Comments of the Day:
"I told my boss that the Internet told me to stare out the window"–gristle
Does life online give you 'popcorn brain'?
If you can't stop checking online to see what's popping, you may be losing gray matter and the ability to read people's faces, studies show. Constant Internet stimulation may change the physiology of the brain and make it difficult to live in the slower "real world."
Many CNN.com readers pointed out the irony of having to read the story on the Internet. Some were skeptical of the research.
CleaverName said, "This could be true or not. Plos One is an OK journal with an impact factor of 4.3. The study involved only 18 people (not a great population size). Go and actually read the paper, their conclusions are not that strong."
YesorNot said, "What's wrong with being online? Don't you love reading a book? Online can be similar, and you get to interact with that 'book' of contacts. Go gardening if you feel like, go sunbathe, go do other chores. All new things just need moderation and relearning of habits. So, call it popcorn brain or whatever you want, perhaps your brain while gardening was a 'potato brain'?"
Others, however, thought the story was spot on.
maiden239 said, "Popcorn brain? It's called addiction. Too many adult and children are addicted to the Internet, Facebook, texting, their iPhone, etc. I saw a woman driving yesterday with both hands on her phone texting. I'm not sure if she had her knee on the steering wheel. Stupid and dangerous behavior!"
TheRealAnser said, "So many of my friends are addicted to their devices, and picking one up in the middle of conversation in second nature."
jbill said, "I once went on a date with a girl. She constantly checked her phone, returned texts, browsed on Facebook, and I thought maybe she was not having a good time with me. But then when the date was over, I went home and checked my Facebook on her status. It said, 'Having a great time with Bill at this authentic Morrocan restaurant.'
OrUnreality said, "I had a good friend come to stay with me for the night. She got a call from another friend and spent the whole night on the phone. I went to bed and left her on the phone. Some visit. We need to start being taught phone, smartphone, Internet etiquette. Some people get so involved with the people that aren't around that they can't be involved with the life they have right there."
Burbank said, "I was in a local pub a couple of months ago. It was a Friday night and the young set were all sitting there texting each other instead of talking, it was unnaturally quiet, other than the music on the juke. Not only that, all of these 21-35 year olds were overweight and there were about 30 of them in the pub at that time. This was in the Bay area where people are supposedly more health conscious. – NOT!"
Splitting along conservative-liberal lines, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against two women who were claiming damages from a generic drug company for a severe side effect. The ruling apparently involved "pre-emption" of state law.
Many CNN.com readers were outraged over what appeared to be a preference for big business.
lkaslkus said, "Another Supreme Court ruling in favor of Big Business at the expense of the common American. More people will suffer complications and some will die. All bow before the almighty dollar. Thank you Conservatives."
kershawdw said, "This ruling is as absurd as the one where the Supreme Court nullified limits on corporate donations to campaigns. Gotta love conservatives, destroying America from the top down."
Barzoo42 said, "The risk of taking generics vs. name brand medicines has just gone up immeasurably."
DP57 said, "This particular side effect has been about since the mid 1980's when I was a medical resident. The ruling is absolutely outrageous!"
absherlock said, "I think this would be a great time to change the Supreme Court's perscription plan to require generics whenever available."
Not so fast, said other readers. hoosbill2 said, "Calm down, people. This is a ruling about existing law. The law left this loophole open and it's not up to the Supreme Court to close it. That's Congress's job. Congress can fix the law and this ruling goes away."
Wzrd1 said, "The court found that the generic drug manufacturers cannot change their labels at will but must go through a change process with the FDA. The point of the case before the SCOTUS was: state law required the companies to violate federal law by changing their drug warning labels without FDA approval. When there is a conflict between state law and federal, state always loses, per Article 6 of the Constitution."
AndrewFriet asked, "Where in this mess is the responsibility of those who prescribed the drug long term? Shouldn't they have known the history of the patient and advised on the use of the drug? It isn't the fault of a drug companies' warning label but the medical professional that gives out the drug."
Raum said, "This is an issue of public safety that goes beyond party affiliation. Write your congressmen to fight this law that allows such impunity!"
Sixty-five million dollars had been an acceptable settlement for Tyler and Cameron Winklevoss and Divya Narendra, the original partners of Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg, but they later appealed it, saying it was based on undervalued stock. They dropped the appeal in documents filed Wednesday.
Most CNN.com readers thought they were lucky to get the $65 million.
boredin6022 said, "This is total BS! How can we expect 2 young men to live on $20 million each after taxes?? I really hope they can survive on such a small amount."
dogtowndave said, "I hate to be this way, but it's kind of gratifying to see the rich kids who usually just use and dump the techies not get their way for once."
zachmasterza said, "Wow, it took these guys a long time to realize that they were already rich."
nishbuster said, "I had a similar idea which was vaguely something about people interacting with computers, so I think I'll sue - maybe I'll get a mil or two?" Useyerhead said, "Dreaming of software and actually developing it are not the same thing."
But not everyone agreed. am9999999 said, "I didn't see the movie so I'm not biased like most people on here. Typically the people that come up with the idea are the highest rewarded people; they thought of it. Looks like Zuckerberg just stole the idea and ran with it. It seems like, as usual these days, the twins are hated simply for being rich."
Nikore said, "I love it how we all saw the Facebook movie, so of course we're all experts on every fact of the case. It's not like the movie had any creative interpretation or anything, right?"
Do you feel your views align with these commenters' thoughts? Post a comment below or sound off on video.
Compiled by the CNN.com moderation staff. Some comments edited for length or clarity.