Absolutely ! Subtitle support in VLC is abysmal. New lines created before old ones are removed overwrite the old ones instead of neatly "stacking" vertically. It frequently spews time control information whenever it encounters something it can't understand, and the fonts that it uses to render are at times, bloody awful !
I believe that behavioural problems as a result of withdrawal count as physical symptoms. Some people like to say that marijuana isn't addictive. While I tend to agree with this stance, I also accept that most people do in fact consider it an addictive substance. Some draw the line between "mentally" and "physically" addictive by saying that unlike heroin, which can make you actually sick, give you shivers etc... marijuana just creates behavioural problems as a result of the withdrawal.
But where do you draw the line ? If I choose to suddenly give up pot after two years of hardcore use every day, I not only get cranky, irritable, moody, aggressive, psychotic, but I might even get a headache, suffer from insomnia, and feel the compulsion to substitute another addiction in order to ease my "pain".
Surely these things are physical symptoms. Headache and insomnia definitely are. Mood swings and psychotic behaviour, while mentally-based, are still physical in the sense that they can be measured in terms of brain chemistry, and would show up on various brain scans which measure chemical and electrical activity.
All these symptoms can be associated with internet withdrawal just as easily as marijuana withdrawal. I guarantee you that if you measured the brainwave/electrical activity of a person's brain who was suffering from internet withdrawal, you would see abnormal activity. Does this not qualify as a "physical symptom" of withdrawal ? Just because it doesn't make you vomit, does not make it any less a "physical symptom".
There's a big difference between "psychological" and "physiological" symptoms and I think it's important to realise that withdrawal from something like the internet can cause both just as easily as withdrawal from marijuana, amphetamines etc.
Having said all that, the topic of this article is not whether the internet is addictive, but whether that addiction is a MEDICAL CONDITION. The author clearly indicates that the internet's addictive potential is assumed, and poses the question of medical basis as an extension of this.
Many people in this thread have tried to suggest that labeling it as a medical condition immediately makes it a "disorder" or "disease" and therefore something which we are incapable of having any control over. This is NOT a valid conclusion to reach ! What is being asked is whether the simple fact of being addicted to the internet has an effect on you which is measurable via medical criteria. If an addictive habit or pastime affects you MEDICALLY, then it is a Medical Condition to be addicted to this activity.
Noone apart from the trolls are trying to say that just because we label internet addiction as a medical condition that it will instantly become an EXCUSE for any particular type of behavior, or that we are recognising it as something unavoidable that we have no control over such as a disease.
This is why alcoholism is NOT a disease or disorder, but ADD IS. ADD is something the affected person has no control over. They can try and control how it affects them, but they cannot simply choose to "turn off" the condition, or more importantly, to NOT GET the condition in the first place.
Because alcoholism is an addiction, we cannot "turn it off" once we have it. That's what addiction means. However, we can choose not to suffer the addiction in the first place simply by not engaging in an activity (excessive drinking) which will cause ourselves to BECOME addicted. Regardless of whether some people are more PRONE to addiction or not, the fact is, we can still avoid becoming addicted in the first place by simply not drinking, or not drinking excessively (where excess is defined as the point at which the addiction occurs). Similarly, we can choose NOT to become addicted to the internet by limiting our exposure to it, choosing how we use it, and by monitoring how it influences the rest of our life.
A disease is something we cannot choose to avoid. A disease is something over which we
Many people are well aware of what platform the first virii originated on, since once you know, it's a bit of a no-brainer. To many others it comes as a huge surprise due to all the FUD that is spread about Apple by non-users who think that it's all very mysterious and full of voodoo.
As shown on this timeline http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0872842.html you can see that the first virii were written for the Apple I, II and III machines. It was a full FIVE YEARS later before the first virus to infect PC's was found in the wild. Why ? Because Apples were the only affordable personal computers of that time. No home user could afford a PC, and PC users in large corporations had better things to do with their time.
This to a large extent reinforces the theory that virii will be written for the most common, accessible platform of the time. Forgetting for the moment the security model of OS X which makes virii rather more like a manually run trojan without any significant ability to spread, you could ask: "Why aren't more DECENT proof of concept virii written for OS X ?", and even more significantly; "Why weren't more real virii written for Mac OS 7-9, which didn't share this fantastic unix security model and therefore were ripe for virii ?"
The answer is in the first paragraph. The more expensive and inaccessible the hardware is to bored kids, the less likely they will write virii for it. Kids don't use Macs. They certainly don't buy them. Maybe their rich parents might give them a powerbook but the fact is: these kids probably have better things to do with their time than the bored PC tinkerers who assemble computers out of $5 components found in any bargain bin or even rubbish tip.
Is this the reason that there's no good virii for OS X ? No. Primarily the reason for that is it's security. Or is it ? Perhaps primarily it's that the people who use expensive Apple hardware have real jobs, they often work freelance and therefore have a stronger work ethic, and they just plain don't have the inclination to destroy things in the same way that PC users do. Apple users create. Windows users destroy.
Why ? This will be a contentious assertion, but here goes. Let's say that Apple users live in Beverley Hills and Windows users live in Compton, just for the sake of comparing their income and lifestyles. Kids in Beverley Hills aren't as likely to go vandalising things and getting involved in street thuggery as those from Compton. They find higher-class ways to act out. They do it with their rich parties and such, rather than just cruising the streets beating up on randoms.
The reason why this particular proof-of-concept "virus" is a bit of a joke, and why there are so few other proof of concept virii is that there's just not enough bored kids around who own Macs. This is changing, but not exactly snowballing. Ultimately, the fact is, Apple users already made a conscious choice to choose a platform designed for productivity and not games. Productivity and the creation of destructive viruses are just not a common marriage. Most Mac users are above that.
You can't slander a company, merely an individual. Both slander and defamation do not apply to companies, only individuals personal reputations. (IANAL)
That's funny... coz if you've had any experience with other platforms you'd know that that problem exists on all platforms.
It does that using NFS on linux (which is the worst offender imho.. only NFS requires reboots to get rid of nfs "locks")
It does it using SMB on windows (or anything)
and it does it using AFP on Mac !
You can't escape it. Sadly it's hard to strike a balance between allowing LAN/WAN filesystems to not time out too soon, but to not prompt you every five seconds to confirm if a link is still active. This is just the way network file systems are in most OS's.
"why not just move straight to Linux and save the complete redesign and recoding? Oh, that's right, because Windows is THE standard in software. Remember that NT has been around for longer than 95 has, and it only overtook the 9x line with XP, despite NT being a much better OS than 95."
It saddens me when the pace of linux development can be used as an UNfavourable example. An example of what Microsoft should NOT do rather than what it should.
Why is it the case ? It is the case because that is the nature of open source, community based ventures. Would it take Apple the same amount of time to build a Windows API onto OS X ? Of course not ! Many people believe they have already done so.
It's sad though that someone would defend Microsoft's product model and development schedule because it's "better" than linux's.
There are other "cathedral" based developers out there who don't take ten years to get a real product out there you know ? It's not always fruity linux coders churning out years of beta releases. We do have some real companies who develop real applications and don't take ten years.
In the area of OS's, we pretty much only have Apple to look up to, but there are other fine developers out there too. Adobe do such a fine job coding photoshop that it uses less ram than my text editor, but noone is saying "look, Adobe can do it... why can't MS ?"
In the long run, there are few players in the OS sector and they are all hampered by something. Some by market share, some by lack of funding, and some by sheer bloat and ineptitude.
If only they could learn from each others' mistakes.
... because if they had actually ASKED a few students, the students would probably have said:
a) "What ? No DVD burner ? How the hell am I supposed to earn beer money by pirating things I've downloaded on school internet ?!"
b) "No remote ? GTF out of here, now how am I supposed to cycle through my slideshow of err.. botany pictures from bed with one hand ?!"
Good on them for trying, but I think this machine is basically a decoy so that they can say the iMac line-up "starts at $899", because taking out something like a dvd writer is just going to make everyone want the next model up. This machine is more likely to find a home with housewives who want to browse the web without all the spyware and virii.
Oh wow.. someone's reported a flaw in an Apple product ? Apple products must be shit !
I'll tell you people who can't put 2 and 2 together and get 4 why it's news when an Apple product has even a minor flaw....
It's because noone gives a RAT'S ARSE when any other manufacturer has a problem.
A laptop made by anyone else has to EXPLODE before anyone gives a shit.
Why is it not newsworthy if a Dell mouse button isn't designed perfectly ? Because it's just a cheap-ass Dell. Noone cares. People expect that !
Despite all the nutters who run around saying "oh Apple only has 6% market share therefore they're irrelevant", they are forgetting that it is 6% of a market dominated by thousands and thousands of vendors. And the old excuse of "Oh, but it's a separate platform" doesn't apply anymore does it ? Hello ? wakey wakey ? If they have that much market share of the Intel market, that makes them a serious force to be reckoned with !
Well, all that and the fact that Apple are renowned for making quality products. It's a testament to Apple that their machines don't have to explode to make headlines... they just have to have a slightly "squishy" trackpad button a small percentage of machines. Wow. Crucify them !
Slashdot Mirror
Absolutely ! Subtitle support in VLC is abysmal. New lines created before old ones are removed overwrite the old ones instead of neatly "stacking" vertically. It frequently spews time control information whenever it encounters something it can't understand, and the fonts that it uses to render are at times, bloody awful !
"No physical symptoms" you say ?
I believe that behavioural problems as a result of withdrawal count as physical symptoms. Some people like to say that marijuana isn't addictive. While I tend to agree with this stance, I also accept that most people do in fact consider it an addictive substance. Some draw the line between "mentally" and "physically" addictive by saying that unlike heroin, which can make you actually sick, give you shivers etc... marijuana just creates behavioural problems as a result of the withdrawal.
But where do you draw the line ? If I choose to suddenly give up pot after two years of hardcore use every day, I not only get cranky, irritable, moody, aggressive, psychotic, but I might even get a headache, suffer from insomnia, and feel the compulsion to substitute another addiction in order to ease my "pain".
Surely these things are physical symptoms. Headache and insomnia definitely are. Mood swings and psychotic behaviour, while mentally-based, are still physical in the sense that they can be measured in terms of brain chemistry, and would show up on various brain scans which measure chemical and electrical activity.
All these symptoms can be associated with internet withdrawal just as easily as marijuana withdrawal. I guarantee you that if you measured the brainwave/electrical activity of a person's brain who was suffering from internet withdrawal, you would see abnormal activity. Does this not qualify as a "physical symptom" of withdrawal ? Just because it doesn't make you vomit, does not make it any less a "physical symptom".
There's a big difference between "psychological" and "physiological" symptoms and I think it's important to realise that withdrawal from something like the internet can cause both just as easily as withdrawal from marijuana, amphetamines etc.
Having said all that, the topic of this article is not whether the internet is addictive, but whether that addiction is a MEDICAL CONDITION. The author clearly indicates that the internet's addictive potential is assumed, and poses the question of medical basis as an extension of this.
Many people in this thread have tried to suggest that labeling it as a medical condition immediately makes it a "disorder" or "disease" and therefore something which we are incapable of having any control over. This is NOT a valid conclusion to reach ! What is being asked is whether the simple fact of being addicted to the internet has an effect on you which is measurable via medical criteria. If an addictive habit or pastime affects you MEDICALLY, then it is a Medical Condition to be addicted to this activity.
Noone apart from the trolls are trying to say that just because we label internet addiction as a medical condition that it will instantly become an EXCUSE for any particular type of behavior, or that we are recognising it as something unavoidable that we have no control over such as a disease.
This is why alcoholism is NOT a disease or disorder, but ADD IS. ADD is something the affected person has no control over. They can try and control how it affects them, but they cannot simply choose to "turn off" the condition, or more importantly, to NOT GET the condition in the first place.
Because alcoholism is an addiction, we cannot "turn it off" once we have it. That's what addiction means. However, we can choose not to suffer the addiction in the first place simply by not engaging in an activity (excessive drinking) which will cause ourselves to BECOME addicted. Regardless of whether some people are more PRONE to addiction or not, the fact is, we can still avoid becoming addicted in the first place by simply not drinking, or not drinking excessively (where excess is defined as the point at which the addiction occurs). Similarly, we can choose NOT to become addicted to the internet by limiting our exposure to it, choosing how we use it, and by monitoring how it influences the rest of our life.
A disease is something we cannot choose to avoid. A disease is something over which we
Many people are well aware of what platform the first virii originated on, since once you know, it's a bit of a no-brainer. To many others it comes as a huge surprise due to all the FUD that is spread about Apple by non-users who think that it's all very mysterious and full of voodoo.
As shown on this timeline http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0872842.html you can see that the first virii were written for the Apple I, II and III machines. It was a full FIVE YEARS later before the first virus to infect PC's was found in the wild. Why ? Because Apples were the only affordable personal computers of that time. No home user could afford a PC, and PC users in large corporations had better things to do with their time.
This to a large extent reinforces the theory that virii will be written for the most common, accessible platform of the time.
Forgetting for the moment the security model of OS X which makes virii rather more like a manually run trojan without any significant ability to spread, you could ask: "Why aren't more DECENT proof of concept virii written for OS X ?", and even more significantly; "Why weren't more real virii written for Mac OS 7-9, which didn't share this fantastic unix security model and therefore were ripe for virii ?"
The answer is in the first paragraph. The more expensive and inaccessible the hardware is to bored kids, the less likely they will write virii for it. Kids don't use Macs. They certainly don't buy them. Maybe their rich parents might give them a powerbook but the fact is: these kids probably have better things to do with their time than the bored PC tinkerers who assemble computers out of $5 components found in any bargain bin or even rubbish tip.
Is this the reason that there's no good virii for OS X ? No. Primarily the reason for that is it's security. Or is it ? Perhaps primarily it's that the people who use expensive Apple hardware have real jobs, they often work freelance and therefore have a stronger work ethic, and they just plain don't have the inclination to destroy things in the same way that PC users do. Apple users create. Windows users destroy.
Why ? This will be a contentious assertion, but here goes. Let's say that Apple users live in Beverley Hills and Windows users live in Compton, just for the sake of comparing their income and lifestyles. Kids in Beverley Hills aren't as likely to go vandalising things and getting involved in street thuggery as those from Compton. They find higher-class ways to act out. They do it with their rich parties and such, rather than just cruising the streets beating up on randoms.
The reason why this particular proof-of-concept "virus" is a bit of a joke, and why there are so few other proof of concept virii is that there's just not enough bored kids around who own Macs. This is changing, but not exactly snowballing. Ultimately, the fact is, Apple users already made a conscious choice to choose a platform designed for productivity and not games. Productivity and the creation of destructive viruses are just not a common marriage. Most Mac users are above that.
You can't slander a company, merely an individual.
Both slander and defamation do not apply to companies, only individuals personal reputations.
(IANAL)
Really ? there's no excuse is there ?
That's funny... coz if you've had any experience with other platforms you'd know that that problem exists on all platforms.
It does that using NFS on linux (which is the worst offender imho.. only NFS requires reboots to get rid of nfs "locks")
It does it using SMB on windows (or anything)
and it does it using AFP on Mac !
You can't escape it. Sadly it's hard to strike a balance between allowing LAN/WAN filesystems to not time out too soon, but to not prompt you every five seconds to confirm if a link is still active. This is just the way network file systems are in most OS's.
"why not just move straight to Linux and save the complete redesign and recoding? Oh, that's right, because Windows is THE standard in software. Remember that NT has been around for longer than 95 has, and it only overtook the 9x line with XP, despite NT being a much better OS than 95."
It saddens me when the pace of linux development can be used as an UNfavourable example. An example of what Microsoft should NOT do rather than what it should.
Why is it the case ? It is the case because that is the nature of open source, community based ventures. Would it take Apple the same amount of time to build a Windows API onto OS X ? Of course not ! Many people believe they have already done so.
It's sad though that someone would defend Microsoft's product model and development schedule because it's "better" than linux's.
There are other "cathedral" based developers out there who don't take ten years to get a real product out there you know ? It's not always fruity linux coders churning out years of beta releases. We do have some real companies who develop real applications and don't take ten years.
In the area of OS's, we pretty much only have Apple to look up to, but there are other fine developers out there too. Adobe do such a fine job coding photoshop that it uses less ram than my text editor, but noone is saying "look, Adobe can do it... why can't MS ?"
In the long run, there are few players in the OS sector and they are all hampered by something. Some by market share, some by lack of funding, and some by sheer bloat and ineptitude.
If only they could learn from each others' mistakes.
... because if they had actually ASKED a few students, the students would probably have said:
a) "What ? No DVD burner ? How the hell am I supposed to earn beer money by pirating things I've downloaded on school internet ?!"
b) "No remote ? GTF out of here, now how am I supposed to cycle through my slideshow of err.. botany pictures from bed with one hand ?!"
Good on them for trying, but I think this machine is basically a decoy so that they can say the iMac line-up "starts at $899", because taking out something like a dvd writer is just going to make everyone want the next model up. This machine is more likely to find a home with housewives who want to browse the web without all the spyware and virii.
Oh wow.. someone's reported a flaw in an Apple product ? Apple products must be shit ! I'll tell you people who can't put 2 and 2 together and get 4 why it's news when an Apple product has even a minor flaw.... It's because noone gives a RAT'S ARSE when any other manufacturer has a problem. A laptop made by anyone else has to EXPLODE before anyone gives a shit. Why is it not newsworthy if a Dell mouse button isn't designed perfectly ? Because it's just a cheap-ass Dell. Noone cares. People expect that ! Despite all the nutters who run around saying "oh Apple only has 6% market share therefore they're irrelevant", they are forgetting that it is 6% of a market dominated by thousands and thousands of vendors. And the old excuse of "Oh, but it's a separate platform" doesn't apply anymore does it ? Hello ? wakey wakey ? If they have that much market share of the Intel market, that makes them a serious force to be reckoned with ! Well, all that and the fact that Apple are renowned for making quality products. It's a testament to Apple that their machines don't have to explode to make headlines... they just have to have a slightly "squishy" trackpad button a small percentage of machines. Wow. Crucify them !