Wow, just a couple of comments up someone was accused of making the slippery slope fallacy because they proposed that "first they set the minimum wage, than they make if a 'living wage', then they start calling for a maximum wage. And here you are proving that they were not guilty of a fallacy at all!
So, what you are saying is that minimum wage is already too high. At the current rate it already encourages both you and the teenager to break the law.
Actually, no it is NOT that easy. If a company purchases all of the assets of a bankrupt corporation (or the majority) it becomes liable for the bankrupt corporation's debts.
If FindTheBest is willing to spend the money on lawyers and court costs, that will not protect the patent troll. There exists a legal basis for "piercing the corporate veil". Dissolving the corporation and forming a new corporation with the same assets(in this case, patents) is a classic example of where that can happen and what that very concept was created for.
The problem with your take is that, unlike in the Post Office analogy, Comcast's customers are paying Comcast for the delivery of Netflix content. That is, rather than the sender paying for delivery, it is the recipient who pays for delivery. So, philosophically, it would be perfectly acceptable for Comcast to charge their customers extra to deliver Netflix content to them, but it is not acceptable for Comcast to charge Netflix for that delivery (Of course, Netflix is popular enough that a large number of Comcast's customers would throw a fit if they tried that). What Comcast is trying to do here is hide from their customers that they are charging them more to get Netflix by forcing Netflix to collect the money.
You mean the people who predicted that if we allowed the people who thought the VA was the perfect model for healthcare to control everyone's healthcare we would end up with a system where bureaucrats who did not care if a specific person lived or died would decide if you lived or died? Are you trying to say that your healthcare through the United Health HMO was worse than what the VA was providing?
When evolution is contrasted with creationism it does...or to be more precise, when evolution is contrasted with creationism it must include an explanation of where life came from in the first place (Otherwise it is merely being contrasted to a specific creation story, not to the idea of creationism). The explanation most evolutionists choose is spontaneous generation.
I see, you believe that there is some sort of basic physics that says that in a complex system the properties of one element of that system determine how that system will behave, without any need to explore how that element interacts with all of the other elements in the system. I take great joy in telling you that climate is much more complicated than that. If it was that simple, weather prediction would also be very simple. In addition, if it were that simple, we could already see a direct correlation between the increase in CO2 and the increase in temperature. Instead we see an increase in temperature that occurs in fits and starts over an extended period of time, while CO2 has increased steadily over that period of time. If it was based purely on fundamental physics we would expect to see temperatures rise steadily in some kind of sync with the rise in CO2.
The person I replied to said the following: "Bullshit. Democrats are crap, but when it comes to ruling for the interest of moneyed interests there's no comparison."
Yet, you responded to me, not to them. Which tells me that you are just as partisan as you claim that I am. For the record, I do not particularly like the Republicans, but they at least pretend to believe that people can take care of themselves. The Democrats openly proclaim that the "little people" need them, the elites, to take care of them.
The summary misses an important point, while at the same time mentioning it: " Climate models haven't explained this seeming contradiction to anyone's satisfaction" The entire idea of AGW is based on climate models, yet these models have repeatedly failed to actually explain certain, specific observed phenomena. This leads people to question basing policy that will cost a large amount of money and freedom on those models. When you want to give bureaucrats authority to determine what I can and cannot do based on models which have with significant frequency failed to predict real-world phenomena, I am going to question the wisdom of such actions.
You are absolutely correct that there is no comparison when it comes to ruling for the moneyed interests. All you have to do is look at which party the moneyed interests make their home. Let's see, John Corzine, Tom Steyer. George Soros, Warren Buffet, Bill Gates, to name just a few.
I have not checked Piketty's data myself, but I have seen it criticized by people who agree with his conclusions. I have also seen his comeback to a criticism that went into detail about the mistakes in his calculations. That response was essentially, "No, you are wrong." Piketty did not actually address the specific problems pointed out in his work.
In the context of this question, most people would understand evolution to include abiogenesis*. And while it is possible to believe in evolution without believing in abiogenesis, most people who care that others believe in evolution are also firm believers in abiogenesis.
* one of the main reasons biologists prefer the term abiogenesis to spontaneous generation is because the true beginning of scientific biology occurred when Louis Pasteur proved that the emergent growth of bacteria in a nutrient broth was the product of biogenesis, not spontaneous generation. As a result, they needed another term for life coming into being from non-life, but abiogenesis and spontaneous generation refer to the same phenomena.
Because for everyday life, and the science which applies to it, evolution (the idea that all current creatures are descended from single-cell organisms which came into being by spontaneous generation) is irrelevant. For that matter, most people who say that they do not believe in evolution are saying that they do not believe that everything which exists and happens is a result of the interaction of random chance and the laws of physics.
Actually his problem is that he is giving Picketty the benefit of the doubt. Piketty could have made it easy to check his formulas and calculations, but since that would have made it easy to see that the data did not support his conclusions, he did not do so. Actually I think that the author of this article is aware that the difficulty was likely intentional, but is making this argument in order to discourage future researchers from doing something similar. I think that the right way to get researchers to stop doing this sort of thing is to assume that those whose data processing method is obfuscated are doing so on purpose.
What wrong assumptions?
You said that you were incapable of learning from another person. When someone said that your personal experience is statistically irrelevant, you said that there was a thing called autism, which is statistically relevant. I then said that autistic children learn better from other people than on their own and that the evidence is that they require that interaction more than non-autistic children, but that it needs to be with smaller numbers of people: that someone attempting to teach autistic children needs to use different techniques than with non-autistic children. You then claimed that researchers do not actually know anything about autism and that all real insights into autism have been learned by those with autism (which does not appear to have any connection to the conversation which preceded it). Further you claimed that they attempt to teach those with autism to cope and that such coping requires lots of people. I respond by pointing out that all of my sources on information about teaching autistic children suggests that such teaching best takes place in small, exclusive groups, not large groups.
From there you started accusing me of lacking reading comprehension because I had not noticed your mention of needing more than 1 person for 30 students in order to teach autistic children (something not mentioned previously). Then you referenced normal classes, something I had NEVER brought up. I merely said that the evidence I had seen suggested that autistic children required teaching MORE than other children do.
You have several times in this thread expanded on what was actually said as a basis for showing that I do not know what I am talking about when, in fact, the points you are making were not previously mentioned. If they had been, I would have addressed them. For example, I have never claimed that autistic children will learn well in a normal classroom.
Nope, I still have no idea what the connection was between your first reply to me and the post I had made to which you replied. You started this thread by saying that you were incapable of learning from others. I realize now that, while you said that you were incapable of learning from others, what you meant was that you were incapable of learning in a normal classroom. While the former (being incapable of learning from others, but able to learn on your own) is highly improbable, the latter (being incapable of learning in a normal classroom) is not at all surprising.
So, I will repeat what I said in my first post. A child with autism will learn better from a teacher who knows how to customize their teaching style to the child than they will on their own. Please note, I made no reference to a normal classroom. Perhaps the problem is that YOU interpreted what I said incorrectly.
I have no idea what your post has to do with what I wrote. For that matter, I am not sure that what you wrote has any connection with reality. For example, I know several people who actually work with autistic children. In addition, I have read numerous articles on the subject. I cannot remember even one reference to the idea of teaching autistic individuals by exposing them to large numbers of people. All of the things I have seen and heard say that the best way to teach autistic individuals is in small, very exclusive groups. So, take your straw man somewhere else.
Punishment just makes the problem worse, though, not better. He needs to be taken out of the situation so he can calm down and decompress.
Based on what I know, the second sentence is almost certainly true (the word "almost" is there because I do not have a lot of first hand experience with autistic children and because I do not know your son). The first second is because those administering the punishment are using the wrong punishment for the situation. Once more, based on those I know who work with autistic individuals on a regular basis, punishment that is appropriate for one situation is not appropriate for another. Actually the proper way to think of treating the child in those situations is not to think of it as punishment, but rather to think of it as negative reinforcement...although my sources tell me that negative reinforcement must be more carefully balanced with positive reinforcement than in non-autistic children (and both must be more carefully customized). None of these comments are meant to be critical of your comment, or of how you are raising your child (I do not have enough information to be critical and what information I do have suggests that you are doing the right things). They are just meant to provide some different thoughts on the situation.
That being said, a lot of children with behavior problems would benefit from carefully crafted programs of positive reinforcement for non-problem behavior.
You are absolutely correct that there is a thing called Autism. However, autistic children ALSO learn better from people. They just need those people to use different techniques. Actually, based on the experiences of the multiple people I know who work with autistic children, someone with autism needs MORE interaction with people(although probably it needs to be with a smaller number of people) in order to learn, not less. There are some people who learn very well without someone teaching them. However, in my experience, those who think they learn better on their own than from a teacher have just not had good enough teachers (that is teachers who have both the time and ability to customize the lesson to the way that particular student learns).
Re:Good job capturing the "steamroller effect"
on
Why Lavabit Shut Down
·
· Score: 1
The government DOES need checks and balances, but checks and balances are insufficient when government acquires too much power. We are beyond the point where checks and balances are sufficient to ensure freedom. The government has acquired too much control over too many aspects of people's every day lives.
What "timely action" would you suggest that we take? All of the actions which I have seen proposed would have a devastating impact on freedom and world economies, but the scientists have told us they would have insignificant impact on the warming which they claim is coming. Of course, the people proposing these actions are generally people who fly all over the earth to tell us that we should not fly so much.
Slashdot Mirror
Wow, just a couple of comments up someone was accused of making the slippery slope fallacy because they proposed that "first they set the minimum wage, than they make if a 'living wage', then they start calling for a maximum wage. And here you are proving that they were not guilty of a fallacy at all!
So, what you are saying is that minimum wage is already too high. At the current rate it already encourages both you and the teenager to break the law.
Actually, no it is NOT that easy. If a company purchases all of the assets of a bankrupt corporation (or the majority) it becomes liable for the bankrupt corporation's debts.
If FindTheBest is willing to spend the money on lawyers and court costs, that will not protect the patent troll. There exists a legal basis for "piercing the corporate veil". Dissolving the corporation and forming a new corporation with the same assets(in this case, patents) is a classic example of where that can happen and what that very concept was created for.
The problem with your take is that, unlike in the Post Office analogy, Comcast's customers are paying Comcast for the delivery of Netflix content. That is, rather than the sender paying for delivery, it is the recipient who pays for delivery. So, philosophically, it would be perfectly acceptable for Comcast to charge their customers extra to deliver Netflix content to them, but it is not acceptable for Comcast to charge Netflix for that delivery (Of course, Netflix is popular enough that a large number of Comcast's customers would throw a fit if they tried that). What Comcast is trying to do here is hide from their customers that they are charging them more to get Netflix by forcing Netflix to collect the money.
Remember the ol' "OH NOES DEATH PANELS" panic
You mean the people who predicted that if we allowed the people who thought the VA was the perfect model for healthcare to control everyone's healthcare we would end up with a system where bureaucrats who did not care if a specific person lived or died would decide if you lived or died? Are you trying to say that your healthcare through the United Health HMO was worse than what the VA was providing?
When evolution is contrasted with creationism it does...or to be more precise, when evolution is contrasted with creationism it must include an explanation of where life came from in the first place (Otherwise it is merely being contrasted to a specific creation story, not to the idea of creationism). The explanation most evolutionists choose is spontaneous generation.
Yes, creationism is a form of abiogenesis, which is why I used the term spontaneous generation in my first post.
I see, you believe that there is some sort of basic physics that says that in a complex system the properties of one element of that system determine how that system will behave, without any need to explore how that element interacts with all of the other elements in the system. I take great joy in telling you that climate is much more complicated than that. If it was that simple, weather prediction would also be very simple. In addition, if it were that simple, we could already see a direct correlation between the increase in CO2 and the increase in temperature. Instead we see an increase in temperature that occurs in fits and starts over an extended period of time, while CO2 has increased steadily over that period of time. If it was based purely on fundamental physics we would expect to see temperatures rise steadily in some kind of sync with the rise in CO2.
The person I replied to said the following: "Bullshit. Democrats are crap, but when it comes to ruling for the interest of moneyed interests there's no comparison." Yet, you responded to me, not to them. Which tells me that you are just as partisan as you claim that I am. For the record, I do not particularly like the Republicans, but they at least pretend to believe that people can take care of themselves. The Democrats openly proclaim that the "little people" need them, the elites, to take care of them.
The summary misses an important point, while at the same time mentioning it: " Climate models haven't explained this seeming contradiction to anyone's satisfaction" The entire idea of AGW is based on climate models, yet these models have repeatedly failed to actually explain certain, specific observed phenomena. This leads people to question basing policy that will cost a large amount of money and freedom on those models. When you want to give bureaucrats authority to determine what I can and cannot do based on models which have with significant frequency failed to predict real-world phenomena, I am going to question the wisdom of such actions.
You are absolutely correct that there is no comparison when it comes to ruling for the moneyed interests. All you have to do is look at which party the moneyed interests make their home. Let's see, John Corzine, Tom Steyer. George Soros, Warren Buffet, Bill Gates, to name just a few.
I have not checked Piketty's data myself, but I have seen it criticized by people who agree with his conclusions. I have also seen his comeback to a criticism that went into detail about the mistakes in his calculations. That response was essentially, "No, you are wrong." Piketty did not actually address the specific problems pointed out in his work.
In the context of this question, most people would understand evolution to include abiogenesis*. And while it is possible to believe in evolution without believing in abiogenesis, most people who care that others believe in evolution are also firm believers in abiogenesis.
* one of the main reasons biologists prefer the term abiogenesis to spontaneous generation is because the true beginning of scientific biology occurred when Louis Pasteur proved that the emergent growth of bacteria in a nutrient broth was the product of biogenesis, not spontaneous generation. As a result, they needed another term for life coming into being from non-life, but abiogenesis and spontaneous generation refer to the same phenomena.
Because for everyday life, and the science which applies to it, evolution (the idea that all current creatures are descended from single-cell organisms which came into being by spontaneous generation) is irrelevant. For that matter, most people who say that they do not believe in evolution are saying that they do not believe that everything which exists and happens is a result of the interaction of random chance and the laws of physics.
Actually his problem is that he is giving Picketty the benefit of the doubt. Piketty could have made it easy to check his formulas and calculations, but since that would have made it easy to see that the data did not support his conclusions, he did not do so. Actually I think that the author of this article is aware that the difficulty was likely intentional, but is making this argument in order to discourage future researchers from doing something similar. I think that the right way to get researchers to stop doing this sort of thing is to assume that those whose data processing method is obfuscated are doing so on purpose.
What wrong assumptions?
You said that you were incapable of learning from another person. When someone said that your personal experience is statistically irrelevant, you said that there was a thing called autism, which is statistically relevant. I then said that autistic children learn better from other people than on their own and that the evidence is that they require that interaction more than non-autistic children, but that it needs to be with smaller numbers of people: that someone attempting to teach autistic children needs to use different techniques than with non-autistic children. You then claimed that researchers do not actually know anything about autism and that all real insights into autism have been learned by those with autism (which does not appear to have any connection to the conversation which preceded it). Further you claimed that they attempt to teach those with autism to cope and that such coping requires lots of people. I respond by pointing out that all of my sources on information about teaching autistic children suggests that such teaching best takes place in small, exclusive groups, not large groups.
From there you started accusing me of lacking reading comprehension because I had not noticed your mention of needing more than 1 person for 30 students in order to teach autistic children (something not mentioned previously). Then you referenced normal classes, something I had NEVER brought up. I merely said that the evidence I had seen suggested that autistic children required teaching MORE than other children do.
You have several times in this thread expanded on what was actually said as a basis for showing that I do not know what I am talking about when, in fact, the points you are making were not previously mentioned. If they had been, I would have addressed them. For example, I have never claimed that autistic children will learn well in a normal classroom.
Nope, I still have no idea what the connection was between your first reply to me and the post I had made to which you replied. You started this thread by saying that you were incapable of learning from others. I realize now that, while you said that you were incapable of learning from others, what you meant was that you were incapable of learning in a normal classroom. While the former (being incapable of learning from others, but able to learn on your own) is highly improbable, the latter (being incapable of learning in a normal classroom) is not at all surprising.
So, I will repeat what I said in my first post. A child with autism will learn better from a teacher who knows how to customize their teaching style to the child than they will on their own. Please note, I made no reference to a normal classroom. Perhaps the problem is that YOU interpreted what I said incorrectly.
Wow, where in this thread were we talking about 1 teacher per 30 students?
Where did i say anything about exposing autists to large numbers of people??
Right here: "They then try to teach you how to cope and 'imitate' certain behaviours, and yes, that takes lots of people."
I have no idea what your post has to do with what I wrote. For that matter, I am not sure that what you wrote has any connection with reality. For example, I know several people who actually work with autistic children. In addition, I have read numerous articles on the subject. I cannot remember even one reference to the idea of teaching autistic individuals by exposing them to large numbers of people. All of the things I have seen and heard say that the best way to teach autistic individuals is in small, very exclusive groups. So, take your straw man somewhere else.
Punishment just makes the problem worse, though, not better. He needs to be taken out of the situation so he can calm down and decompress.
Based on what I know, the second sentence is almost certainly true (the word "almost" is there because I do not have a lot of first hand experience with autistic children and because I do not know your son). The first second is because those administering the punishment are using the wrong punishment for the situation. Once more, based on those I know who work with autistic individuals on a regular basis, punishment that is appropriate for one situation is not appropriate for another. Actually the proper way to think of treating the child in those situations is not to think of it as punishment, but rather to think of it as negative reinforcement...although my sources tell me that negative reinforcement must be more carefully balanced with positive reinforcement than in non-autistic children (and both must be more carefully customized). None of these comments are meant to be critical of your comment, or of how you are raising your child (I do not have enough information to be critical and what information I do have suggests that you are doing the right things). They are just meant to provide some different thoughts on the situation.
That being said, a lot of children with behavior problems would benefit from carefully crafted programs of positive reinforcement for non-problem behavior.
You are absolutely correct that there is a thing called Autism. However, autistic children ALSO learn better from people. They just need those people to use different techniques. Actually, based on the experiences of the multiple people I know who work with autistic children, someone with autism needs MORE interaction with people(although probably it needs to be with a smaller number of people) in order to learn, not less. There are some people who learn very well without someone teaching them. However, in my experience, those who think they learn better on their own than from a teacher have just not had good enough teachers (that is teachers who have both the time and ability to customize the lesson to the way that particular student learns).
The government DOES need checks and balances, but checks and balances are insufficient when government acquires too much power. We are beyond the point where checks and balances are sufficient to ensure freedom. The government has acquired too much control over too many aspects of people's every day lives.
What "timely action" would you suggest that we take? All of the actions which I have seen proposed would have a devastating impact on freedom and world economies, but the scientists have told us they would have insignificant impact on the warming which they claim is coming. Of course, the people proposing these actions are generally people who fly all over the earth to tell us that we should not fly so much.