Actually that is only true because your definition of "left vs right" has been co-opted by those on the extreme left wing. However, you slice it, both U.S. parties are on the same end of the political spectrum as the "left wing". That is, both parties think that the government is the solution to whatever the problem is. This shrinking of the political spectrum happened in the run up to WWII when fascist got labeled as the extreme far end of the spectrum from communist. When in fact, the only difference between their politics is in the details, not in the methods used to accomplish those goals.
Absolutely, the terms "left wing" and "right wing" no longer mean anything. Obama is a firm believer in the power of the state to create utopia, if only guided by "enlightened" individuals such as himself. Anyone who opposes any of his policies or plans is either evil of uninformed.
Right because as the government gets more powerful, powerful people NEVER use that increased power to increase their own power. Increased government power is ONLY ever used by powerful people to protect those without power from those with power./s
Inevitably, as the government gains more power, the people who control that government power gain more power, and those who do not control that power have ever less recourse against that government power. I am always amazed by the people who think that a powerful government protects those without power from those with power (since by definition when the government is powerful, those with power are those who control the power of government).
Actually, I would bet that it is Option A AND Option B. This is a government agency we are talking about. They are perfectly capable of having a monumental level of bureaucratic bloat and firing all of their competent people in the effort to reduce it.
Exactly, I am not a parent, but every time I have observed children behaving hyper-actively "because of sugar" there has been something else going on that I have otherwise observed causing children to behave with hyperactivity, even in the absence of consuming sugar.
Perhaps you misunderstood. I was saying that parents are biased in their interpretation of their children's behavior. Someone who is not a parent does not have that bias. You have provided no reference to empirical evidence. You have repeatedly referred to personal experience, yours and that of others. Those are anecdotes.
Not only have you done that, but you started off by telling me that all I had to do to test the effect of sugar was test it for myself. When I told you what I experience when I consume large quantities of sugar, you told me I was wrong (and even made a claim that an EKG would show such to be the case, without ever referencing a study that demonstrated such to be the case).
You have rejected a set of referenced studies (only alluded to in the link to the abstract, but actually referenced in study that abstract applied to) and asked me (and other slashdot readers) to accept you as an authority on the subject. I am sorry, but you have demonstrated no actual knowledge of the subject in any of your posts.
Hey, that's right, when you fail to win the argument on the merits, insult the other guy. That will always convince people that you are not an anti-science luddite.
Basically, your argument is "My anecdote trumps your studies."
Right, because it could not be any other factor than the sugar. It couldn't be the fact that the child was up two hours past his bed time. It couldn't be any number of other possible factors. It has to be the sugar. I happen to have the advantage of being an unbiased third party and on every occasion where I have observed the supposed "sugar high" hyperactivity in kids, I saw the hyperactivity starting before the kids ate the sugary substance.
The reason that it is illegal to attempt suicide in most jurisdictions is that this gives people protection if they take actions to prevent you from doing so that would be illegal if you were attempting something else. Since historically most people attempting suicide have wanted someone to stop them, this was seen as a social good.
Wow, that's amazing, you have observed something about me that I have never observed and yet we have never met. Perhaps you have never heard the term "carb crash", but I am very familiar with it. No, I do not become hyperactive after consuming sugar. I never have.
Can you provide a citation for your claim?
So, can you reference ANY studies that show that there is a connection between sugar and kids being hyperactive? When you reject information purely on the basis of the source, you are going to make lots of mistakes.
BTW, the government recommendations never were to consume equal quantities from the "four major food groups".
I have done that. When I consume large quantities of sugar, I become sleepy, NOT hyperactive. So, both my personal experience AND a study I have seen supports the conclusion that sugar does not make children hyperactive.
In the study in question "normal children" was used over and against "children with Attention-Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder", not as a distinct category, rather as a category of children without Attention-Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (which for the purposes of this particular study qualified as "normal").
Also, perhaps you missed the fact that the paper referenced sourced twelve double-blind studies (double-blind studies being considered among the most reliable of all studies). Do you perhaps have access to a reference to a study that found differently? If you do, your skepticism MAY be warranted, otherwise you are like the people who buy into homeopathy.
You appear to have overlooked the phrase "regulate EVER MORE economic activity". The key is to limit how much power to regulate economic activity the government has. Every time you ask the government to regulate more economic activity, you are increasing the probability that such government activity will result in an increase in the power and wealth of a few.
If you look at the linked pdf, you discover that they used the term "soft drink" in the title of the paper, but then make it clear later in the paper that they studied sodas. The fact of the matter is that in most usage, "soft drink" and "soda" are synonyms. The problem is that both words are somewhat ambiguous. "Soft drink" originally meant any non-alcoholic drink (probably excepting milk and water, but I am not sure on that as I was not alive when this usage was common). "Soda" (as a reference to a beverage) originally meant a beverage containing high levels of sodium bicarbonate (usually carbonated).
Actually, I don't know that. There was at least one study a few years ago that studied just that. It discovered that there was no difference in children's behavior after consuming a large dose of sugar. The researchers postulated that the myth about sugar resulting in kid's "bouncing off the walls", resulted from the fact that kids tend to consume large amounts of sugar in settings which cause them to be more active.
No, it is the inevitable consequence of asking the government to regulate ever more economic activity (from certain perspectives, everything you do is economic activity) in the name of protecting the people from "corporate interests". Inevitably as the government gathers more power to itself, the only way to accumulate wealth is through government intervention. Those who have wealth use it to acquire connections allowing them to control where the government intervention occurs. Those who have political power use it to acquire wealth. In time, these two groups merge. At which point the economy begins to collapse, as more and more of society's wealth and political power becomes concentrated in the hands of an ever smaller group of people. These people act to prevent others from acquiring wealth or political power, which leads to the economy gradually becoming less and less productive.
First off, all of those taxes you mention are for taxes imposed by the jurisdiction where the company is located. I know for a fact that if I live in a municipality that has an income tax, but work in one that does not, the company is NOT required to withhold the income tax for that municipality (unless they also have offices in that municipality, in which case I am not quite clear on the law). The same is true of state income tax. So, just because I do business with someone who lives in California, it does not mean that I do business in California. It could be argued that they are doing business in the state in which I am located. If I am not in California, I do not have a "civic obligation" to California.
Why does someone, in this case the shareholders of Amazon, have an obligation (civic responsibility) to collect tax for a government that does not have jurisdiction over where that person is?
ESPN is crap that every subscriber to basic cable pays for, whether they want to or not. That is part of the reason I no longer pay for cable TV. I wish I could find a high speed ISP that did not make me pay for access to the ESPN360 website. (If an ISP does not pay ESPN a small fee for every subscriber that they have, none of that ISPs subscribers can access the ESPN360 website).
I seem to recall coming across a study that concluded exactly what you are postulating (or at least something that what you are postulating would be a corollary of). I do not remember where I saw it, and it was several years ago, but my recollection was that there was a study indicating that writing with a writing instrument used a different part of the brain than typing something. I believe (although this may have been an interpretation I made on my own) that the study involved MRIs of the brain showing that writing involved the language center of the brain more directly than typing. As I said, I am not positive about that last part since it has been so long since I saw the study.
My experience with people who felt the way you do was because of the way they took notes (that may or may not apply to you). The key was not trying to write down everything the lecturer said, but only the key points and/or a sort of outline of the lecture.
NO, private citizens banding together IS NOT called government. When private citizens band together and point guns at other citizens and demand that they contribute to the cause or face captivity or death, it is called organized crime.
In the Bible when people came to Jesus needing healing, he did not force someone else to pay a third party in order to heal them. He healed them himself. Please feel free to get medical training and provide medical care for those who cannot afford to pay. I will even happily contribute to your expenses. However, do not demand that the government force people to pay your expenses and claim that you are being charitable.
Really? There was someone in the Romney campaign who suggested that we begin an armed conflict with Iran? Why did I never hear about this?
Now, I have heard some Republicans say that we should attack Iran, but then I have heard some Democrats claim that whites should be attacked for being white.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually that is only true because your definition of "left vs right" has been co-opted by those on the extreme left wing. However, you slice it, both U.S. parties are on the same end of the political spectrum as the "left wing". That is, both parties think that the government is the solution to whatever the problem is. This shrinking of the political spectrum happened in the run up to WWII when fascist got labeled as the extreme far end of the spectrum from communist. When in fact, the only difference between their politics is in the details, not in the methods used to accomplish those goals.
Absolutely, the terms "left wing" and "right wing" no longer mean anything. Obama is a firm believer in the power of the state to create utopia, if only guided by "enlightened" individuals such as himself. Anyone who opposes any of his policies or plans is either evil of uninformed.
Unfortunately, that statement is, "We lost. Those seeking a powerful, corrupt government have won. We surrender."
Right because as the government gets more powerful, powerful people NEVER use that increased power to increase their own power. Increased government power is ONLY ever used by powerful people to protect those without power from those with power. /s
Inevitably, as the government gains more power, the people who control that government power gain more power, and those who do not control that power have ever less recourse against that government power. I am always amazed by the people who think that a powerful government protects those without power from those with power (since by definition when the government is powerful, those with power are those who control the power of government).
Actually, I would bet that it is Option A AND Option B. This is a government agency we are talking about. They are perfectly capable of having a monumental level of bureaucratic bloat and firing all of their competent people in the effort to reduce it.
Exactly, I am not a parent, but every time I have observed children behaving hyper-actively "because of sugar" there has been something else going on that I have otherwise observed causing children to behave with hyperactivity, even in the absence of consuming sugar.
Perhaps you misunderstood. I was saying that parents are biased in their interpretation of their children's behavior. Someone who is not a parent does not have that bias. You have provided no reference to empirical evidence. You have repeatedly referred to personal experience, yours and that of others. Those are anecdotes.
Not only have you done that, but you started off by telling me that all I had to do to test the effect of sugar was test it for myself. When I told you what I experience when I consume large quantities of sugar, you told me I was wrong (and even made a claim that an EKG would show such to be the case, without ever referencing a study that demonstrated such to be the case).
You have rejected a set of referenced studies (only alluded to in the link to the abstract, but actually referenced in study that abstract applied to) and asked me (and other slashdot readers) to accept you as an authority on the subject. I am sorry, but you have demonstrated no actual knowledge of the subject in any of your posts.
Hey, that's right, when you fail to win the argument on the merits, insult the other guy. That will always convince people that you are not an anti-science luddite.
Basically, your argument is "My anecdote trumps your studies."
Right, because it could not be any other factor than the sugar. It couldn't be the fact that the child was up two hours past his bed time. It couldn't be any number of other possible factors. It has to be the sugar. I happen to have the advantage of being an unbiased third party and on every occasion where I have observed the supposed "sugar high" hyperactivity in kids, I saw the hyperactivity starting before the kids ate the sugary substance.
The reason that it is illegal to attempt suicide in most jurisdictions is that this gives people protection if they take actions to prevent you from doing so that would be illegal if you were attempting something else. Since historically most people attempting suicide have wanted someone to stop them, this was seen as a social good.
Wow, that's amazing, you have observed something about me that I have never observed and yet we have never met. Perhaps you have never heard the term "carb crash", but I am very familiar with it. No, I do not become hyperactive after consuming sugar. I never have.
Can you provide a citation for your claim?
So, can you reference ANY studies that show that there is a connection between sugar and kids being hyperactive? When you reject information purely on the basis of the source, you are going to make lots of mistakes.
BTW, the government recommendations never were to consume equal quantities from the "four major food groups".
I have done that. When I consume large quantities of sugar, I become sleepy, NOT hyperactive. So, both my personal experience AND a study I have seen supports the conclusion that sugar does not make children hyperactive.
In the study in question "normal children" was used over and against "children with Attention-Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder", not as a distinct category, rather as a category of children without Attention-Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (which for the purposes of this particular study qualified as "normal").
Also, perhaps you missed the fact that the paper referenced sourced twelve double-blind studies (double-blind studies being considered among the most reliable of all studies). Do you perhaps have access to a reference to a study that found differently? If you do, your skepticism MAY be warranted, otherwise you are like the people who buy into homeopathy.
You appear to have overlooked the phrase "regulate EVER MORE economic activity". The key is to limit how much power to regulate economic activity the government has. Every time you ask the government to regulate more economic activity, you are increasing the probability that such government activity will result in an increase in the power and wealth of a few.
If you look at the linked pdf, you discover that they used the term "soft drink" in the title of the paper, but then make it clear later in the paper that they studied sodas. The fact of the matter is that in most usage, "soft drink" and "soda" are synonyms. The problem is that both words are somewhat ambiguous. "Soft drink" originally meant any non-alcoholic drink (probably excepting milk and water, but I am not sure on that as I was not alive when this usage was common). "Soda" (as a reference to a beverage) originally meant a beverage containing high levels of sodium bicarbonate (usually carbonated).
Actually, I don't know that. There was at least one study a few years ago that studied just that. It discovered that there was no difference in children's behavior after consuming a large dose of sugar. The researchers postulated that the myth about sugar resulting in kid's "bouncing off the walls", resulted from the fact that kids tend to consume large amounts of sugar in settings which cause them to be more active.
No, it is the inevitable consequence of asking the government to regulate ever more economic activity (from certain perspectives, everything you do is economic activity) in the name of protecting the people from "corporate interests". Inevitably as the government gathers more power to itself, the only way to accumulate wealth is through government intervention. Those who have wealth use it to acquire connections allowing them to control where the government intervention occurs. Those who have political power use it to acquire wealth. In time, these two groups merge. At which point the economy begins to collapse, as more and more of society's wealth and political power becomes concentrated in the hands of an ever smaller group of people. These people act to prevent others from acquiring wealth or political power, which leads to the economy gradually becoming less and less productive.
First off, all of those taxes you mention are for taxes imposed by the jurisdiction where the company is located. I know for a fact that if I live in a municipality that has an income tax, but work in one that does not, the company is NOT required to withhold the income tax for that municipality (unless they also have offices in that municipality, in which case I am not quite clear on the law). The same is true of state income tax. So, just because I do business with someone who lives in California, it does not mean that I do business in California. It could be argued that they are doing business in the state in which I am located. If I am not in California, I do not have a "civic obligation" to California.
Why does someone, in this case the shareholders of Amazon, have an obligation (civic responsibility) to collect tax for a government that does not have jurisdiction over where that person is?
ESPN is crap that every subscriber to basic cable pays for, whether they want to or not. That is part of the reason I no longer pay for cable TV. I wish I could find a high speed ISP that did not make me pay for access to the ESPN360 website. (If an ISP does not pay ESPN a small fee for every subscriber that they have, none of that ISPs subscribers can access the ESPN360 website).
I seem to recall coming across a study that concluded exactly what you are postulating (or at least something that what you are postulating would be a corollary of). I do not remember where I saw it, and it was several years ago, but my recollection was that there was a study indicating that writing with a writing instrument used a different part of the brain than typing something. I believe (although this may have been an interpretation I made on my own) that the study involved MRIs of the brain showing that writing involved the language center of the brain more directly than typing. As I said, I am not positive about that last part since it has been so long since I saw the study.
My experience with people who felt the way you do was because of the way they took notes (that may or may not apply to you). The key was not trying to write down everything the lecturer said, but only the key points and/or a sort of outline of the lecture.
NO, private citizens banding together IS NOT called government. When private citizens band together and point guns at other citizens and demand that they contribute to the cause or face captivity or death, it is called organized crime.
In the Bible when people came to Jesus needing healing, he did not force someone else to pay a third party in order to heal them. He healed them himself. Please feel free to get medical training and provide medical care for those who cannot afford to pay. I will even happily contribute to your expenses. However, do not demand that the government force people to pay your expenses and claim that you are being charitable.
Really? There was someone in the Romney campaign who suggested that we begin an armed conflict with Iran? Why did I never hear about this? Now, I have heard some Republicans say that we should attack Iran, but then I have heard some Democrats claim that whites should be attacked for being white.