Sirona

This is very immature and has absolutely nothing to do with sexism but a strategic cover up of sour grapes by means of diversion. This offends me profoundly because you've made little attempt to be ambiguous in your accusation and yet you've not the valiance to even include my name; it's gutless and reflects poorly only on yourself. Rest assured that I am not wanting to win a popularity contest and am indifferent to my rank. I've nothing to prove and you're right about one thing only, I'm inferior to most of you when it comes to scientific knowledge, but I am here to expand on my existing knowledge. I try my best to use evidence-based research when presenting my ideas and don't post unless I have some preliminary knowledge in the area. If you believe my posts are lacking, by all means give them a thumbs down; receiving preferential treatment would be degrading to anyone. I want to be here as an equal and should be able to without having to pretend I am someone I'm not to receive respect and recognition. Why should I not have a profile picture of myself? Some like anonymity and I like transparency; I'd like to know what you all look like too, not because I am interested in any possible sexual pursuit but because I like familiarity. Interaction and connection with people has always been the most important thing for me and that extends to online relationships too. What upsets me most about this post is that you're undermining my integrity without knowing any information about me at all and you've attempted to humiliate me publicly further. I'm not going to disappear with your passive-aggressive attempt at bulling, I'm not going to change my display picture or my mannerisms and I suggest if you have any further problems with me you put it in a PM.

Absolutely. I remember I had a math teacher who was wrong about almost everything; he even made us tear out the answers in the back of our textbooks because apparently they too were wrong. That's when a smart phone came in handy in the classroom the most because you can't always trust state education either

It was love at first listen with these guys; that love hasn't dwindled.

and you didn't learn from your mistake?

I'm being optimistic? I prefer to call it realistic. Locating our originators? First Armageddon and now Prometheus; I'm sensing a suspicious trend here. Hmmm.

Hah, you're fiesty and so right! I must say, I think fear and force is a more effective method of conversion than pseudoscience; I personally prefer the latter because it's entertaining. But it's a joke that becomes old fast.

I completely agree. I was terrified to swim in the ocean after almost drowning in a rip (I was swept out to sea, #dontcometoaustralia#bondirescueisntalie) and had a panic attack every time I tried to swim for a few years. I got over it by doing it anyway until I got over the fear. Hah, I remember after reading 'The Man Who Ate Everything' by Jeffrey Steingarten, I too decided it was very important to become the perfect omnivore. Sadly, this was a very easy journey for me since the only food I didn't eat was rock melon. Needless to say, rock melon no longer tastes like castor oil lip gloss to me anymore.

It has changed a lot; there is a positive side to it too. I've only discussed the negative impact thus far, but there is a lot of benefit to growing up online. For as long as I can remember I've spoken to people from all over the world, different ages, races, experiences all together in the one forum. My generation is a lot more tolerant as a result of internet communication. I've always had the answers to anything I wanted to ask at my finger tips. I didn't have to rely on the knowledge I could obtain from my family, teachers or my local library and that definitely provides endless learning opportunities if you are curious enough to seek online. I remember my dad had these leather encyclopedias (a lot of you guys will remember these) that he had kept since he was a youth in the 60s and 70s and whenever I had an assignment he would force me to use these and I remember the information was so out of date and limited compared to the research I did online. I suppose the encyclopedias were important to him in retrospect, but I always found the information so limited. I suppose the real answer lies in how we use technology, to what extent and to what purpose.

I think we're saying the same thing, EdEarl Having a television set might not have been enough to keep you from playing outside, but what about if you also had internet (free online games, porn, forums, live streaming, chat), console games (including virtual) and smart phones? I think that would change the picture a little. Technology I agree is not the sole cause, but it plays a significant factor in children and young adults replacing the real world with the virtual world. Parents have a major responsibility as well as schools and communities so that technology is an extension rather than replacement. You also want to make sure they're involved in meaningful tasks when using technology too. A friend of mine has a company which teaches children how to program and about robotics; they have many incursions available for schools to book and that's one example of how schools can make it meaningful.

I absolutely agree that it's also about making money. Often the advertorials are written by PR companies and just contain the journalists name since they're more than happy put their name on anything. A lot of the time they're in the 'recommended' feed and appear suspiciously like a legitimate news story and attempt to use quotes and/or research data to promote something. However, the research is often misleading, inaccurate, ambiguous or exaggerated. In Australia you can lodge complaints through the Advertising Standards Bureau. Surprised it took taxation fraud to twist your arm into not eating Burger King, Phi. They must be filling the patties with MSG or something in the US

Firstly, awesome! Root beer definitely needs to make a come back. Secondly, the fact that they went outside is more the point rather than what they got up to. If you go outside, how many kids and teenagers do you see around? I don't see many. I believe it's difficult to develop necessary social skills you need to make connections with people and form and maintain relationships if you spend most of your time on your phone and computer; I throw myself out there as an example. I didn't meet guys to have burgers and make out in cars, instead I lived through my pixel character killing on one screen and flirting in clan chat; sure my parents are grateful that I never had sex with 'real' boys but I am paying the price for it now as my social skills are seriously lacking. I am not saying that progress with technology is bad; I'm simply saying it should not replace belonging to real communities and having real friends otherwise we are just going to isolate ourselves from the outside world. At school we were either on our phones or laptops; we didn't run around, jump rope, play hand ball or any of the things my parents generation did. So, although I think it's important to use technology as part of your everyday life, it should be an extension rather than your primary source of entertainment and socialisation.

We are not alone, there are many meaningful relationships you can form other than one with God. People always seem to look for God when they feel helpless, don't want to accept responsibility, want to shift the blame from themselves. People make wars and our own intervention will be the only 'help' or salvation there is. People naturally think they live in the most difficult times because that's what you know, yet we have no natural predators, we live in the least violent century, we have technology to make our lives more convenient, most of us are protected from the harshness of the environment. God will not save us, education and tolerance can go a long way though (and it has).

What about WWI? Over 17, 000, 000 people died, approximately 20, 000, 000 wounded. Approximately 60, 000, 000 deaths in WWII. Was that Armageddon?

People have been killing each other well before the bible and Christianity. Despite what the tabloids suggest, war and violence has declined considerably in modern times; if you'd any idea of history the you would know the death tolls from the war in Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria are a lot less than previous wars. Here is a discussion: http://www.npr.org/2011/12/07/143285836/war-and-violence-on-the-decline-in-modern-times Why does there need to be unrealistic and unlikely explanations such as Armageddon? Just pick up a military history textbook for or google the death tolls for previous wars.

For those that have time to read it, here is a special report from The Conversation 'Understanding Islamic State'. It's a collation of the whole 'IS' articles published by various contributors to The Conversation including Greg Barton (Deakin University) and Carole Cusack (University of Sydney). The first article in the collation is about ISIS goals. Here is the full report: http://e13735798026cf28f792-96809452408ef41d0e4fdd00d5a5d157.r35.cf2.rackcdn.com/2016-03-11-understanding-islamic-state-ebook/understanding_islamic_state_ebook.pdf

Thank you for the suggestions. I've quickly looked up ffmpeg because I've not heard of it previously and it looks promising (free is a bonus too). Yeah, I could use iMovie for editing but I'd need to use another program to record the game first. I've heard Screenflow is decent, but it's expensive ($99). Thank you though for the tip, I wouldn't have thought to use iMovie to edit.

Perhaps some of you could give me some feedback on your experience with screen recorders. I've not recorded any of my live games but would like to for personal reflection and to improve my strategy. I know Fraps is a popular software for capturing video but it's only available for Windows XP, Vista, and Windows 7. A friend has recommended Movavi and it seems that it has some extra features too such as video editing and recording live streams. Does anyone have experience with Movavi or any other video and screen recorders for Mac? I'm inexperienced with such software and would appreciate some preliminary advice before downloading.

Good point, but not always. Many people identify with a religion but they are not practicing. For example, their religion is 'inherited' from their family and/or community and they believe in God, but do not actively attend church, worship, follow rituals, pray, etc. This is quite common where I am from. Hah, not that I ever see Mormons, but if I do, I'll always picture this

I personally think there is little value in reading the daily news; I think it goes without saying that it's purpose is to persuade you into agreeing with particular opinions by disguising them as the beliefs of wider society. The purpose generally is not to 'tell the truth' but a device to affect change, whether it's social or political. Of course the information is going to be biased; since when are opinions not biased? They're aiming at the average Joe to control what they're thinking about and influence their decisions. Obviously in the ideal world our media would be free from corruption and there would be transparency and accountability. However, most intelligent people would consider the reliability of their news source just like they would with anything else they read by considering; who wrote it, what is it actually saying, when was it written, why was it written, personal interests/investments, motivation, etc. Not all news sources are equal either, for example I would not even waste my time reading anything by Fairfax media or News Corp. I personally don't believe it's important to know what's happening each day. I prefer to read the Conversation for example which provides evidence-based news and focuses on in-depth analysis (written by academics). I personally find feature stories a lot more useful. Even then, you need to be cautious, however. My point is that source is important and knowing which ones are going to be (more) reliable should play a critical factor in what you choose to read/listen to.

What I meant was that they are perceived by people who don't support killing and war as misguided, however, even so it doesn't make them 'bad' per se. However, I would like to think that people aren't as simplistic as grouping people into 'good' and 'bad' categories; it's more likely that they see that the ideology they support is wrong, hence being misguided and not 'bad'. They kill because that's what they've signed up to do and perhaps some do at first think in such simplistic terms such as 'good' and 'bad', however, through experience they would realise it isn't so. There is a lot of literature to support this also.

Nice, Junky. Also, saying that they've made a giant breakthrough isn't saying much either. There have been many drugs that have had promising results on animal studies but have failed in human studies. It may be years before it is approved (if it ever is).

I don't want to give you inaccurate information. It simply isn't feasible for me to make suggestions because I don't know anything about you. If you feel you may have ASD then you should perhaps see your General Practitioner first then get a referral to see a psychologist or psychiatrist who specialises in ASD.

Exactly. Majority of pharmaceutical research is not reproduced. This is also like saying that if teleporting was invented then your car would lose value. This is just what happens, technology improves and if something is more effective or functions better than that's a good thing.

You're just delaying progression in conversations when you don't do a little research of your own; you end up wasting time asking pointless questions that could have been answered with some preliminary research. It's not about honesty vs. dishonesty but coming into a discussion prepared. To answer your question in short, no it can't be cured, however, it can be managed and there are a variety of treatments available.

I often wonder if you're being facetious or you genuinely have difficulty communicating with others; it's difficult to tell online. ASD is often misdiagnosed by professionals because it has a diverse symptom presentation, therefore I doubt watching 2 short videos is going to be a fair assessment. You also don't need to have all the symptoms.