Interesting Links for 25-04-2012
Apr. 25th, 2012 12:00 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
andrewducker- In Therapy Forever? Enough Already
- I read about the woman who gave her 7-year-old a breast-augmentation voucher, and now the screaming in my head won't stop.
- Even positive stereotypes can hinder performance (removes locus of control)
- If you remember floppy disks then this will make you feel old...
- Edinburgh is getting a new satellite town
- 7 Commonly Corrected Grammar Errors (That Aren't Mistakes)
- Tor drop DRM on their ebooks. Charlie Stross points out how this in their best interests.
- People On Welfare Less Likely To Do Drugs Than Those With Jobs
- Peter Jackson's 48fps Presentation Of 'The Hobbit' At CinemaCon Gets A Mixed Response
- Sex workers give advice on how to have a relationship with them
Tags:
- advice,
- charlesstross,
- children,
- computers,
- counselling,
- drm,
- drugs,
- ebooks,
- edinburgh,
- fps,
- grammar,
- headdesk,
- history,
- housing,
- links,
- movies,
- performance,
- plasticsurgery,
- psychology,
- scotland,
- sex,
- society,
- stereotypes,
- thehobbit,
- therapy,
- usa,
- video,
- welfare,
- women,
- work
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2012-04-25 12:12 pm (UTC)And audio tape drives for ZX Spectrums! Can you even buy blank tapes any more?
I have a 256gb SSD in my laptop now and it is insanely fast. But give it another, what, 25 years? It'll probably be regarded as similarly ridiculously ancient and slow.
Here's hoping....
no subject
Date: 2012-04-25 12:22 pm (UTC)It looks like Amazon still sell cassette tapes, which slightly boggles me.
And yeah, I remember punching holes in my 5.25" floppies, because the actual disks were double sided, but the manufacturers had sold them as single sided, so they could sell them off cheaper!
People On Welfare Less Likely To Do Drugs Than Those With Jobs
Date: 2012-04-25 12:48 pm (UTC)People with very little money less likely to do drugs than those with reliable incomes - imagine that!
Re: People On Welfare Less Likely To Do Drugs Than Those With Jobs
Date: 2012-04-25 01:26 pm (UTC)But as the general impression seems to be "People who take drugs are all dole scum who lie around all day doing nothing", pointing out that actually most of them are just ordinary people who fancy some fun/relaxation is good.
Re: People On Welfare Less Likely To Do Drugs Than Those With Jobs
Date: 2012-04-25 02:46 pm (UTC)I wonder what it will take to change the minds of the rest of the world.
The stereotype is so pervasive that it amazes me. Everybody seems to have some anecdote.
I imagine there is a correlation between having a life that sucks and wanting to take a vacation from your life. Also people who live in poverty are also more likely to live in neighbourhoods where there is very little privacy so if even one ever uses drugs or alcohol, it is more visible.
Re: People On Welfare Less Likely To Do Drugs Than Those With Jobs
Date: 2012-04-25 02:52 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-04-25 06:46 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-04-25 11:16 am (UTC)I don't think my therapist is "bad' because it's taking time and she certainly tells me things to do and doesn't just leave me with open ended questions.
It's just an ongoing process. And it does help. I know that I no longer get into pointless fights with my parents. I haven't been kicked out of a bar in years. I don't sit around wondering if people are trying to kill me. I don't create drama out of thin air anymore.
That means I've gotten better, but it doesn't mean I'm fixed yet either. I still get panic attacks (less then I used to, but still.) I still sometimes need independent advice about issues with Rome Girl (and other women.)
I'd honestly have been really dubious of any shrink who had told me they could solve my shit in 10 sessions. I like that there is a mixture of her telling me what to do when it's either really important or I ask her a direct question about it. But, I also like that she's letting me slowly build up new healthier ways to deal with things on my own.
The approach my shrink has taken may be long term but it has demonstrably made my life better.
For 30 euros a week I think that's a good deal.
no subject
Date: 2012-04-25 11:41 am (UTC)But (from my understanding) a lot of people are just a bit miserable because they're stuck, and could be helped to move out of their rut reasonably quickly, but have therapists who are more interested in hanging on to them than actually helping them get better.
no subject
Date: 2012-04-25 01:00 pm (UTC)It's even apparent to strangers from across the ocean that you are better than you were a year ago. Some therapists see patients for a really long time with no noticeable result.
no subject
Date: 2012-04-25 01:41 pm (UTC)That's cool!
no subject
Date: 2012-04-25 02:05 pm (UTC)There is less talking of the things that frighten or upset you.
You mention self-medicating (and glorification of) drinking and smoking much less.
You now talk a lot more about 'healthier' things like your relationships, your work, books, movies, and TV.
And even when these things upset you it is in a normal way. There is less paranoia and your responses are much more appropriate and healthy.
The recent health issues in your family and the bullshit they brought up might have once sent you into a tailspin, but you got just pissed off and worried enough and got over it.
You seem less afraid and more positive about your choices, work, and loves. Your therapist is still a gem.
no subject
Date: 2012-04-25 02:12 pm (UTC)(Trust me I do still self medicate with booze and cigs, though not seven days a week anymore. Monday night is TV night and I stay in and watch a week's worth of television instead.)
no subject
Date: 2012-04-25 02:30 pm (UTC)Maybe someday you'll be eating healthy food, using those smokeless cigarettes, and going for bike rides.
Or not :)
no subject
Date: 2012-04-25 02:50 pm (UTC)Fuck whoever invented the wheel.
(I'd probably switch to smokeless cigarettes if they changed the laws so I could smoke them in bars and on planes. As it is my local tabac charges 10 euros for one of them and it's very unclear how long that one would last and/or where I'd be able to smoke it. If smokeless cigs become both more cost effective and practical I have nothing against them. For me the difference between a tobacco cig and an e-cig is as marginal as the difference between a shot of vodka and a shot of tequila. But since the smoke Nazis have so far treated e-cigs exactly the same way as regular cigs the tobacco shops here have to charge an arm and a leg for them because there is no volume profit for them like there is on regular cigs and there is no clear advantage to them yet.)
no subject
Date: 2012-04-25 11:29 am (UTC)But yeah. The author made the (I assume correct) observation that lots of people need something more decisive but get stuck in a rut of not really making any progress and not really expecting to. And recognises that some people have long-term issues that do need constantly propping up. But because those people never really came to him for therapy, doesn't necessarily know how _many_.
no subject
Date: 2012-04-25 11:37 am (UTC)That's pleasingly balanced.
It's probably true (and something that I, and most people I know forget) that most people DON'T care about e-book portability and durability, and hence don't care about DRM*. But I'm very glad that someone is catering to my market!
We should probably all rush out and buy a bunch of Tor books!
* FWIW, I'd be totally happy with a special purpose device for reading non-portable e-books provided I had any expectation that it would GO ON working and not randomly delete my books, die with no way to back up my books, stop being produced with no alternative made available, etc, etc. I bought a lot of paper books from amazon, even I likely shouldn't have done, because it was convenient, and because I could always start buying elsewhere if I needed.
no subject
Date: 2012-04-25 11:43 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-04-25 11:47 am (UTC)Hm. It feels very strange to do that, since I'm so used to actually owning books. But it would fit my reading model well.
no subject
Date: 2012-04-25 12:18 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-04-25 12:21 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-04-25 11:39 am (UTC)I mapped a network drive to B: once. I felt very adventurous! :)
no subject
Date: 2012-04-25 11:44 am (UTC)Hm. I haven't previously given in to the new use of "literally". But maybe it's time to do so??
Another pet peeve is when people are correcting people who say "literally" to intensify something figurative, and say "you don't mean literally, you mean figuratively". NO THEY DON'T. Everyone KNOWS it's figurative. They're not trying to say it's figurative -- they're trying to say "very" or "I really mean it".
Come to think of it, what word would be best to use in place of "literally" if you want to mean "this is an analogy, but an exact one, that's not exaggerated"? "Actually"?
no subject
Date: 2012-04-25 12:16 pm (UTC)And I think that you have to go with the context. I can't think of an alternative.
no subject
Date: 2012-04-25 12:16 pm (UTC)I'm a bit of a grammar fascist even though I'm in principle trained to be a descriptivist, so I was relieved that the only one of these drums I bang is less/fewer, and even then it's reflexive, not something I care that much about any more.
I mean, some of those things I'd never do - I tend to avoid split infinitives for example - but I don't criticise them in others - to be honest, I thought even the prescriptivists had given up on split infinitives by this point...
The other old rule that I expected to see on there was the 'never end a sentence with a preposition' which, in writing at least, does I think make a person seem a little less erudite. That one I certainly correct in myself whenever I catch myself doing it.
no subject
Date: 2012-04-25 12:47 pm (UTC)I'm not sure, but I think that level of anger is what you get when people feel defensive -- when they feel sure they're right, but they feel stupid because they can't EXPLAIN why they're right, so they hope the argument will just go away. The same sort of thing where people hate Harry Potter because it's so popular, but they didn't think it was so innovative.
'never end a sentence with a preposition'
I still tend to mentally categorise rules into "those that provide some benefit, which may or may not be worth it" and "those whose benefit is solely showing that you know to follow the rules".
Eg. using usual capitalisation rather than all-caps or no-caps provides a specific benefit: it's possible to read it. So I think it's a good idea.
Eg. Capitalising random nouns is not usual so it's wise to avoid it, but only because that's what everyone else does: if we did capitalise important nouns, the language would probably be equally good.
So to me, avoiding the new use of "literally" provides some small benefit: if "literally" is used to mean both, occasionally, it will be genuinely ambiguous. Likewise, any instance of using a new word when there's a perfectly good existing word. We already have "lend" and "borrow": what's the benefit of abandoning one and using "lend" for both? But if everyone else wants to, it's probably not worth fighting over.
But I don't see the benefit of avoiding ending sentences with prepositions. It feels like a mangling of some previous rule. Did people used to leave sentences half-finished? Is it a massive overreaction to people moving a preposition to the end of a sentence when it naturally belongs with a verb at the beginning.
I don't even know -- theoretically are we "supposed" to avoid similar constructions even if it puts the preposition at the end of a clause rather than the end of a sentence? It just feels completely pointless and contrary to how English is naturally used.
I mean, so long as people prefer to write that way themselves, and not critise other people for it, I'm absolutely happy for them to do so, but I'm curious if there's an actual rule I'm misunderstanding, or not?
You literally just gave me an earworm
Date: 2012-04-25 01:49 pm (UTC)Re: You literally just gave me an earworm
Date: 2012-04-25 03:44 pm (UTC)Re: You literally just gave me an earworm
Date: 2012-04-25 03:47 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-04-25 12:15 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-04-25 12:15 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-04-25 12:16 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-04-25 02:06 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-04-26 01:13 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-04-26 10:45 am (UTC)All of a sudden you're accutely aware of the fact times change and time waits for nobody. And that those whippersnappers should get off of my lawn.
no subject
Date: 2012-04-25 03:48 pm (UTC)