I'm in a similar situation.. I have a lot of social anxiety and can't read people, but my son is actually autistic (according to two sets of tests administered by autism specialists; we're in the process of getting him in to see an actual MD to get the official diagnosis), and there's a difference between autism and shy/awkwardness. My son only recently started greeting people, whereas he used to say hello/goodbye only to inanimate objects. When we take him to the park, he doesn't want to play on the jungle gym because he'd rather stare at the wood chips. Luckily he's not a stickler for schedules, though.
I was wondering, what type of therapy did you get for your daughter? ABA therapy isn't covered by insurance in my state, and I'm curious as to the outcome for children who only get speech or occupational therapy.
Well, they've shown a strong convergence in the symptoms that we're calling "autism" that are distinct, though are often found along with mental retardation. Autism often occurs alongside mental retardation, but not always, and an autistic person may have an overall IQ between vegetable and super genius. It's a specific deficit in communication and social intelligence, as opposed to a general intelligence classification.
I admit I don't know exactly who was appointed by whom, but generally speaking a right wing judge is going to go for the right winger, and a left wing judge is going to go for a left winger. The idea that judges are truly impartial if ridiculous. And as far as why Gore wouldn't have let the spending get out of control, it's because "tax and spend" liberals tend to *tax* when they spend, as opposed to Republicans who tend to leave the next guy holding the bill. The only exception since I've been alive was Bush 1, who lost support from his party because he did the responsible thing and raised taxes when he needed to.
You do realize that Bush V. Gore was NOT a perfect split based on the party who selected the judges, right? The mere fact that you described it that way indicates you've never actually read the decision.
Politicians don't always appoint people who agree with them. SCOTUS even explicitly stated that their decision could never be used as precedent. What does that tell you?
You want an uglier truth? You give the sociopaths another dollar of taxes, they'll spend two, and laugh at you all the while.
I'm not so sure about that. Shortly after WWII we had a debt that was close to 150% of GDP, and higher taxes brought that down to almost nothing. And only 12 years ago we ran a surplus. If a few unelected SCOTUS judges had happened to be appointed by different presidents back in 2000, we wouldn't have run up this debt so much, and would have had enough credit to bail ourselves out of this mess.
Even Warren Buffet claims all the deductions and tax breaks he can, all while pointing out that he could and should pay more. If he, or I, or Fluffeh just gave money to the federal government, it would have no measurable effect on the overall deficit or direction of government spending.
On the other hand.. it would make Warren Buffet's claims more credible. If he should pay more taxes, and doesn't.. it hurts his argument severely to spend a lot of money on tax accountants to pay less in taxes. The extra voluntary payments aren't covering for other people's selfishness. Its fucking covering one person's share of the supposed extra costs we should all be paying. "Do as I say, not as I do" isn't a strong argument for most people. If we should pay more and don't, making us selfish, then not paying more when he could makes Buffet both selfish and hypocritical.
Buffet's argument isn't that rich people should pay more because they want to, but that rich people should be forced to pay more because the tax burden is shifted away from the rich, who can afford to pay more, to the middle class, who can't afford to pay more.
Of course the ugly truth is that we need to raise taxes on *everyone* to get our finances in order, but that should be a big hike for the rich and a small hike for everyone else.
I got my minor in philosophy, so I learned to bullshit pretty well.
And you'll always have a place in Sales, Customer Service, or tech Support:) You only get politics as an option if you majored in BS and failed Ethics & Morality.
Nah, I use my powers for good. One nice benefit of knowing bullshit, though, is also knowing how to spot it.
Maybe I'm weird, but I got more of a college education outside of college than in it.. For instance, my school dropped their compiler design course due to lack of enrollment, so I bought a textbook and taught myself. I learned physics and linear algebra through MIT OCW (though I admit I didn't retain much of either after 5 years). I got a C in discrete math because the prof refused to give the homework until 5-10 minutes after the bell rang, and I didn't have time to stick around that long, but I practice my knowledge of algorithms by doing Project Euler problems..
I'm not calling college a total wash.. I got my minor in philosophy, so I learned to bullshit pretty well. All the phil students thought i was weird though since the only area of philosophy i found interesting was epistemology. I also learned how to not be a dick, and how to talk to girls. But as far as my major was concerned, I would have been better off with a stack of books and some peace and quiet.
CIOs shouldn't be tech savy. They should be business process and information savy. Likewise, CTOs shouldn't be tech savy. They should be business process foresight savy. CIOs and CTOs have underlings to be tech savy.
I dunno, I think there's inherent value in knowing enough to know when your underlings are bullshitting you.
Speaking as a card-carrying geek, my experience has been that geeks are no more likely to be good coders than any other group. Maybe encouraging the comuc book nerds to go into this field isn't a winning strategy after all.
That might be a fairly accurate statement. Look at the weather data for the last 5 years, compared to the entire century preceding them. I've experienced multi-week blizzards in Portland (where it rarely dips below 40 in the winter), and record heat in OK (over 100 days over 100 degrees last summer, and spring came 2 months early this year). This is admittedly anecdotal, but something here is not right.
Your comment spawned an idea for me. I wouldn't have a problem with people not getting vaccinated if they could be held liable for the results of their negligence. So if someone decides that their child won't get vaccinated and my child can't (for age or medical reason) but then contracts some horrible disease from the child who's parent decided not to have them vaccinated then the parent who chose to not have their child vaccinated would have to pay the bills. If my child dies then charge the parent who decided to not have the child vaccinated with negligent homicide. This would allow anyone to be a stupid as they want (we don't have many laws against people doing stupid things but that is increasing) but as soon as it affects someone else then there is recourse. Given that one can sue anyone for anything (whether it holds up in court is different) I am surprised someone hasn't tried this already to test the legal waters.
It's a nice thought, but there's a few major flaws..
1. ) It would be really hard to prove beyond a reasonable doubt which person gave your kid a communicable disease,
2. ) Sending some moron to jail doesn't make up for a dead child, and
3. ) You're expecting someone who is already acknowledged to be irrational (not immunizing their child regardless of the fact that their reasons for doing so were revealed to be based on a hoax) to act rationally
Wait until your infant who is too young to get the immunization gets whooping cough from some kid whose idiot parents decided not to vaccinate. Without full buy-in, we don't get herd immunity.
Just who are you to determine how much someone should get paid for whatever job they take? I'd like to know what job you have and how much you get paid and let me see what you own, I'll also decide what you do and do not need to live a life of such means to match your skills.
Well, I'm a federal employee, FV-I, making the minimum for my pay band ($68k/year), working as a lead developer and project manager. Go look it up if you care, since my income is a matter of public record. I work to support myself and my family, but I could make a *lot* more at one of the local oil companies, assuming I was willing to vote how I'm told, participate in employee prayer sessions, and never, ever say anything disparaging about the state of our energy system in this country.
If you want to know how much a federal MD makes, they usually get hired on here as FV-L or FV-M, which starts around $120k and tops around $170k. Apparently you think that's grossly unfair, but I think that's a reasonable salary for the field, and quite a bit more than you can make anywhere else with the same level of difficulty.
You think all the pharma companies do it because they care, deep down?
That statement is silly. Whatever motivates people to provide good health care of another is fact.
It doesn't matter if you don't like why. When you dive in the psyche for a lot of people, regardless if they're doing something nice or not, often when you find their reasons for doing so, you won't like it.
Ideally, sure it would be nice if people's motivation was simply 'to be better and care for others as a human being'.
Wake up, we're not in a fantasy world.
What makes you think greedy doctors provide good health care? I can't speak for every field, but as a software developer I can tell you that 95% of the devs I worked with that didn't like coding were also not good at coding. I have to imagine it's the same way with every profession, including medicine.
If your only motivator to go into medicine is to make money, then you have no business being an MD. Medical professionals should a.) recieve *adequate* compensation for their skills (likely resulting in a middle to upper middle class income, depending on their job and capabilities), and b.) should not be charged ridiculous amounts of money up front for their education. Unfortunately, since we do not properly socialize health or higher education in the US, we have a feedback loop which incentivizes all the wrong things.
Slashdot Mirror
I'd argue that FORTRAN is lower level than C, since its syntax is built around the assembly language of an early computer.
Ron Paul is too old to be digital.
Ah, but this is his son, Rand Paul. Rand Paul is to Ron Paul as Bush II is to Bush I.
I'm in a similar situation.. I have a lot of social anxiety and can't read people, but my son is actually autistic (according to two sets of tests administered by autism specialists; we're in the process of getting him in to see an actual MD to get the official diagnosis), and there's a difference between autism and shy/awkwardness. My son only recently started greeting people, whereas he used to say hello/goodbye only to inanimate objects. When we take him to the park, he doesn't want to play on the jungle gym because he'd rather stare at the wood chips. Luckily he's not a stickler for schedules, though.
I was wondering, what type of therapy did you get for your daughter? ABA therapy isn't covered by insurance in my state, and I'm curious as to the outcome for children who only get speech or occupational therapy.
Well, they've shown a strong convergence in the symptoms that we're calling "autism" that are distinct, though are often found along with mental retardation. Autism often occurs alongside mental retardation, but not always, and an autistic person may have an overall IQ between vegetable and super genius. It's a specific deficit in communication and social intelligence, as opposed to a general intelligence classification.
I admit I don't know exactly who was appointed by whom, but generally speaking a right wing judge is going to go for the right winger, and a left wing judge is going to go for a left winger. The idea that judges are truly impartial if ridiculous. And as far as why Gore wouldn't have let the spending get out of control, it's because "tax and spend" liberals tend to *tax* when they spend, as opposed to Republicans who tend to leave the next guy holding the bill. The only exception since I've been alive was Bush 1, who lost support from his party because he did the responsible thing and raised taxes when he needed to.
You do realize that Bush V. Gore was NOT a perfect split based on the party who selected the judges, right? The mere fact that you described it that way indicates you've never actually read the decision.
Politicians don't always appoint people who agree with them. SCOTUS even explicitly stated that their decision could never be used as precedent. What does that tell you?
You want an uglier truth? You give the sociopaths another dollar of taxes, they'll spend two, and laugh at you all the while.
I'm not so sure about that. Shortly after WWII we had a debt that was close to 150% of GDP, and higher taxes brought that down to almost nothing. And only 12 years ago we ran a surplus. If a few unelected SCOTUS judges had happened to be appointed by different presidents back in 2000, we wouldn't have run up this debt so much, and would have had enough credit to bail ourselves out of this mess.
On the other hand.. it would make Warren Buffet's claims more credible. If he should pay more taxes, and doesn't.. it hurts his argument severely to spend a lot of money on tax accountants to pay less in taxes. The extra voluntary payments aren't covering for other people's selfishness. Its fucking covering one person's share of the supposed extra costs we should all be paying. "Do as I say, not as I do" isn't a strong argument for most people. If we should pay more and don't, making us selfish, then not paying more when he could makes Buffet both selfish and hypocritical.
Buffet's argument isn't that rich people should pay more because they want to, but that rich people should be forced to pay more because the tax burden is shifted away from the rich, who can afford to pay more, to the middle class, who can't afford to pay more. Of course the ugly truth is that we need to raise taxes on *everyone* to get our finances in order, but that should be a big hike for the rich and a small hike for everyone else.
Like the subject says: good! Hopefully, more states will continue to do the same. I'm really tired of seeing of people gleefully dodging sales tax.
Really? It's the only tax I don't mind people dodging, because it's the only (major) tax that hurts you more the less you make.
I got my minor in philosophy, so I learned to bullshit pretty well.
And you'll always have a place in Sales, Customer Service, or tech Support :) You only get politics as an option if you majored in BS and failed Ethics & Morality.
Nah, I use my powers for good. One nice benefit of knowing bullshit, though, is also knowing how to spot it.
Maybe I'm weird, but I got more of a college education outside of college than in it.. For instance, my school dropped their compiler design course due to lack of enrollment, so I bought a textbook and taught myself. I learned physics and linear algebra through MIT OCW (though I admit I didn't retain much of either after 5 years). I got a C in discrete math because the prof refused to give the homework until 5-10 minutes after the bell rang, and I didn't have time to stick around that long, but I practice my knowledge of algorithms by doing Project Euler problems..
I'm not calling college a total wash.. I got my minor in philosophy, so I learned to bullshit pretty well. All the phil students thought i was weird though since the only area of philosophy i found interesting was epistemology. I also learned how to not be a dick, and how to talk to girls. But as far as my major was concerned, I would have been better off with a stack of books and some peace and quiet.
51% still trust Fox News with their lives, and the other 49% would die for the Huffington Post.
+ or - 51% margin of error... What other baseless statistics can you pull out of your ass?
Statistics are meaningless.. 47% of all Americans know that.
51% still trust Fox News with their lives, and the other 49% would die for the Huffington Post.
Why stop here, they could also fire the Clearcase and Clearquest teams while they are at it.
They did, and created RTC. What a piece of crap that is.
Tech savvy != Understanding technology
They should be business process first, technology second. Not the other way around.
No, a CIO or CTO is inherently a cross-class occupation. You need to know your business *and* your tech. One or the other will not do.
CIOs shouldn't be tech savy. They should be business process and information savy. Likewise, CTOs shouldn't be tech savy. They should be business process foresight savy. CIOs and CTOs have underlings to be tech savy.
I dunno, I think there's inherent value in knowing enough to know when your underlings are bullshitting you.
Speaking as a card-carrying geek, my experience has been that geeks are no more likely to be good coders than any other group. Maybe encouraging the comuc book nerds to go into this field isn't a winning strategy after all.
That might be a fairly accurate statement. Look at the weather data for the last 5 years, compared to the entire century preceding them. I've experienced multi-week blizzards in Portland (where it rarely dips below 40 in the winter), and record heat in OK (over 100 days over 100 degrees last summer, and spring came 2 months early this year). This is admittedly anecdotal, but something here is not right.
Your comment spawned an idea for me. I wouldn't have a problem with people not getting vaccinated if they could be held liable for the results of their negligence. So if someone decides that their child won't get vaccinated and my child can't (for age or medical reason) but then contracts some horrible disease from the child who's parent decided not to have them vaccinated then the parent who chose to not have their child vaccinated would have to pay the bills. If my child dies then charge the parent who decided to not have the child vaccinated with negligent homicide. This would allow anyone to be a stupid as they want (we don't have many laws against people doing stupid things but that is increasing) but as soon as it affects someone else then there is recourse. Given that one can sue anyone for anything (whether it holds up in court is different) I am surprised someone hasn't tried this already to test the legal waters.
It's a nice thought, but there's a few major flaws..
1. ) It would be really hard to prove beyond a reasonable doubt which person gave your kid a communicable disease,
2. ) Sending some moron to jail doesn't make up for a dead child, and
3. ) You're expecting someone who is already acknowledged to be irrational (not immunizing their child regardless of the fact that their reasons for doing so were revealed to be based on a hoax) to act rationally
Wait until your infant who is too young to get the immunization gets whooping cough from some kid whose idiot parents decided not to vaccinate. Without full buy-in, we don't get herd immunity.
Please tell me you're trolling..
Actually - making money should be your ONLY motivator in being a doctor.
If you want to save people, go be a minister.
I'm really glad you're not my doctor. Who knows what kind of ineffective, overly expensive treatment you'd recommend just to line your pockets.
Just who are you to determine how much someone should get paid for whatever job they take? I'd like to know what job you have and how much you get paid and let me see what you own, I'll also decide what you do and do not need to live a life of such means to match your skills.
Well, I'm a federal employee, FV-I, making the minimum for my pay band ($68k/year), working as a lead developer and project manager. Go look it up if you care, since my income is a matter of public record. I work to support myself and my family, but I could make a *lot* more at one of the local oil companies, assuming I was willing to vote how I'm told, participate in employee prayer sessions, and never, ever say anything disparaging about the state of our energy system in this country.
If you want to know how much a federal MD makes, they usually get hired on here as FV-L or FV-M, which starts around $120k and tops around $170k. Apparently you think that's grossly unfair, but I think that's a reasonable salary for the field, and quite a bit more than you can make anywhere else with the same level of difficulty.
You think all the pharma companies do it because they care, deep down?
That statement is silly. Whatever motivates people to provide good health care of another is fact.
It doesn't matter if you don't like why. When you dive in the psyche for a lot of people, regardless if they're doing something nice or not, often when you find their reasons for doing so, you won't like it.
Ideally, sure it would be nice if people's motivation was simply 'to be better and care for others as a human being'. Wake up, we're not in a fantasy world.
What makes you think greedy doctors provide good health care? I can't speak for every field, but as a software developer I can tell you that 95% of the devs I worked with that didn't like coding were also not good at coding. I have to imagine it's the same way with every profession, including medicine.
If your only motivator to go into medicine is to make money, then you have no business being an MD. Medical professionals should a.) recieve *adequate* compensation for their skills (likely resulting in a middle to upper middle class income, depending on their job and capabilities), and b.) should not be charged ridiculous amounts of money up front for their education. Unfortunately, since we do not properly socialize health or higher education in the US, we have a feedback loop which incentivizes all the wrong things.