First (and I'm really, REALLY tired of making this correction) there are no criteria for "addiction" because that's not a diagnosis.
The diagnoses are "abuse" or "dependence". Addiction isn't a term used by professionals anymore, but is still used in the vernacular. I wish it wasn't.
But, because I have them handy, here are the criteria for "substance abuse" and "substance dependence" as well as "pathological gambling".
DEPENDENCE
"Diagnostic and Statistical Manual - IV
A maladaptive pattern of substance use leading to clinically significant impairment or distress as manifested by three (or more) of the following, occurring at any time in the same 12-month period:
* Substance is often taken in larger amounts or over longer period than intended
* Persistent desire or unsuccessful efforts to cut down or control substance use
* A great deal of time is spent in activities necessary to obtain the substance (e.g., visiting multiple doctors or driving long distances), use the substance (e.g., chain smoking), or recover from its effects
* Important social, occupational, or recreational activities given up or reduced because of substance abuse
* Continued substance use despite knowledge of having a persistent or recurrent psychological, or physical problem that is caused or exacerbated by use of the substance
* Tolerance, as defined by either:
1. need for read amounts of the substance in order to achieve intoxication or desired effect; or
2. markedly diminished effect with continued use of the same amount
* Withdrawal, as manifested by either:
1. characteristic withdrawal syndrome for the substance; or
2. the same (or closely related) substance is taken to relieve or avoid withdrawal symptoms"
ABUSE
"Criteria for Substance Abuse
A. A maladaptive pattern of substance use leading to clinically significant impairment or distress, as manifested by one (or more) of the following, occurring within a 12-month period:
(1) recurrent substance use resulting in a failure to fulfill major role obligations at work, school, or home (e.g., repeated absences or poor work performance related to substance use; substance-related absences, suspensions, or expulsions from school; neglect of children or household) (2) recurrent substance use in situations in which it is physically hazardous (e.g., driving an automobile or operating a machine when impaired by substance use) (3) recurrent substance-related legal problems (e.g., arrests for substance-related disorderly conduct) (4) continued substance use despite having persistent or recurrent social or interpersonal problems caused or exacerbated by the effects of the substance (e.g., arguments with spouse about consequences of Intoxication, physical fights)
B. The symptoms have never met the criteria for Substance Dependence for this class of substance."
PATHOLOGICAL GAMBLING
"A. Persistent and recurrent maladaptive gambling behavior as indicated by five (or more) of the following:
(1) is preoccupied with gambling (e.g., preoccupied with reliving past gambling experiences, handicapping or planning the next venture, or thinking of ways to get money with which to gamble)
(2) needs to gamble with increasing amounts of money in order to achieve the desired excitement
(3) has repeated unsuccessful efforts to control, cut back, or stop gambling
(4) is restless or irritable when attempting to cut dow
A part from being completely wrong, OP got modded up for this
"Addictive substances are addictive because they've evolved that way -- they exert some type of control over other creatures (like humans) by stimulating the pleasure centers of the host's brain. It's really a symbiotic (or in some cases, parasitic) relationship between two species."
What the hell are you talking about? You've anthropomorphized a SUBSTANCE or ACTIVITY.
Substances didn't "evolve" to be anything. They're substances, not "species".
But that's not the problem. The problem is that you got modded up for the most unscientific assessment of addiction I've ever seen.
"This is a US problem only. HDTV has been out in Japan and Europe since the last century."
That's wrong, from wikipedia
"On January 19, 2005, the European Industry Association for Information Systems (EICTA) announced that HDCP is a required component of the European "HD ready" Label."
"Civil rights are not prevented in any way by gun control (that is a very good thing and we want it. Don't you dare criticise our right not to get shot). CCTV has reduced crime a lot, and we don't like crime. It doesn't affect our civil rights at all. ID cards do not affect civil rights either at all."
First you said that, then you said this
"You are just blind of the problems of America"
I thought it very funny that you accuse others of being blind, while INSISTING that your civil liberties aren't being curtailed. I chuckled at the ridiculousness of your statements.
"4. Absolutely false. Your bank might make you present ID, for their own protection. So go to another bank, or to your mother/brother/uncle/neighbor/boss/etc. and have them cash your check. I have *never* presented ID to cash a check in my life."
Even people who know me ask for my ID, and claim that it's necessary"
I knew you were lying when you said this. People who KNOW you demand ID? Bullshit.
I realize you were trying to make a point, but don't make shit up.
"Combine that many people with the abject levels of poverty and living conditions a good portion of the Middle East lives in, and you get the type of behavior we're seeing."
You're making excuses, and it's unseemly. Need I point out the many areas of the globe that are populated by non-muslims, living in similar conditions, that don't have the same problems?
"I'll defend every muslim who doesn't participate in a riot and related actions until they're either all killed, or I die."
Since this isn't about them, shut up.
Or stay on topic. Your (repeated) attempts to turn genuine criticism into persecution don't hold up, aren't relevant, and don't do anything but draw attention from the actual issues.
Oh, lastly, your analogy is stupid. Australia is a country, defined by a location. Islam is a religion defined by beliefs and actions. If you can't see why "Australians" are different from "Muslims" I don't know why you're commenting in the first place.
If islam didn't have violence codified into it's literature.
But it does, and no amount of equivocation changes that.
And no, I'm not saying the same isn't true of Christianity. The difference is, literalism is alive and well in Islam, but virtually unheard of in other religions.
"very few? an inconvenience? if one person is wrongfully imprisoned, thats too many."
That's nice. Stupid and unrealstic, but nice.
"its people like you that say, oh, its a non-issue, its just an annoyance, that are our problem."
Well, Coward, I never said either of those things, so your straw man can kiss my ass. I submit it's people like YOU who insist on unattainable idealism are the real problem.
"you have to fight all battles, else they will keep taking more power"
Really? Do I need to explain why this is idiotic (and gets chumps like you labeled kooks) or do you understand why fighting ALL battles is impossible. Suggesting it just illustrates once again why your opinion shouldn't matter. You make impossible demands and attack people who disagree.
"say you're a manager of an employee"
NO, LET'S NOT. Let's stick to the fucking issue at hand (which if I recall correctly, was which of the two was worse, terrorism or the government's attempts to control it), and save your wailing for the dorm room where it belongs.
Neither. Despite what you hear from chicken littles, the truth is, terrorism is non-existent, and the mthods the federal government are using to fight it are at worst an inconvenience.
You'll get a ton of people screeching in disagreement, posting links. You can decide for yourself if those links are to examples of individuals aabusing personal power in the guies of government, or abuse by the government itself. I'll wager it's many of the former, and very few (if any) of the latter.
"Supressing free speech by arresting a person for their political views is (or was) illegal in the US."
Yahoo didn't do that. They responded to the authorities request, which was LEGAL. NOT responding to the request is ILLEGAL.
"Although, an argument could be made regarding how complicit Yahoo was in this crime, they probably did cooperate knowing fully that the information they provided would lead to what I consider a breach of a basic human right, free speech and free thought, I do not sure if it would be proper to consider them to have commited an illegal act."
Well, apparently you see the choices a "be complicit" which is legal, despite weak attempts to argue otherwise, or not "be complicit" which is DEFINITELY illegal, regardless of your position on free speech.
"but you have to admit it's rather heavily implied."
I read what they write, not what I THINK they MEAN in their writing. You should try it.
The only thing implied is that straight white cristian males were invovled. Anything else is YOUR bias coming to light.
Stop assuming that how you interpret something is the truth. You were wrong here, and instead of doing the adult thing, and admitting you jumped the gun because of your prejudice, you blame the poster because YOU DIDN'T UNDERSTAND HIM.
That's what 5 year olds do. Take some responsibility for yourself, and just admit you opened your mouth without knowing what you were talking about.
"If I can't go have sex with little girls in Asia, why should Yahoo be permitted to rape journalism there?"
Because in the case of having sex with little girls, that's ILLEGAL HERE. In the case of cooperating with authorities to in your words "rape journalism", that's NOT ILLEGAL here.
"But to say he didn't connect 9/11 and Saddam is absolutely a lie."
Then it shouldn't be too hard to find a quote to support that statement. Especially whe you consider that every public remark the President of the US makes will be archived somewhere.
"But shouldn't educated people also be tolerant and respectful of other people's religous views?"
I have little tolerance for people with untreated delusions.
Get yourself some psychatric help, and I'll be as tolerant as possible. But stop acting like your maladpative behavior is a legitimate choice, and not the result of some kind of mental dysfunction.
And yes, I equated religion with mental illness, and NO I'm not kidding.
Slashdot Mirror
After doing quite a bit of research, I discovered two things.
p onsibilityc orporatelaw.html
First, there is no "U.S. Code" (I assume you mean federal law) governing corporate profits.
Second, virtually every state has a law that DOES require maximizing profits.
http://blj.ucdavis.edu/article/533/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_social_res
http://www.business-ethics.com/resources/article_
Each of these links add information, but because the laws are specific to each state, I'm not going to look them up for you.
Regardless, the point is clear.
First (and I'm really, REALLY tired of making this correction) there are no criteria for "addiction" because that's not a diagnosis.
The diagnoses are "abuse" or "dependence". Addiction isn't a term used by professionals anymore, but is still used in the vernacular. I wish it wasn't.
But, because I have them handy, here are the criteria for "substance abuse" and "substance dependence" as well as "pathological gambling".
DEPENDENCE
"Diagnostic and Statistical Manual - IV
A maladaptive pattern of substance use leading to clinically significant impairment or distress as manifested by three (or more) of the following, occurring at any time in the same 12-month period:
* Substance is often taken in larger amounts or over longer period than intended
* Persistent desire or unsuccessful efforts to cut down or control substance use
* A great deal of time is spent in activities necessary to obtain the substance (e.g., visiting multiple doctors or driving long distances), use the substance (e.g., chain smoking), or recover from its effects
* Important social, occupational, or recreational activities given up or reduced because of substance abuse
* Continued substance use despite knowledge of having a persistent or recurrent psychological, or physical problem that is caused or exacerbated by use of the substance
* Tolerance, as defined by either:
1. need for read amounts of the substance in order to achieve intoxication or desired effect; or
2. markedly diminished effect with continued use of the same amount
* Withdrawal, as manifested by either:
1. characteristic withdrawal syndrome for the substance; or
2. the same (or closely related) substance is taken to relieve or avoid withdrawal symptoms"
ABUSE
"Criteria for Substance Abuse
A. A maladaptive pattern of substance use leading to clinically significant impairment or distress, as manifested by one (or more) of the following, occurring within a 12-month period:
(1) recurrent substance use resulting in a failure to fulfill major role obligations at work, school, or home (e.g., repeated absences or poor work performance related to substance use; substance-related absences, suspensions, or expulsions from school; neglect of children or household)
(2) recurrent substance use in situations in which it is physically hazardous (e.g., driving an automobile or operating a machine when impaired by substance use)
(3) recurrent substance-related legal problems (e.g., arrests for substance-related disorderly conduct)
(4) continued substance use despite having persistent or recurrent social or interpersonal problems caused or exacerbated by the effects of the substance (e.g., arguments with spouse about consequences of Intoxication, physical fights)
B. The symptoms have never met the criteria for Substance Dependence for this class of substance."
PATHOLOGICAL GAMBLING
"A. Persistent and recurrent maladaptive gambling behavior as indicated by five (or more) of the following:
(1) is preoccupied with gambling (e.g., preoccupied with reliving past gambling experiences, handicapping or planning the next venture, or thinking of ways to get money with which to gamble)
(2) needs to gamble with increasing amounts of money in order to achieve the desired excitement
(3) has repeated unsuccessful efforts to control, cut back, or stop gambling
(4) is restless or irritable when attempting to cut dow
A part from being completely wrong, OP got modded up for this
"Addictive substances are addictive because they've evolved that way -- they exert some type of control over other creatures (like humans) by stimulating the pleasure centers of the host's brain. It's really a symbiotic (or in some cases, parasitic) relationship between two species."
What the hell are you talking about? You've anthropomorphized a SUBSTANCE or ACTIVITY.
Substances didn't "evolve" to be anything. They're substances, not "species".
But that's not the problem. The problem is that you got modded up for the most unscientific assessment of addiction I've ever seen.
"A competent hypnotist..."
OH, wow that was good for a laugh.
Next you'll be talking about compassionate conservatives...
As others have aid, the problem is that HDCP is a DRM format that will be part of all...
Actually forget it. You're right. Keep on insisting you know what the hell is going on while you miss out on the actual conversation.
"This is a US problem only. HDTV has been out in Japan and Europe since the last century."
That's wrong, from wikipedia
"On January 19, 2005, the European Industry Association for Information Systems (EICTA) announced that HDCP is a required component of the European "HD ready" Label."
"Civil rights are not prevented in any way by gun control (that is a very good thing and we want it. Don't you dare criticise our right not to get shot). CCTV has reduced crime a lot, and we don't like crime. It doesn't affect our civil rights at all. ID cards do not affect civil rights either at all."
First you said that, then you said this
"You are just blind of the problems of America"
I thought it very funny that you accuse others of being blind, while INSISTING that your civil liberties aren't being curtailed. I chuckled at the ridiculousness of your statements.
No one agrees with you. Think about that.
"4. Absolutely false. Your bank might make you present ID, for their own protection. So go to another bank, or to your mother/brother/uncle/neighbor/boss/etc. and have them cash your check. I have *never* presented ID to cash a check in my life."
Even people who know me ask for my ID, and claim that it's necessary"
I knew you were lying when you said this. People who KNOW you demand ID? Bullshit.
I realize you were trying to make a point, but don't make shit up.
And the rest of us reiterate, you're a raving nutbar.
MMMMM nutbar...
"Combine that many people with the abject levels of poverty and living conditions a good portion of the Middle East lives in, and you get the type of behavior we're seeing."
You're making excuses, and it's unseemly. Need I point out the many areas of the globe that are populated by non-muslims, living in similar conditions, that don't have the same problems?
"Muslims are upset over the simple act of depicting their prophet. Not because the prophet is depicted as violent."
I've seen you post this several times, so show me the survey you used to determine this.
YOU don't know WHY these people are protesting. Stop acting like you do.
You didn't post anything. You posted summaries of what other people heard someone say.
Don't try that silly shit, Bush's speeches are ALL archived. Post a QUOTE from the MAN HIMSELF.
And this
"had "learned that Iraq has trained al-Qaida members in bomb-making and poisons and gas."
DOESN'T HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH SADDAM HUSSEIN.
Stop trying so hard.
"I'll defend every muslim who doesn't participate in a riot and related actions until they're either all killed, or I die."
Since this isn't about them, shut up.
Or stay on topic. Your (repeated) attempts to turn genuine criticism into persecution don't hold up, aren't relevant, and don't do anything but draw attention from the actual issues.
Oh, lastly, your analogy is stupid. Australia is a country, defined by a location. Islam is a religion defined by beliefs and actions. If you can't see why "Australians" are different from "Muslims" I don't know why you're commenting in the first place.
"It won't stop me from defending those muslims who don't go around rioting at the drop of the hat."
No one is attacking them (at least not anyone worth listening to) so why do you feel a need to defend people who don't need defending?
If islam didn't have violence codified into it's literature.
But it does, and no amount of equivocation changes that.
And no, I'm not saying the same isn't true of Christianity. The difference is, literalism is alive and well in Islam, but virtually unheard of in other religions.
"very few? an inconvenience? if one person is wrongfully imprisoned, thats too many."
That's nice. Stupid and unrealstic, but nice.
"its people like you that say, oh, its a non-issue, its just an annoyance, that are our problem."
Well, Coward, I never said either of those things, so your straw man can kiss my ass. I submit it's people like YOU who insist on unattainable idealism are the real problem.
"you have to fight all battles, else they will keep taking more power"
Really? Do I need to explain why this is idiotic (and gets chumps like you labeled kooks) or do you understand why fighting ALL battles is impossible. Suggesting it just illustrates once again why your opinion shouldn't matter. You make impossible demands and attack people who disagree.
"say you're a manager of an employee"
NO, LET'S NOT. Let's stick to the fucking issue at hand (which if I recall correctly, was which of the two was worse, terrorism or the government's attempts to control it), and save your wailing for the dorm room where it belongs.
Neither. Despite what you hear from chicken littles, the truth is, terrorism is non-existent, and the mthods the federal government are using to fight it are at worst an inconvenience.
You'll get a ton of people screeching in disagreement, posting links. You can decide for yourself if those links are to examples of individuals aabusing personal power in the guies of government, or abuse by the government itself. I'll wager it's many of the former, and very few (if any) of the latter.
"Supressing free speech by arresting a person for their political views is (or was) illegal in the US."
Yahoo didn't do that. They responded to the authorities request, which was LEGAL. NOT responding to the request is ILLEGAL.
"Although, an argument could be made regarding how complicit Yahoo was in this crime, they probably did cooperate knowing fully that the information they provided would lead to what I consider a breach of a basic human right, free speech and free thought, I do not sure if it would be proper to consider them to have commited an illegal act."
Well, apparently you see the choices a "be complicit" which is legal, despite weak attempts to argue otherwise, or not "be complicit" which is DEFINITELY illegal, regardless of your position on free speech.
"but you have to admit it's rather heavily implied."
I read what they write, not what I THINK they MEAN in their writing. You should try it.
The only thing implied is that straight white cristian males were invovled. Anything else is YOUR bias coming to light.
Stop assuming that how you interpret something is the truth. You were wrong here, and instead of doing the adult thing, and admitting you jumped the gun because of your prejudice, you blame the poster because YOU DIDN'T UNDERSTAND HIM.
That's what 5 year olds do. Take some responsibility for yourself, and just admit you opened your mouth without knowing what you were talking about.
But you won't. You kind never does.
"If I can't go have sex with little girls in Asia, why should Yahoo be permitted to rape journalism there?"
Because in the case of having sex with little girls, that's ILLEGAL HERE. In the case of cooperating with authorities to in your words "rape journalism", that's NOT ILLEGAL here.
It may be wrong, but it's not illegal.
What a terrible analogy.
"In later postings, he talks about his mother in presense tense and very much alive"
Post that then you pathetic piece of garbage.
It's bad enough your life is so empty that you troll ME (a DEMOCRAT) on slashdot, but making shit up about my mom is just sad.
You're a liar, and if you and I met in an alley you know you'd change your fucking tune.
"But to say he didn't connect 9/11 and Saddam is absolutely a lie."
Then it shouldn't be too hard to find a quote to support that statement. Especially whe you consider that every public remark the President of the US makes will be archived somewhere.
So find it.
"He gets money for giving his "daring" speech on the rubber chicken circuit."
And how do scientists get their money?
I realize what you're trying to say, but that particular point goes both ways, so be careful when you cast aspersions.
"But shouldn't educated people also be tolerant and respectful of other people's religous views?"
I have little tolerance for people with untreated delusions.
Get yourself some psychatric help, and I'll be as tolerant as possible. But stop acting like your maladpative behavior is a legitimate choice, and not the result of some kind of mental dysfunction.
And yes, I equated religion with mental illness, and NO I'm not kidding.
The gain that mothers get from pregnancy is offset by some other variable.