why shouldn't such an important feature come with the OS? If windows releases its own effective virus scanner and makes third party virus scanners unnecessary, are you going to listen to norton and mcafee whine that it's unfair because suddenly they're pointless? That's precisely what Real Player did. But in truth they shouldn't blame Microsoft, they should blame themselves for not producing a product sufficiently attractive to convince the user to switch from the default OS-included equivalent. People that sell add-ons for cars don't whine that GM doesn't give them the option of shipping that way. IE in particular and Media Player to a degree can be seen as essential parts of Windows. If you want to switch to better alternatives - fine, nothing is stopping you, just like if you want to trick out your civic. But saying that Microsoft shouldn't be allowed to give you the abilities of these programs by default is silly.
"The genetic->IQ link has always been a contentious subject... This is only fuel for the fire."
That IQ is controlled by genetics doesn't seem very contentious to me.. Why else would there be siblings with vastly different IQs? They have the same environment etc. I believe studies of identical twins seperated at birth support this as well. ie even ones raised in vastly different backgrounds have similar iqs. Can you give examples of how a genetic base for iq is contentious?
Slashdot Mirror
OMG Tom Cruise is that really you?!!
I'm sorry, how does that make the athletics comparison weaker? In TFA it spells out that kids at the top of their classes are taking these drugs to try and get a lead on their competition for ivy league and other highly competitive spots. They are already working hard and performing well. This is exactly like the sports analogy - top players looking for that little bit more. If the article was about highschool dropout material taking drugs to try and recover from 3 years of sloth, sure maybe you'd have a point.
I agree with you on your second point though. I doubt taking these drugs can be sustained throughout a person's life, and at some point they could become a crutch that is tough to do without. Particularly since some of this stuff is addictive.
I don't think it's that good a question. In engineering, for example, there is stuff that you just have to learn. For most people it really isn't interesting. But you have to learn it because it's a tool that engineers use (or that they could be expected to use). I wouldn't expect differential equations to be taken out of an engineering curriculum just because "they're no fun". Perhaps in arts subjects, where what is being studied is decided by the fact that someone finds it interesting, things are different.
I'm just trying to picture in my head the kind of mentality that makes someone write a post like this. Proclaiming "wisdom follows" and then proceeding with a diatribe that demonstrates almost total lack of understanding of british society? This isn't informative, it's a demonstration of north american ignorance and naiivety. It reminds me of an environmentalist friend of mine who once tried to convince me that the chinese "worship nature" and so they'd never face environmental problems like we do. It just boggles the mind that such misconceptions can remain unbroken in people until adulthood. And if you don't know about a subject (particularly if that subject is people) why would you feign familiarity with them? /rant
Like I said before, I can understand your side of the argument. I play poker and see no problem in that. But it seems to me there is a huge undefined grey area: cigarettes are legal but pot and crack aren't, scientology is legal but pyramid schemes aren't and so on. Laws against harming yourself are not consistent across all areas. I'm not saying the line should be drawn at gambling in any of its forms, but I can see why it sometimes is. I'm not sure why you pull raising children into this, I don't know anyone that thinks letting their kids play online poker is a required part of their upbringing.
I'm a little torn on this issue. On the one hand, I would like to believe adults can make their own decisions and should be allowed to gamble their money away if they wish. On the other hand, I can understand why gambling is illegal in some places because people are simply too stupid or weak willed to recognize and kick a gambling addiction. This seems just as true for online gambling, and if anything I think the anonymity it affords makes it more insipid than "old fashioned" gambling. Part of me wants to say "too bad" for the saps out there, but I can't help but think that you're exposing these (admittedly weak) people to a dangerous environment for the petty enjoyment of others. Gambling is a lot of fun for most people, but it can devastate the lives of a few. I'm not sure I agree with the black and white decision that the former justifies the latter, although most of the posts so far appear to do so.
You know, I'm not American, but I can't just let that one pass. The US is nothing like Nazi Germany or the USSR for reasons obvious to most. Monitoring phone calls is not the same as concentration camps, secret police and absence of democracy. And wire taps were used by America and the other allies before, during and after world war 2.
America isn't perfect, but don't make comparisons that are a hair away from the obscene.
Yes, I think you are, but don't worry, this new rice should clear that right up.
Are there any affluent societies with very high birth rates in the world?
Utah?
Perhaps they won't release it on China google for fear of having the information requisitioned by the chinese government. They did that for gmail. Fortunately the average user is not a "chinese journalists nor anyone whose "browsing notes" are of interest to anyone. I suspect the same applies to you.
I think it's more like de.licio.us than wiki. You don't write articles, you just recommend links to them. At least I think that's how it works..
Yeah google trends seems pretty cool, but 2 things spring to mind.
1)There must be some kind of scaling going on with the numbers, no? How could a country like Pakistan with about 1.7 million internet users have more searches for "Sex" than the US with over 200 million internet users? Similar sitatuation for uncommon languages. Is the data done as a percentage of total searches from that region or in that language?
2)Is the city thing actually accurate? At university, google maps used to figure out I was in Vancouver no problem, but now I'm in Calgary and it doesn't even center on Canada. Wouldn't maps and trends try and figure out my location in the same manner (I would guess by the location of my ISP)
Man, when you put it that way, I can't afford not to shell out $600 for one of these babies! I mean I'll be able to watch movies with.. more.. stuff on them..
But seriously, I don't think there's nearly as much impetus to go from DVDs to Blueray as from tapes to DVDs. I think both next gen DVD formats are going to find that out fairly paintfully.
People who drive the safest cars and do so extremely safely still get in car accidents. Is that not pretty similar? The argument is not that Lance Armstrong would have lower health care bills, but that a company would insure people like him for less because on average they have fewer illnesses. Just like car insurance...
Also, I think it's pretty bizarre to say there's "no money in health care". People are willing to pay money to make themselves healthy, doctors are willing to do that for a fee. Sounds like a pretty solid economic foundation to me. Cruel, at times, but valid.
Actually.. This is also happening to Canada.
RIM is Canadian
The french already have a full sized aircraft carrier, the Charles de Gaulle. As to what they will do with it, I presume the same thing America does with her carriers: project their power overseas. Many make the argument that America should encourage Europe to develop a more powerful military to reduce the strain on their taxpayers to "patrol the world".
I didn't say they wouldn't catch much crime - I said they wouldn't catch much crime that normal people would do. Clearly in Britain cameras are effective at 1) deterring crimes in public places and 2) tracking down criminals after they commit crimes. As for not catching big crimes - the nature of cameras being that they need a huge amount of combing over to produce results means they tend to only be used for big crimes - like child abductions or the London bombings last year. Whether this is "good reason" enough to install cameras in America, I don't know and think that the police would be a better judge of that. But I suspect there are a number of inner city ganglands whose law abiding citizens could only benefit from cameras.
As far as the facial recognition and tracking of individuals over the camera networks - I personally don't think that's likely to be effective any time soon, and as such fall into the realm of paranoia. Clearly steps need to be taken to prevent corruption in the system, but I don't think it's an insurmountable feat.
This all said, I don't think there's a hope in hell of widespread camera use becoming a reality - it's too easy for both political parties in America to score points opposing the idea, whether it can work effectively and safely or not. As I can see reading most of the people's comments here, pragmatism is at the bottom of many peoples' lists when it comes to police surveilance.
What's the issue here really? That Americans don't trust their police and government as much as the British do their's? Do Americans simply value their privacy more than Brits? Do they think the government actually cares about most of the things, mundane and otherwise, that they do on the streets, and do they care more if the government sees them doing those things? My personal belief is none of the above - cameras in public places are the sort of thing that people like slashdot readers, no matter where they're from in the world, throw up a bunch of shit about and then hardly notice once they're installed. That certainly seems to have been the course of events in England. That and maybe a more ingrained tendency to distrust and to try to spite police and authority in general in America than Britain.
I agree cameras in private places are too far - unless the owner gives permission to deal with a crime problem. But in public places, you can be seen by a cop anyway. Why is being seen by a camera any more authoritarian than being seen by a cop, except that it is better at its job? Are streetlights a bad idea too because they make it easier for cops to watch us at night? I know for a fact that I'd feel safer walking down a street in a shitty neighborhood if there was a camera watching.
Lastly, what exactly are they going to catch normal people doing in public places that is illegal? Not much - they are going to catch things like burglary, vandalism, muggings, harassment and maybe the occasional abduction. Bad ass as I'm sure the average slashdot reader is, what do you have to fear from cameras in public places, other than a slipery slope argument? Prostitution charges at worse...
You guys are using twisted logic. This guy was responding to this:
"At least, they wont be too "human" and so, they will not destroy and kill other species only for fun. This right, we cannot give to any other animal, because we can easily lost our "superiority"."
That's the guy who thinks animals are morally superior because they "don't kill others for fun". Note that he's both totally wrong and a tree hugger.
In Canada at least, you're not supposed to call yourself an engineer unless you graduate from recognized engineering school. There are a couple of exceptions (driving trains etc) but I'm pretty sure "broadcast engineers" isn't one of them. I'm not saying these people are not as valuable as "real" engineers or aren't as good at their jobs, but I doubt they are officially recognized as engineers or that the numbers in this article include them.
[Yawn]. Call me when they clone Jesus and Hitler and make them fight each other.
As the other responders to your post pointed out, OEMs can bundle alternatives to media player, just not uninstall it. The real question is why should a government be able to say what features an operating system should come with. Playing media is a major part of what people use computers for. Why shouldn't such an important feature come with the OS? If windows releases its own effective virus scanner and makes third party virus scanners unnecessary, are you going to listen to norton and mcafee whine that it's unfair because suddenly they're pointless? That's precisely what Real Player did. But in truth they shouldn't blame Microsoft, they should blame themselves for not producing a product sufficiently attractive to convince the user to switch from the default OS-included equivalent.
People that sell add-ons for cars don't whine that GM doesn't give them the option of shipping that way. IE in particular and Media Player to a degree can be seen as essential parts of Windows. If you want to switch to better alternatives - fine, nothing is stopping you, just like if you want to trick out your civic. But saying that Microsoft shouldn't be allowed to give you the abilities of these programs by default is silly.
uhh the gene is a negative one. it makes you dumber.
"The genetic->IQ link has always been a contentious subject... This is only fuel for the fire."
That IQ is controlled by genetics doesn't seem very contentious to me.. Why else would there be siblings with vastly different IQs? They have the same environment etc. I believe studies of identical twins seperated at birth support this as well. ie even ones raised in vastly different backgrounds have similar iqs. Can you give examples of how a genetic base for iq is contentious?