What pisses me off when the subject of prostate cancer and increased funding for research comes up, or subsidizing PSA tests, or... one of the standard responses is that it's a low priority for additional resources because "it's slow growing and you'll likely die of something else first." So it's ok to spend 20 years knowing this thing is growing inside you and that your best hope is that something else kills you first so you don't die an agonizing death. The attitude is mind-boggling and usually seems to come from people seeking to preserve funding for other gender specific cancers.
And since someone will usually bring it up, yes, I know that PSA tests have a somewhat high rate of false positives - so what, then you follow up with more or other testing to confirm the initial result.
Well if you're not asking for teachers needing to be professional published mathematicians, what was that paragraph about?
He is simply asking for someone who appreciates and understands math. Now I'm not a mathematician and while I've published papers in CS involving the use of math I don't consider them math papers (and I'm pretty sure math faculty would agree lol)... but I understand what math is and I appreciate it.
A few years back there was a letter in one of the city newspapers from a professor in one of the humanities departments at one of the local universities. I cannot remember what prompted the letter but in it he opined that people would be better off spending their time studying the beauty found in art and not the dry sterile material of mathematics. In one sentence he showed himself to be completely ignorant of what math is and the phenomenal beauty it contains. It was astounding to "hear" someone with a Ph.D. being so phenomenally ignorant and so arrogant in his ignorance. Well maybe the latter goes hand in hand with the former.
Almost all my math teachers had an understanding and appreciation of math that was typical of an arts student forced to take something like "Intro to Math for Arts Students" to get their B.A. and teaching credentials. More than once I had "discussions" with teachers only to realize part way in that there was no point because they actually didn't understand the conceptual issue I was raising. It is amazingly discouraging to have the people are supposed to be teaching you a subject mark an answer as wrong because they are too ignorant of the subject they purport to teach to be able to understand the answer presented by a student. In grade 10 I had a math teacher who did in fact have a Ph.D. in math... it was a totally different experience from any other math class,or science class for that matter, that I'd ever had to that point.
The paragraph I quote is not the truth, it's wishing for the impossible.
Well even if it is impossible, wishing for the impossible does not make it any less true. These are not mutually exclusive properties. That's something you learn along the way in math btw.
Perhaps I'm just misunderstanding you but that seems a bit pedantic. If the theory of gravity is that two masses experience an attractive force and you find a situation where that isn't true then the theory is disproved. You might then come up a with a very similar theory which will include the new behaviour but that would be, by definition, a different theory.
That's not insightful (unless one has ignored all the commentary on string theory up until know); but it is informative to many - though hopefully not to anyone with a degree in math or science. While the mod system does provide the correct quality (informative) to assign the post it wasn't used which I think is partly the result of the mod system not providing a really good set of ratings classes and the rating being display as a single quantity rather than somehow indicating the composition of the end rating.
IIRC Scientific American had an article on mapping a 3d universe onto a 2d universe and AdSn not too long ago (3 years?). IIRC the 2D3D mapping requires that space be bounded (why it needs to be AdSn). My theory is that if we just bound space well enough we will find we are actually a 1D universe appearing to be a 2D universe which appears to be a 3D universe. Of course we could simply be a scalar posing as a 1D entity. In that case I claim PI!
The use of the word bogeyman presumably being intended to imply that there is no danger, but doing so without you having to actually make that claim and then defend it. You don't seem to have learned much from history. But hey, in a land of warrant-less wiretaps, extreme rendition, government sanctioned torture etc. what could possibly go wrong with reducing yet another right to the status of revocable privilege? I'm sure things would be much better if you and your fellow travellers were in charge. You are, after all, so different from the other would be tyrants.
You still haven't addressed
There is no need for me to fall for your attempt to divert things because your claimed motivation for being a bigot does not in any way not affect the truth/falsity of the claim that you are a bigot.
You are quick to call others bigot
Actually I'm not quick to label others as bigots, in fact it is a very rare occurrence for me. However since you specifically declared yourself to have all the attributes of a bigot it's kind of hard to avoid labelling you as such. Sheesh, look in a dictionary sometime. Also you have no data on which to base your claim about my labelling others but you present it as fact - thereby indicating that little credence should be placed in any claim you make.
you should probably examine your own beliefs.
I do. Constantly. But I get the feeling you don't question yourself much, if at all.
As for my guesses being hilariously wrong, care to share?
LOL Why would I want to participate in an ad hominem attack on myself? Don't be silly.
I'm curious what upbringing could have resulted in someone so afraid of tyranny that
Ummm, one where I was taught some history, given analytical tools to observe what is going on around me and appraise the claims of others, etcetera... your comments indicate that didn't happen for you.
they are willing to turn a blind eye to wanton injustice.
Since I not only never said that but never even implied it you are once again demonstrating your willingness to promote your uninformed opinions to the status of facts and publicly present them as such. Again you are giving a clear indication of how much credence should be given to your various claims. And "wanton"? You might do better if you dialed back the hyperbole a smidgen.
Pointing out that your thinking is bigoted is not a red herring Red Flayer, it is the point. You're rationalizations attempting to justify that bigotry do not change that.
I do believe the ends justify the means.
Then you are a sad and very dangerous type of person who has failed to learn some very important lessons from history.
I do believe it is just to discriminate against individuals based on their gender
Then you are a sexist bigot. By definition. The fact that you think you have ample justification doesn't change that. Every bigot thinks they are justified and apparently you are no different. In your world people will not have a fundamental right to be free from discrimination, they will have a privilege that may be curtailed at any time the powers that be decide it is convenient to do so. Most people will understand that that would be a "bad thing" but evidently you don't get it. If fact you've stated that it will be unfair to those discriminated against but treating them unfairly is ok by you. You are a menace to a free society.
Finally, let me guess some things.
Why? Because you can't deflect me from pointing out the inherent bigotry of your attitudes so you wish to attempt a sideways ad hominem attack? And, quite aside from being hilariously wrong, the "guesses" reveal far more about you than you would probably like. You're so easily threatened and so easily stoop to stereotyping, but then everything you've said is bigoted so it isn't a real surprise - although that doesn't stop it from being really quite sad.
LOL you have clearly stated that the ends justify the means so it quite obviously is an ends justify the means situation. I'm not imagining or interpreting this in any way - this is what you have clearly stated. You can try and dress it up any way you want but the unvarnished truth, again by your own words, is that you are willing to discriminate against innocent individuals based on their gender because it will produce an outcome you want. That is the very definition of bigotry.
No, the basic point is whether or not the ends justify the means. You clearly believe in discriminating against people based on their sex. You've said so. Whether or not there is systemic discrimination (which is questionable at best) the means you choose to end the supposed discrimination are themselves bigoted. The fact that you can actually say that refusing to discriminate based on sex makes me a bigot shows how truly twisted your thinking has become.
Perhaps a little story from Aesop will help.
The Wolf and the Lamb
Once upon a time a Wolf was lapping at a spring on a hillside,
when, looking up, what should he see but a Lamb just beginning to
drink a little lower down. "There's my supper," thought he, "if
only I can find some excuse to seize it." Then he called out to
the Lamb, "How dare you muddle the water from which I am
drinking?"
"Nay, master, nay," said Lambikin; "if the water be muddy up
there, I cannot be the cause of it, for it runs down from you to
me."
"Well, then," said the Wolf, "why did you call me bad names
this time last year?"
"That cannot be," said the Lamb; "I am only six months old."
"I don't care," snarled the Wolf; "if it was not you it was
your father;" and with that he rushed upon the poor little Lamb
and ate her all up. But before she died she gasped out
So you are willing to discriminate against somebody not because of anything they did but simply because they look like the people you claim did some wrong. I'm not sure how you can get your head around that but it's bigotry in its worst form. Funny how so many will decry the evils of discrimination, real or imagined, and then turn right around and do the exact same thing themselves when it gets them something they want.
I know, it's not fair to some individuals.
Gee, ya think? But you figure it's ok to treat people unfairly as long as you get what you want. Nice set of values.
not allowing equal opportunity pretty much shatters any possibility of the American ideal
Ahhh, so in order to have equal opportunity we must discriminate against some completely innocent people and give them less opportunity. Does your head hurt at all when you say stuff like this? You know, every bigot, dictator and tyrant in history had a rationalization for the evil they were committing. Just as you do.
After all the lessons of history, all the people dying in wars fighting against it... it's truly depressing to hear people still espousing a "the ends justify the means" philosophy.
Well if I say something untrue you may have cause for complaint. My saying things in a way you're uncomfortable with isn't really a problem afaics. Do women make less money than men for equal work? Not in Canada, and especially not for younger women. Once you account for actual hours worked, seniority, education etc., specifically once you account for all the non sex differences, the difference in pay is within the margin of statistical error. That's been true for at least 15 years.
As far as the issues you are worried about, if feminism were about equality then women's studies departments would have addressed those issues long ago as well.
Maybe it would be easier to raise the possibility of innate gender differences without getting publicly shot down if you ever backed any of these claims up with some sort of effective citation..
As societies, we need to accept the fact that there are very few if any things beyond giving birth or being a wet-nurse that either gender has an inherent advantage in if both are given equal opportunity and encouragement when they are young. All or almost all "gender-specific" advantages are created by the environment in which we live.
Who told you that "fact"? I mean there are so many counter-examples one would have thought you'd have noticed.
It seems to be generally accepted that for most traits the outliers tend to be men more than women. It isn't that women, on average, are worse at X than men but that the very best (and worst) tend to be men even though the means may be equal.
However I look forward to the day when feminist organizations start demanding more recognition of violent women, moronic women, psychopathic women, child molesting women, abusive women and so on. After all women are just as capable as men at the good and the bad, right?
You know how far you will get with that? Well the old "women working full-time only make $0.60 for every dollar that men make" propaganda is still being pushed in the press. It is put forward by academics who definitely know better and published by newspapers with editors that certainly ought to know better. But the feminist revolution firmly embraces the ideal of "the ends justify the means" - as the person you are responding to here has amply demonstrated - and they will fight tooth and nail any attention being given to the idea of men being short-changed.
More than that. Thirty years ago the ratio of men to women entering 1st year university was 60/40. This was a source of outrage and of public calls for making the educational system more "girl friendly" and ending the "obvious" systemic sexism in the educational system. By ten years ago it was reversed to 40/60. But nobody complains that sexism is afoot, that the system needs to be made more "boy friendly"; in fact on the rare occasions that the issue is raised in the mainstream media usually boys are somehow blamed. At least that's the way it has been in Canada. And we still here calls to make the educational system do more for girls/women.
Ahhh of course. Certainly no reasonable person could have any problem with discriminating against someone today because they have the same skin or facial features or genitals as some group who supposedly committed some wrong sometime in the past. Hey, that person today looks the same as the past oppressor so it's ok to discriminate against them. Isn't that right Red Flayer?
The grandparent has a completely valid point. It doesn't matter if one is a geek or not, one simply can't know all the acronyms. In writing there is a common practice which is to spell out the meaning of an acronym at the point of first use in a text. Of course that assumes that the writer is interested in communicating as effectively as possible to as large an audience as possible. If you don't support that goal then sure, go ahead, deride the person who asks for clearer communication... obviously there is some way in which it is making you feel good to do that.
Most of the upper-level philosophical arguments I've seen against "bias" were usually written by scholars who just didn't realize their OWN bias. There is no such thing as an "unbiased" argument or perspective
The first time I had this idea offered up to me was many years ago as an undergraduate. The problem I found was that the patently obvious idea that human beings cannot be 100% unbiased about anything is then frequently extended by an altogether unsupported idea. This usually goes something like "I can't be unbiased so I may as well not try and I'm going to just present what I want without attempting to limit the bias." Then "teachers" in polisci/anthropology/sociology turn their courses into soapboxes to promote their own personal agendas.
I agree, academic departments are highly politicised environments.
I believe I have the right to decide what images enter my eye and what don't. If I buy a magazine I feel perfectly entitled to not look at the ads. Some magazines I feel perfectly entitled not to look at anything but the pictures.:D If the magazine is free I don't feel that negates these rights. I don't wee why the web should be any different.
Hmmm so my two patents on fire and the wheel aren't as impressive as your 47 patents on lanyards? OK, good to know.;)
BTW speaking as someone whose work has received more than one patent I can tell you that someone's name being on a patent doesn't necessarily mean they contributed in any intellectual way. They may simply have provided money. I'm not dismissing the importance of money to a design coming into existence but I'm not so sure that anyone should be listed as an inventor if they didn't make an intellectual contribution to the design.
My sincere apologies if I mistook your meaning. I can't do anything now but let my previous message stand as a response to all the naysayers who were denying the existence of ADHD.
Sorry but you are the one who doesn't understand ADHD. Many people self-medicate their ADHD with common stimulants because they've never been properly diagnosed. All the beverages named are caffeine bearing which provides the stimulation the brain needs. Nicotine does the same.
It's great that everyone is entitled to an opinion. It would be nice if they tried to make it an informed opinion. You and all the other folk here who clearly don't have a clue about ADHD should try and educate yourselves before spouting off in a public forum. And for those who won't let me say that telling someone with a disease that not only don't they have it but that the disease doesn't even exist is an actively harmful thing to do to that person.
Slashdot Mirror
Thank you for saying that.
What pisses me off when the subject of prostate cancer and increased funding for research comes up, or subsidizing PSA tests, or... one of the standard responses is that it's a low priority for additional resources because "it's slow growing and you'll likely die of something else first." So it's ok to spend 20 years knowing this thing is growing inside you and that your best hope is that something else kills you first so you don't die an agonizing death. The attitude is mind-boggling and usually seems to come from people seeking to preserve funding for other gender specific cancers.
And since someone will usually bring it up, yes, I know that PSA tests have a somewhat high rate of false positives - so what, then you follow up with more or other testing to confirm the initial result.
Well if you're not asking for teachers needing to be professional published mathematicians, what was that paragraph about?
He is simply asking for someone who appreciates and understands math. Now I'm not a mathematician and while I've published papers in CS involving the use of math I don't consider them math papers (and I'm pretty sure math faculty would agree lol)... but I understand what math is and I appreciate it.
A few years back there was a letter in one of the city newspapers from a professor in one of the humanities departments at one of the local universities. I cannot remember what prompted the letter but in it he opined that people would be better off spending their time studying the beauty found in art and not the dry sterile material of mathematics. In one sentence he showed himself to be completely ignorant of what math is and the phenomenal beauty it contains. It was astounding to "hear" someone with a Ph.D. being so phenomenally ignorant and so arrogant in his ignorance. Well maybe the latter goes hand in hand with the former.
Almost all my math teachers had an understanding and appreciation of math that was typical of an arts student forced to take something like "Intro to Math for Arts Students" to get their B.A. and teaching credentials. More than once I had "discussions" with teachers only to realize part way in that there was no point because they actually didn't understand the conceptual issue I was raising. It is amazingly discouraging to have the people are supposed to be teaching you a subject mark an answer as wrong because they are too ignorant of the subject they purport to teach to be able to understand the answer presented by a student. In grade 10 I had a math teacher who did in fact have a Ph.D. in math... it was a totally different experience from any other math class,or science class for that matter, that I'd ever had to that point.
The paragraph I quote is not the truth, it's wishing for the impossible.
Well even if it is impossible, wishing for the impossible does not make it any less true. These are not mutually exclusive properties. That's something you learn along the way in math btw.
Perhaps I'm just misunderstanding you but that seems a bit pedantic. If the theory of gravity is that two masses experience an attractive force and you find a situation where that isn't true then the theory is disproved. You might then come up a with a very similar theory which will include the new behaviour but that would be, by definition, a different theory.
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
That's not what the cat said.
That's not insightful (unless one has ignored all the commentary on string theory up until know); but it is informative to many - though hopefully not to anyone with a degree in math or science. While the mod system does provide the correct quality (informative) to assign the post it wasn't used which I think is partly the result of the mod system not providing a really good set of ratings classes and the rating being display as a single quantity rather than somehow indicating the composition of the end rating.
IIRC Scientific American had an article on mapping a 3d universe onto a 2d universe and AdSn not too long ago (3 years?). IIRC the 2D3D mapping requires that space be bounded (why it needs to be AdSn). My theory is that if we just bound space well enough we will find we are actually a 1D universe appearing to be a 2D universe which appears to be a 3D universe. Of course we could simply be a scalar posing as a 1D entity. In that case I claim PI!
Out of fear of some tyrannical bogeyman,
The use of the word bogeyman presumably being intended to imply that there is no danger, but doing so without you having to actually make that claim and then defend it. You don't seem to have learned much from history. But hey, in a land of warrant-less wiretaps, extreme rendition, government sanctioned torture etc. what could possibly go wrong with reducing yet another right to the status of revocable privilege? I'm sure things would be much better if you and your fellow travellers were in charge. You are, after all, so different from the other would be tyrants.
You still haven't addressed
There is no need for me to fall for your attempt to divert things because your claimed motivation for being a bigot does not in any way not affect the truth/falsity of the claim that you are a bigot.
You are quick to call others bigot
Actually I'm not quick to label others as bigots, in fact it is a very rare occurrence for me. However since you specifically declared yourself to have all the attributes of a bigot it's kind of hard to avoid labelling you as such. Sheesh, look in a dictionary sometime. Also you have no data on which to base your claim about my labelling others but you present it as fact - thereby indicating that little credence should be placed in any claim you make.
you should probably examine your own beliefs.
I do. Constantly. But I get the feeling you don't question yourself much, if at all.
As for my guesses being hilariously wrong, care to share?
LOL Why would I want to participate in an ad hominem attack on myself? Don't be silly.
I'm curious what upbringing could have resulted in someone so afraid of tyranny that
Ummm, one where I was taught some history, given analytical tools to observe what is going on around me and appraise the claims of others, etcetera... your comments indicate that didn't happen for you.
they are willing to turn a blind eye to wanton injustice.
Since I not only never said that but never even implied it you are once again demonstrating your willingness to promote your uninformed opinions to the status of facts and publicly present them as such. Again you are giving a clear indication of how much credence should be given to your various claims. And "wanton"? You might do better if you dialed back the hyperbole a smidgen.
Pointing out that your thinking is bigoted is not a red herring Red Flayer, it is the point. You're rationalizations attempting to justify that bigotry do not change that.
I do believe the ends justify the means.
Then you are a sad and very dangerous type of person who has failed to learn some very important lessons from history.
I do believe it is just to discriminate against individuals based on their gender
Then you are a sexist bigot. By definition. The fact that you think you have ample justification doesn't change that. Every bigot thinks they are justified and apparently you are no different. In your world people will not have a fundamental right to be free from discrimination, they will have a privilege that may be curtailed at any time the powers that be decide it is convenient to do so. Most people will understand that that would be a "bad thing" but evidently you don't get it. If fact you've stated that it will be unfair to those discriminated against but treating them unfairly is ok by you. You are a menace to a free society.
Finally, let me guess some things.
Why? Because you can't deflect me from pointing out the inherent bigotry of your attitudes so you wish to attempt a sideways ad hominem attack? And, quite aside from being hilariously wrong, the "guesses" reveal far more about you than you would probably like. You're so easily threatened and so easily stoop to stereotyping, but then everything you've said is bigoted so it isn't a real surprise - although that doesn't stop it from being really quite sad.
LOL you have clearly stated that the ends justify the means so it quite obviously is an ends justify the means situation. I'm not imagining or interpreting this in any way - this is what you have clearly stated. You can try and dress it up any way you want but the unvarnished truth, again by your own words, is that you are willing to discriminate against innocent individuals based on their gender because it will produce an outcome you want. That is the very definition of bigotry.
Perhaps a little story from Aesop will help.
The Wolf and the Lamb
Once upon a time a Wolf was lapping at a spring on a hillside, when, looking up, what should he see but a Lamb just beginning to drink a little lower down. "There's my supper," thought he, "if only I can find some excuse to seize it." Then he called out to the Lamb, "How dare you muddle the water from which I am drinking?"
"Nay, master, nay," said Lambikin; "if the water be muddy up there, I cannot be the cause of it, for it runs down from you to me."
"Well, then," said the Wolf, "why did you call me bad names this time last year?"
"That cannot be," said the Lamb; "I am only six months old."
"I don't care," snarled the Wolf; "if it was not you it was your father;" and with that he rushed upon the poor little Lamb and ate her all up. But before she died she gasped out
"Any excuse will serve a tyrant."
So you are willing to discriminate against somebody not because of anything they did but simply because they look like the people you claim did some wrong. I'm not sure how you can get your head around that but it's bigotry in its worst form. Funny how so many will decry the evils of discrimination, real or imagined, and then turn right around and do the exact same thing themselves when it gets them something they want.
I know, it's not fair to some individuals.
Gee, ya think? But you figure it's ok to treat people unfairly as long as you get what you want. Nice set of values.
not allowing equal opportunity pretty much shatters any possibility of the American ideal
Ahhh, so in order to have equal opportunity we must discriminate against some completely innocent people and give them less opportunity. Does your head hurt at all when you say stuff like this? You know, every bigot, dictator and tyrant in history had a rationalization for the evil they were committing. Just as you do.
After all the lessons of history, all the people dying in wars fighting against it... it's truly depressing to hear people still espousing a "the ends justify the means" philosophy.
Well if I say something untrue you may have cause for complaint. My saying things in a way you're uncomfortable with isn't really a problem afaics. Do women make less money than men for equal work? Not in Canada, and especially not for younger women. Once you account for actual hours worked, seniority, education etc., specifically once you account for all the non sex differences, the difference in pay is within the margin of statistical error. That's been true for at least 15 years.
As far as the issues you are worried about, if feminism were about equality then women's studies departments would have addressed those issues long ago as well.
Maybe it would be easier to raise the possibility of innate gender differences without getting publicly shot down if you ever backed any of these claims up with some sort of effective citation..
You mean the way you did?
As societies, we need to accept the fact that there are very few if any things beyond giving birth or being a wet-nurse that either gender has an inherent advantage in if both are given equal opportunity and encouragement when they are young. All or almost all "gender-specific" advantages are created by the environment in which we live.
Who told you that "fact"? I mean there are so many counter-examples one would have thought you'd have noticed.
It seems to be generally accepted that for most traits the outliers tend to be men more than women. It isn't that women, on average, are worse at X than men but that the very best (and worst) tend to be men even though the means may be equal.
However I look forward to the day when feminist organizations start demanding more recognition of violent women, moronic women, psychopathic women, child molesting women, abusive women and so on. After all women are just as capable as men at the good and the bad, right?
You know how far you will get with that? Well the old "women working full-time only make $0.60 for every dollar that men make" propaganda is still being pushed in the press. It is put forward by academics who definitely know better and published by newspapers with editors that certainly ought to know better. But the feminist revolution firmly embraces the ideal of "the ends justify the means" - as the person you are responding to here has amply demonstrated - and they will fight tooth and nail any attention being given to the idea of men being short-changed.
More than that. Thirty years ago the ratio of men to women entering 1st year university was 60/40. This was a source of outrage and of public calls for making the educational system more "girl friendly" and ending the "obvious" systemic sexism in the educational system. By ten years ago it was reversed to 40/60. But nobody complains that sexism is afoot, that the system needs to be made more "boy friendly"; in fact on the rare occasions that the issue is raised in the mainstream media usually boys are somehow blamed. At least that's the way it has been in Canada. And we still here calls to make the educational system do more for girls/women.
Ahhh of course. Certainly no reasonable person could have any problem with discriminating against someone today because they have the same skin or facial features or genitals as some group who supposedly committed some wrong sometime in the past. Hey, that person today looks the same as the past oppressor so it's ok to discriminate against them. Isn't that right Red Flayer?
The grandparent has a completely valid point. It doesn't matter if one is a geek or not, one simply can't know all the acronyms. In writing there is a common practice which is to spell out the meaning of an acronym at the point of first use in a text. Of course that assumes that the writer is interested in communicating as effectively as possible to as large an audience as possible. If you don't support that goal then sure, go ahead, deride the person who asks for clearer communication... obviously there is some way in which it is making you feel good to do that.
Most of the upper-level philosophical arguments I've seen against "bias" were usually written by scholars who just didn't realize their OWN bias. There is no such thing as an "unbiased" argument or perspective
The first time I had this idea offered up to me was many years ago as an undergraduate. The problem I found was that the patently obvious idea that human beings cannot be 100% unbiased about anything is then frequently extended by an altogether unsupported idea. This usually goes something like "I can't be unbiased so I may as well not try and I'm going to just present what I want without attempting to limit the bias." Then "teachers" in polisci/anthropology/sociology turn their courses into soapboxes to promote their own personal agendas.
I agree, academic departments are highly politicised environments.
I believe I have the right to decide what images enter my eye and what don't. If I buy a magazine I feel perfectly entitled to not look at the ads. Some magazines I feel perfectly entitled not to look at anything but the pictures. :D If the magazine is free I don't feel that negates these rights. I don't wee why the web should be any different.
Hmmm so my two patents on fire and the wheel aren't as impressive as your 47 patents on lanyards? OK, good to know. ;)
BTW speaking as someone whose work has received more than one patent I can tell you that someone's name being on a patent doesn't necessarily mean they contributed in any intellectual way. They may simply have provided money. I'm not dismissing the importance of money to a design coming into existence but I'm not so sure that anyone should be listed as an inventor if they didn't make an intellectual contribution to the design.
My sincere apologies if I mistook your meaning. I can't do anything now but let my previous message stand as a response to all the naysayers who were denying the existence of ADHD.
You know you really don't have a clue. Go talk to a few adults diagnosed with ADHD and ask them if it is imaginary.
Sorry but you are the one who doesn't understand ADHD. Many people self-medicate their ADHD with common stimulants because they've never been properly diagnosed. All the beverages named are caffeine bearing which provides the stimulation the brain needs. Nicotine does the same.
It's great that everyone is entitled to an opinion. It would be nice if they tried to make it an informed opinion. You and all the other folk here who clearly don't have a clue about ADHD should try and educate yourselves before spouting off in a public forum. And for those who won't let me say that telling someone with a disease that not only don't they have it but that the disease doesn't even exist is an actively harmful thing to do to that person.