There's only a handful of you, and you're acting like obsessed lunatics.
I honestly wouldn't want to ever be washed up on the shore unconscious on an island run by you lot.
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Stanford anthropologist Tanya Luhrmann found that voice-hearing experiences of people with serious psychotic disorders are shaped by local culture – in the United States, the voices are harsh and threatening; in Africa and India, they are more benign and playful. This may have clinical implications for how to treat people with schizophrenia, she suggests.
"Our hunch is that the way people think about thinking changes the way they pay attention to the unusual experiences associated with sleep and awareness, and that as a result, people will have different spiritual experiences, as well as different patterns of psychiatric experience," she said, noting a plan to conduct a larger, systematic comparison of spiritual, psychiatric and thought process experiences in five countries.
An 83-page glossary. Containing nearly 3,000 terms.
The glossary was recently made public through a Freedom of Information request by the group MuckRock, which posted the PDF, called “Twitter shorthand,” online. Despite its name, this isn’t just Twitter slang: As the FBI’s Intelligence Research Support Unit explains in the introduction, it’s a primer on shorthand used across the Internet, including in “instant messages, Facebook and Myspace.” As if that Myspace reference wasn’t proof enough that the FBI’s a tad out of touch, the IRSU then promises the list will prove useful both professionally and “for keeping up with your children and/or grandchildren.” (Your tax dollars at work!)
All of these minor gaffes could be forgiven, however, if the glossary itself was actually good. Obviously, FBI operatives and researchers need to understand Internet slang — the Internet is, increasingly, where crime goes down these days. But then we get things like ALOTBSOL (“always look on the bright side of life”) and AMOG (“alpha male of group”) … within the first 10 entries.
Among the other head-scratching terms the FBI considers can’t-miss Internet slang:
AYFKMWTS (“are you f—— kidding me with this s—?”) — 990 tweets
BFFLTDDUP (“best friends for life until death do us part) — 414 tweets
BOGSAT (“bunch of guys sitting around talking”) — 144 tweets
BTDTGTTSAWIO (“been there, done that, got the T-shirt and wore it out”) — 47 tweets
BTWITIAILWY (“by the way, I think I am in love with you”) — 535 tweets
DILLIGAD (“does it look like I give a damn?”) — 289 tweets
DITYID (“did I tell you I’m depressed?”) — 69 tweets
E2EG (“ear-to-ear grin”) — 125 tweets
GIWIST (“gee, I wish I said that”) — 56 tweets
HCDAJFU (“he could do a job for us”) — 25 tweets
IAWTCSM (“I agree with this comment so much”) — 20 tweets
IITYWIMWYBMAD (“if I tell you what it means will you buy me a drink?”) — 250 tweets
LLTA (“lots and lots of thunderous applause”) — 855 tweets
NIFOC (“naked in front of computer”) — 1,065 tweets, most of them referring to acronym guides like this one.
PMYMHMMFSWGAD (“pardon me, you must have mistaken me for someone who gives a damn”) — 128 tweets
SOMSW (“someone over my shoulder watching) — 170 tweets
WAPCE (“women are pure concentrated evil”) — 233 tweets, few relating to women
YKWRGMG (“you know what really grinds my gears?”) — 1,204 tweets
In all fairness to the FBI, they do get some things right: “crunk” is helpfully defined as “crazy and drunk,” FF is “a recommendation to follow someone referenced in the tweet,” and a whole range of online patois is translated to its proper English equivalent: hafta is “have to,” ima is “I’m going to,” kewt is “cute.”
One would hope the people tasked with investigating federal crimes could decipher that kind of thing through context clues … but the Internet is a vast, dizzying place! And both the law and law enforcement, as many, many recent cases have attested, lag painfully behind technology and technology culture — to the detriment of people in those spaces who need help.
So while I might wanna (want to) LMSO (laugh my socks off) over this glossary, it’s actually kind of serious, when you TOTT (think on these things).
California moved one step closer to requiring all smartphones sold in the state to come pre-equipped with antitheft technology in hopes of curbing street robberies that target the pricey devices.
The state Senate approved a bill Thursday that requires kill switches to be activated on smartphones, a mandate that the wireless industry said is unnecessary, although major cell phone manufacturers Apple and Microsoft removed their opposition this week.
The bill's author, San Francisco Democratic Sen. Mark Leno, said he's pleased the bill passed, particularly because it failed its first vote in the Senate last month after several Democrats voted against it. The bill needed 21 votes to pass and garnered 19 ayes on April 24 when it was first heard in the Senate.
On Thursday, the bill was sent to the Assembly after a 26-8 vote.
"This is about making our communities safe," Leno said. "A crime that didn't exist several years ago is rampant in our neighborhoods. Those caught and convicted refer to it as apple picking, because it's such low fruit and it's so easy to do, and we want to make sure that convenience is taken away."
Leno said SB962 would deter cell phone thefts by allowing owners to remotely render their device inoperable if it is lost or stolen, which limits the resale value of a phone.
Many law enforcement agencies and organizations backed the bill, including the California District Attorneys Association, California Police Chiefs Association and BART police.
San Francisco District Attorney George Gascón, one of the leaders pushing for the kill switch, welcomed the vote as a major step forward in a "very hard-fought battle."
3 million robberies
He said that within about three years of implementation, the shutoff feature should make a substantial dent into the problem of smartphone robberies, which hit 3 million people in the U.S. last year.
He said preliminary figures for last year show that smartphones and other mobile devices accounted for 67 percent of San Francisco's robberies.
"We're talking about an epidemic," he said, which had been fueled by an industry that has profited by victimization to the tune of $38 billion or more annually based on replacement of lost or stolen phones.
Oakland leaders called Leno's bill an innovative strategy to reduce robberies and burglaries. According to police data, 84 percent of armed robberies in Oakland so far this year have involved a cell phone.
Oakland Councilman Dan Kalb, who has pushed for the bill in Sacramento and was the victim of an armed robbery, said that nothing short of a mandatory kill switch would make a difference.
A legal mandate
"Voluntary efforts are all nice, fine and dandy, but they don't deter anything," Kalb said, referring to the wireless industry's plan for opt-in antitheft technology, versus the requirements in Leno's bill that would put the onus on the user to opt out.
Sean Whent, Oakland's interim police chief, said a kill switch would make cell phones much less attractive to thieves.
"One of the things robbers frequently ask is: 'Where is your cell phone? Give me your cell phone.' That seems to be the driving force," Whent said.
The wireless industry association, CTIA, said consumers should determine whether they want to have the antitheft technology on their phones.
CTIA announced last month that the wireless industry would offer optional, reversible kill switches starting next year as a way to deter thieves, a move some saw as a way to thwart Leno's legislation. CTIA said its national antitheft approach is better than inconsistent patchwork solutions by individual states.
Industry is opposed
"Given the breadth of action the industry has voluntarily taken, it was unnecessary for the California Senate to approve SB962, which would mandate a specific form of antitheft functionality," said Jamie Hastings, CTIA vice president of external and state affairs. "State-by-state technology mandates stifle innovation to the ultimate detriment to the consumer."