I think if anyone is primed with content Americans would watch, it's the BBC. I also think a lot of us techie anti-corporate types are waiting for someone... SOMEwhere to start making stuff we can buy. It's happening with music, and movies, but serialized video isn't happening yet, with a few brief notable exceptions like The Guild or Dr Horrible.
Okay, now let's say that someone, let's say they have a beard, just does not like Apple and refused to give them any money for any reason. What non-iTunes option is there? Amazon will not let me purchase music as I'm not in the US.
I think boycotts are a great idea, and vitally important in today's corporatist-driven policy debates, but you can't take a moral stand against a company on the one hand and then complain about not having access to their products on the other.
Well it's like Kevin Arnold said, some men are born great, some men pursue greatness, and some men have greatness thrust upon them... while they're in the bathroom.
By the way, while you were in the bathroom we took a vote. Go get 'em, tiger!
Could it be that less genetically gifted children are more prone to be bullied?
Could be, but in my experience the reverse is more likely. Individuals who are outside of the perceived norm are targets for bullying. Of course, "genetically gifted" only results in advantage if the environment fosters talent.
Jesus fucking christ. Thanks a lot for hijacking what could have been an interesting bunch of comments with this bullshit about what is or isn't child abuse.
Interesting definition of "hijack", where someone chimes in to an off-topic thread with a comment relevant to the article.
What, are you saying that sociopathy is environmentally-caused and not genetic?
Modern understanding of psychology strongly favors the model that suggests both environment and genetics contribute to an individual's vulnerability to (almost... maybe [See: schizophrenia, alzheimer's]) all psychological disorders. Two genetically similar children (say, identical twins) may develop quite different disorders based solely on environmental factors.
SO... no, but yes.
So sure, a kid who's predisposed to sociopathy might be able to avoid it by being raised by a really great family
Which you already obviously understand, so why the incredulity?
there's tons of examples of kids raised by absolutely horrible families who turn out really great, in spite of their parenting, so there was something inside them that prevented them from becoming sociopaths even though their environment would have encouraged that.
Which sounds like a covert nod towards genetic exceptionalism, when the reality is that people who overcome abusive backgrounds only accomplish it with some major external support in the form of friends, teachers, therapists, etc.
it's generally safe to assume they raised all the kids the same way
It may be safe, but it is demonstrably false. Parents (that is, people) project different things onto different children (that is, people) and often treat them very differently. Sometimes it's as obvious as gender bias, sometimes it's more complex, but it's trivial to find examples.
Like most crimes, the line between punishment and abuse is often a matter of intent. Unfortunately, MOST parents would deny that frustration and anger play a role in punishment, even when it is patently false to an outside observer. (Giving parents the benefit of the doubt, I would add that MOST of the time, parents aren't acutely aware of these internal influences, despite their devastating consequences.) Emotional and psychological abuse can be just as harmful as physical abuse, but are almost impossible to prove without extreme circumstances.
Our emotions are an open book to our children. The things we hide from ourselves, they see and internalize. It's unreasonable to expect all parents to be self-aware, but we could do a lot more as a society to support parents in that exploration.
if your father had instituted the timeout immediately after the infraction - without delay, had been standing behind you, keeping your head facing the wall, keeping you silent, and gave not before or during but after an explanation for the punishment, and then a directive for future behavior
I think one of the key points is "standing behind you". Most parents I have seen using "time outs" IGNORE the child for the duration, often even leaving the room, rather than standing with them. It's a dismissive gesture, and in my experience totally invalidates the punishment. Parents often use time-outs to calm themselves down, and while this is admirable, it is a sign the parent lacks the self-control to be in charge of another human life.
I see "going to the right" as limiting the power and scope of government (by getting rid of laws and decreasing spending). "Going to the left" is expanding the power and scope of government (by increasing regulation and spending). When was the last time either party went to the right?
I suppose you can define anything in any way you choose, but you may have trouble being taken seriously by people with a more complete understanding of reality.
Did you also walk uphill both ways to school in the snow without shoes? Did they still say 'dickity'? Was tying an onion to your belt still the style at the time?
I don't remember any of that, but you could get five bees for a quarter.
Republicans have gone so far right and the Democrats have gone so far left
Minor correction: The Republicans have gone so brutally far to the right that the Democrats' gentle drift to the right appears to be leftwards motion; It is only an optical illusion though.
Although if you really believe Democrats are in favor of communism then facts may not be terribly interesting to you.
CEOs don't care about "cutting corners dangerously", causing potential problems in some nebulous "future", they only care about this quarters stock price. By the time problems develop from their shortsightedness, it will be Someone Else's Problem...because they will have long ago jumped out the window on a golden parachute and now be running for president while claiming they "created jobs" as a Bain Capital Corporate Raider.
Like all criminal cases in the US, the outcome is dependent on these things in this order: arresting officer, prosecuting attorney, judge presiding over case, jury (if it comes to this).
This is how some of you have been caught urinating in public and were only given a court date and a fine. I hate the system as much as the next guy, but I find it unlikely very many people caught drunk and urinating in public have been put on the sex offender list. Especially if you're not an asshole and/or hired a decent lawyer.
So your lesson is assholes and poor people deserve to have their lives destroyed for tinkling?
Nice. I agree, I won't speak out for public urinators either, because I'm not one myself. Something tells me that will be the last we hear of this vicious cycle!
Slashdot Mirror
I think if anyone is primed with content Americans would watch, it's the BBC. I also think a lot of us techie anti-corporate types are waiting for someone... SOMEwhere to start making stuff we can buy. It's happening with music, and movies, but serialized video isn't happening yet, with a few brief notable exceptions like The Guild or Dr Horrible.
If they build it, we will come.
In the end I will decide to watch nothing. Then who wins?
You do.
To read an online magazine, you must also have a snail mail subscription?
Ditto for NY Times online. They want you to pay $195/yr to get a paper delivered just so that you can view their online content.
Which site... um... I mean, not for nothing, but blocking scripts and cookies totally invalidates the paywall on NYTimes.
I should probably feel worse about abusing that one than I do.
Rare non-xkcd, yet relevant comic: http://theoatmeal.com/comics/game_of_thrones
The best part is the fake ads on the torrent page. Thanks for this!
Okay, now let's say that someone, let's say they have a beard, just does not like Apple and refused to give them any money for any reason. What non-iTunes option is there? Amazon will not let me purchase music as I'm not in the US.
I think boycotts are a great idea, and vitally important in today's corporatist-driven policy debates, but you can't take a moral stand against a company on the one hand and then complain about not having access to their products on the other.
I deny the position. I am a horrible leader.
Well it's like Kevin Arnold said, some men are born great, some men pursue greatness, and some men have greatness thrust upon them... while they're in the bathroom.
By the way, while you were in the bathroom we took a vote. Go get 'em, tiger!
All of the Massachusetts representatives voted "No."
Join us! We're sane!
I know, I feel guilty celebrating when the damn thing actually passed...
All of them. Throw them all out.
Not my guys! They all voted NO. Guess we'll see what happens tomorrow in Ye Olde Senate.
Considering most democrats voted no...and if this makes it to the presidents desk...what will Obama do?
Hopefully, veto it, like he said he would. Mind you, I'm not holding my breath.
Yeah, I'm not counting on this administration to take a stand, but I think (hope, and pray) the bill will die in the Senate.
Actually, he didn't even bother to vote on it. Kucinich did vote NO, however.
As did Barney Frank and the Wax Man! It's nice when a couple of my favorite people do the right thing.
You really have to start bullying someone ...
Hey, shut up!
Damn, I feel better already.
Could it be that less genetically gifted children are more prone to be bullied?
Could be, but in my experience the reverse is more likely. Individuals who are outside of the perceived norm are targets for bullying. Of course, "genetically gifted" only results in advantage if the environment fosters talent.
Jesus fucking christ. Thanks a lot for hijacking what could have been an interesting bunch of comments with this bullshit about what is or isn't child abuse.
Interesting definition of "hijack", where someone chimes in to an off-topic thread with a comment relevant to the article.
What, are you saying that sociopathy is environmentally-caused and not genetic?
Modern understanding of psychology strongly favors the model that suggests both environment and genetics contribute to an individual's vulnerability to (almost... maybe [See: schizophrenia, alzheimer's]) all psychological disorders. Two genetically similar children (say, identical twins) may develop quite different disorders based solely on environmental factors.
SO... no, but yes.
So sure, a kid who's predisposed to sociopathy might be able to avoid it by being raised by a really great family
Which you already obviously understand, so why the incredulity?
there's tons of examples of kids raised by absolutely horrible families who turn out really great, in spite of their parenting, so there was something inside them that prevented them from becoming sociopaths even though their environment would have encouraged that.
Which sounds like a covert nod towards genetic exceptionalism, when the reality is that people who overcome abusive backgrounds only accomplish it with some major external support in the form of friends, teachers, therapists, etc.
it's generally safe to assume they raised all the kids the same way
It may be safe, but it is demonstrably false. Parents (that is, people) project different things onto different children (that is, people) and often treat them very differently. Sometimes it's as obvious as gender bias, sometimes it's more complex, but it's trivial to find examples.
You should have chosen "Wonko the Insane" for your username...
Hold stick near center of its length.
Moisten pointed end in mouth.
Insert in tooth space, blunt end next to gum.
Use gentle in-and-out motion.
Like most crimes, the line between punishment and abuse is often a matter of intent. Unfortunately, MOST parents would deny that frustration and anger play a role in punishment, even when it is patently false to an outside observer. (Giving parents the benefit of the doubt, I would add that MOST of the time, parents aren't acutely aware of these internal influences, despite their devastating consequences.) Emotional and psychological abuse can be just as harmful as physical abuse, but are almost impossible to prove without extreme circumstances.
Our emotions are an open book to our children. The things we hide from ourselves, they see and internalize. It's unreasonable to expect all parents to be self-aware, but we could do a lot more as a society to support parents in that exploration.
if your father had instituted the timeout immediately after the infraction - without delay, had been standing behind you, keeping your head facing the wall, keeping you silent, and gave not before or during but after an explanation for the punishment, and then a directive for future behavior
I think one of the key points is "standing behind you". Most parents I have seen using "time outs" IGNORE the child for the duration, often even leaving the room, rather than standing with them. It's a dismissive gesture, and in my experience totally invalidates the punishment. Parents often use time-outs to calm themselves down, and while this is admirable, it is a sign the parent lacks the self-control to be in charge of another human life.
Honest question: how is the TSA worse than it was under Bush?
VIPR.
http://www.naturalnews.com/033961_TSA_security_checkpoints.html
I see "going to the right" as limiting the power and scope of government (by getting rid of laws and decreasing spending). "Going to the left" is expanding the power and scope of government (by increasing regulation and spending). When was the last time either party went to the right?
I suppose you can define anything in any way you choose, but you may have trouble being taken seriously by people with a more complete understanding of reality.
Did you also walk uphill both ways to school in the snow without shoes? Did they still say 'dickity'? Was tying an onion to your belt still the style at the time?
I don't remember any of that, but you could get five bees for a quarter.
Just to play devil's advocate, couldn't a person just put a faraday cage around the black box to prevent remote access?
Republicans have gone so far right and the Democrats have gone so far left
Minor correction: The Republicans have gone so brutally far to the right that the Democrats' gentle drift to the right appears to be leftwards motion; It is only an optical illusion though.
Although if you really believe Democrats are in favor of communism then facts may not be terribly interesting to you.
CEOs don't care about "cutting corners dangerously", causing potential problems in some nebulous "future", they only care about this quarters stock price. By the time problems develop from their shortsightedness, it will be Someone Else's Problem... because they will have long ago jumped out the window on a golden parachute and now be running for president while claiming they "created jobs" as a Bain Capital Corporate Raider.
Corporate raiders are people too, my friend.
Like all criminal cases in the US, the outcome is dependent on these things in this order: arresting officer, prosecuting attorney, judge presiding over case, jury (if it comes to this).
This is how some of you have been caught urinating in public and were only given a court date and a fine. I hate the system as much as the next guy, but I find it unlikely very many people caught drunk and urinating in public have been put on the sex offender list. Especially if you're not an asshole and/or hired a decent lawyer.
So your lesson is assholes and poor people deserve to have their lives destroyed for tinkling?
Nice. I agree, I won't speak out for public urinators either, because I'm not one myself. Something tells me that will be the last we hear of this vicious cycle!
Dickens.
I'm pretty sure the OP was referring to Charles Dikkens, the well-known Dutch author.