There is so much wrong with your thinking here that I am a bit bewildered about how to best address it. Besides the fact that you cannot evade mental illness in this manner, and actually instead could be setting up your child for some mental dysfunction of her own, what you are definitely doing is driving up the likelihood that the less affluent children in your area will stay less affluent and thus more prone to related stress-induced mental issues. Own that you are contributing to (probably measurable) increased levels of depression in your community thanks to the "crazies" (ie: the less well off) being ostracized by the "rich" kids, who think they are so much better people because they have iProducts.
A well-balanced person will be able to navigate society successfully without having to fearfully avoid entire classes of people less fortunate than themselves. Perhaps instead you should teach your child how to recognize personality issues to be avoided in ALL social classes (sociopaths, manipulators, jealousy, passive aggression, etc.), while being considerate and helpful to the less fortunate, while you focus on the problems of the affluent:
Don't need the car analogy here, you're spot on. The photographer is a PROFESSIONAL photographer, not just anybody with a camera. Pros retain the copyright and sell only the rights to use the image(s) for a specified purpose and duration. It's in the contract that the hotel obviously didn't take seriously. For that matter, the photographer can use (or resell) his image as much as he likes, as exclusive usage rights probably weren't assigned permanently to Sofitel.
Actually, in most cases you're probably better off not using "moving on" either. I'm guessing the misused phrase leaked into popular culture from 1980's "corporate speak", when mid-level managers babbled this sort of faux intelligent gibberish in attempts to cover up the fact that they actually had little or nothing to say.
"Moving forward" is exceedingly annoying in sentences which already address the future (ie; "What we should do moving forward (or on) is x."). Get to the point; "What we should do is not use the phrase "moving forward" where it is only redundant. If you must add something, how about "from here on out"? At least that phrase adds a wee bit of additional meaning to a sentence. Not much though.
I wanted to use this opportunity to get a discussion going on how we can improve Slashdot moving forward.
Let's start by banning the phrase "moving forward" unless you're talking about physical motion in a forward direction. Without a time machine there is no other direction for the "movement" of which you speak.
Carnegie was keen to advance from a young age, and was sharp enough to impress those who could help him up. His fortune was built on that, as pretty early on he was invited into a succession of sweet insider trading organized by his mentor, Thomas A. Scott (and John Edgar Thompson). Carnegie would not have convinced his mother to take out a mortgage on the family home so as to speculate with the funds if he didn't absolutely know his investment would pay off big. So, basically, corruption was his real ride to the top. (Surprise!!)
Science is a process, and it will not always fit nicely into peoples political views. Sometimes ideas you hold most dearly are wrong.
“It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of The New England Journal of Medicine.” - Harvard Medical School’s Dr. Marcia Angell
If we're gonna accept witchdoctor medicine (with iffy at best science behind it), might as well let in the homeopaths, no? Fair is fair.
A current trend in socio-political theory is Uri Bronfenbrenner's Ecological Systems Theory which states: "...basic science needs public policy even more than public policy needs basic science". Get it? Policy drives the science.
Previous phases of human exploration had a number of common or frequent driving elements that space exploration is not likely to have. Such as: zealous religious missionary activities, conquest at behest of the king, racist judgement and condemnation of indigenous cultures, imperialist overreach into another country for minerals, slaves or other goods, etc. Most of that ideology is driven by the social thinkers/drivers at the top (or the powers behind the throne) and the privileged class just below that, not by the average citizens who prefer to just raise their families in peace. Humans will probably not even make it into the "interstellar community" if the species can't shake off the rule of sociopath oligarchs.
If we can assume we've evolved enough to travel among the stars, we would have solved a number of social problems (anger management?) and tech ones as well. I would expect we'd be way, way beyond playing "Billy Goat's Bluff".
Ok, there's plenty of space out there. We might miss a few battles just looking up from earth.
Think about it, war is extremely unlikely among interstellar species. With that level of technology, you're not gonna be hunting for food. Nor will scarcity of materials be a problem. Come on, you can travel among the stars, and you're gonna find one particular solar system that you just gotta have, right? Because this one system is just soooo cool, and there are no others out there like it. So, you figure "I'll just kill off the other interstellar species using the planets there and it'll be all mine!"
Or maybe it's the other scenario: Some insect-like aliens are gonna scour the universe just to hunt down other life forms, just 'cause that's what scary lookin' (by human standards) aliens do.
Anyone who believes inter-species battles is likely to be encountered in space needs some serious help.
Confessions should not be admissible as evidence in court unless the jurors are given a full, uncut tape of the interrogation that led up to that confession.
Along with that, jurors should be allowed to directly question attorneys and witnesses.
In their defense, I want them to do their due diligence whenever they get a report.....
Sure, they should. But how about requiring completion of some sort of certification course for informants before they can be considered qualified to report situations that require the police or CPS to respond to activities where no child is actually in any immediate or obvious danger? Also, how about getting the informant's contact details, so they can be held financially liable for the trouble and expense they are likely to cause by such over-the-top reporting? (Anyone ever have to pay a lawyer before?)
Do we really need such eager busybodies to call in that "I see an 8 year old out in the cold without a warm hat! And it's freezing out here! Get CPS, quick!", when they haven't even bothered to observe that the kid is simply going from the family car to the house? Because that's where it's headed, folks.
Soo.. overfishing + nuclear contamination to fisheries + global warming + other radioactive environmental damage = less significant? What if we throw in a massive Gulf oil spill? Kind of a crappy argument to claim that because X is worse, Y + X is less significant.
I'll answer your question; massive releases of nuclear contaminants into the environment will raise the number of cancers, birth defects and other health issues that are related to radioactive contamination and lower the environment's (already stressed) ability to supply quality foodstuffs.
Again, I'd like to point out that "we" (the general population of the world) are not responsible for the bulk of the environmental damage that has happened or is happening. "We" don't control/make decisions for Tepco, BP, Monsanto, etc., etc. Those sublimely paid, decision-making executives are responsible and should be held directly accountable for their actions. And how much environmental damage do you think the war machine causes? (Cue: sock puppets.) That's not "we" either. You'll know who "we" are when you're inside a FEMA camp!
Gee, I just realized: How do I know that in 10 or 15 years cute kitten watching won't be linked to a mental disorder or something? Then, if my internet activity is ever reviewed, I'll be the worse for it! Damn! Even watching kitten videos isn't safe!
Because of the ever increasing amounts of internet insecurity, shills paid to push corporate/government agendas and rebuke/dismiss detractors, "sock puppet" and AI posters, overzealous copyright take-down operations, pay-only access to verified (ie: useful) information, spamming, spoofing, bandwidth throttling, spying, tracking, personal information gathering, legal constraints and considerations, over-suspicion of anyone not 100% politically "correct" or aligned with power, agenda based "news", "echo effect" search results, and probably some other stuff I can't think of right now, the internet is quickly losing it's ability to be much other than a channel for light entertainment.
Has the internet hit it's nadir? It's probably only a matter of time before e-commerce fails in a major way due to these security leaks. And it may also be way too late to be useful in organizing any type of real grassroots socio-political change. Let's just go watch cute kittens on YouTube.
this is just stoopid...we've already done so much damage to this planet...
WE?
I had no part in the decision making process that led to any significant world or environment damaging, and I doubt you did either, unless you have a hand in directing activities of a industrial company or are involved in military decision making. You may very likely not even know anyone who did. Get it straight, the robber barons and financially powerful that direct the ecologically damaging activities are not "We". Not without contorting the meaning so as to blame the consumers for how the products used are produced. Were "we" dumping agent orange in Vietnam? "We" level mountaintops? Funny, I don't recall getting my share of the profits!
Little known fact: The iconic "Crying Indian" commercial of the 1970's was produced by a consortium of industrial polluters in order to throw the popular focus back on individuals at a time when industrial pollution was an exponentially greater problem. Sure, people threw garbage out their car window, and that's bad, but the cumulative damage from that was a tiny fraction of what industry was doing.
Ok, then, just for you, assuming you're actually serious, how about a dog metaphor? Should we kill all dogs because some are dangerous? We're talking about characterizing an entire species (and then eliminating it!) based on the aberrant behavior of a small subset of that species. Are most of the people you know unstable, warring, virus makers? If so, how long have you been incarcerated?
And.... as a matter of fact... our current overlords would like to have us believe that we are warlike and unpredictable, though we are not! There is an inverse relation between distrust among individuals and a unified mass population. If regular folk weren't driven to conflict along minor issues they might rise up and take back their birthright. They might wonder if a handful of trillionaires and multi-billionaires really deserve to own the planet.
"Divide and conquer!" In which case, "divide" means "artificially create warlike antagonisms between citizens." Artificially, i.e. not the natural condition.
Consider this: When humans gather in large groups voluntarily, it is almost always a peaceful happening. If violence does erupt, it's due to a small contingent of agitators, the police (themselves following orders), or there is some other extreme factor (like scarce resources, or a flash point has been reached due to extreme government measures). I've never warred with my neighbors, fellow shoppers, others sharing the parks, on the highway, etc., and they all pretty much seem to be getting along ok too. Doesn't look like a warlike species to me. Looks pretty much like folks just generally get along. If the species was truly warlike in nature, we would have long ago have eradicated ourselves from the planet, and saved the future AI's the trouble.
When humans gather in large groups involuntarily, it is almost always a violent scenario. But who conscripted them, and cui bono? Hint: It's never the farmer, nurse or small businessman.
Sure, humans have the capability to cause harm. So does almost every other species. Any horse can be made to bite or kick humans at any opportunity, and any horse might bite or kick in some scenario, but who will label the equine species "dangerous and unpredictable"?
Slashdot Mirror
There is so much wrong with your thinking here that I am a bit bewildered about how to best address it. Besides the fact that you cannot evade mental illness in this manner, and actually instead could be setting up your child for some mental dysfunction of her own, what you are definitely doing is driving up the likelihood that the less affluent children in your area will stay less affluent and thus more prone to related stress-induced mental issues. Own that you are contributing to (probably measurable) increased levels of depression in your community thanks to the "crazies" (ie: the less well off) being ostracized by the "rich" kids, who think they are so much better people because they have iProducts.
A well-balanced person will be able to navigate society successfully without having to fearfully avoid entire classes of people less fortunate than themselves. Perhaps instead you should teach your child how to recognize personality issues to be avoided in ALL social classes (sociopaths, manipulators, jealousy, passive aggression, etc.), while being considerate and helpful to the less fortunate, while you focus on the problems of the affluent:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1950124/>The Culture of Affluence: Psychological Costs of Material Wealth
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/10439196/Children-of-rich-parents-suffering-increased-mental-health-problems.html>Children of rich parents suffering increased mental health problems
ps, I doubt you will change your mind based on this diatribe, but it needed to be said.
Don't need the car analogy here, you're spot on. The photographer is a PROFESSIONAL photographer, not just anybody with a camera. Pros retain the copyright and sell only the rights to use the image(s) for a specified purpose and duration. It's in the contract that the hotel obviously didn't take seriously. For that matter, the photographer can use (or resell) his image as much as he likes, as exclusive usage rights probably weren't assigned permanently to Sofitel.
And I want it off my lawn.
Actually, in most cases you're probably better off not using "moving on" either. I'm guessing the misused phrase leaked into popular culture from 1980's "corporate speak", when mid-level managers babbled this sort of faux intelligent gibberish in attempts to cover up the fact that they actually had little or nothing to say.
"Moving forward" is exceedingly annoying in sentences which already address the future (ie; "What we should do moving forward (or on) is x."). Get to the point; "What we should do is not use the phrase "moving forward" where it is only redundant. If you must add something, how about "from here on out"? At least that phrase adds a wee bit of additional meaning to a sentence. Not much though.
I wanted to use this opportunity to get a discussion going on how we can improve Slashdot moving forward.
Let's start by banning the phrase "moving forward" unless you're talking about physical motion in a forward direction. Without a time machine there is no other direction for the "movement" of which you speak.
Carnegie was keen to advance from a young age, and was sharp enough to impress those who could help him up. His fortune was built on that, as pretty early on he was invited into a succession of sweet insider trading organized by his mentor, Thomas A. Scott (and John Edgar Thompson). Carnegie would not have convinced his mother to take out a mortgage on the family home so as to speculate with the funds if he didn't absolutely know his investment would pay off big. So, basically, corruption was his real ride to the top. (Surprise!!)
And it's the same reason I've never owned an apple product...
What, no apple jelly?!
Science is a process, and it will not always fit nicely into peoples political views. Sometimes ideas you hold most dearly are wrong.
“It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of The New England Journal of Medicine.” - Harvard Medical School’s Dr. Marcia Angell
If we're gonna accept witchdoctor medicine (with iffy at best science behind it), might as well let in the homeopaths, no? Fair is fair.
A current trend in socio-political theory is Uri Bronfenbrenner's Ecological Systems Theory which states: "...basic science needs public policy even more than public policy needs basic science". Get it? Policy drives the science.
Fox News has a Facebook page, right? Just thinkin'....
Why not put the whole computer in the power source form factor? It' almost there already: http://venturebeat.com/2015/01...
And a flashlight function too! You might need to sneak out of the workplace after you've up/downloaded the goods.
Previous phases of human exploration had a number of common or frequent driving elements that space exploration is not likely to have. Such as: zealous religious missionary activities, conquest at behest of the king, racist judgement and condemnation of indigenous cultures, imperialist overreach into another country for minerals, slaves or other goods, etc. Most of that ideology is driven by the social thinkers/drivers at the top (or the powers behind the throne) and the privileged class just below that, not by the average citizens who prefer to just raise their families in peace. Humans will probably not even make it into the "interstellar community" if the species can't shake off the rule of sociopath oligarchs.
If we can assume we've evolved enough to travel among the stars, we would have solved a number of social problems (anger management?) and tech ones as well. I would expect we'd be way, way beyond playing "Billy Goat's Bluff".
Ok, there's plenty of space out there. We might miss a few battles just looking up from earth.
Think about it, war is extremely unlikely among interstellar species. With that level of technology, you're not gonna be hunting for food. Nor will scarcity of materials be a problem. Come on, you can travel among the stars, and you're gonna find one particular solar system that you just gotta have, right? Because this one system is just soooo cool, and there are no others out there like it. So, you figure "I'll just kill off the other interstellar species using the planets there and it'll be all mine!"
Or maybe it's the other scenario: Some insect-like aliens are gonna scour the universe just to hunt down other life forms, just 'cause that's what scary lookin' (by human standards) aliens do.
Anyone who believes inter-species battles is likely to be encountered in space needs some serious help.
Confessions should not be admissible as evidence in court unless the jurors are given a full, uncut tape of the interrogation that led up to that confession. Along with that, jurors should be allowed to directly question attorneys and witnesses.
And informed of the jury nullification option.
In their defense, I want them to do their due diligence whenever they get a report.....
Sure, they should. But how about requiring completion of some sort of certification course for informants before they can be considered qualified to report situations that require the police or CPS to respond to activities where no child is actually in any immediate or obvious danger? Also, how about getting the informant's contact details, so they can be held financially liable for the trouble and expense they are likely to cause by such over-the-top reporting? (Anyone ever have to pay a lawyer before?)
Do we really need such eager busybodies to call in that "I see an 8 year old out in the cold without a warm hat! And it's freezing out here! Get CPS, quick!", when they haven't even bothered to observe that the kid is simply going from the family car to the house? Because that's where it's headed, folks.
Soo.. overfishing + nuclear contamination to fisheries + global warming + other radioactive environmental damage = less significant? What if we throw in a massive Gulf oil spill? Kind of a crappy argument to claim that because X is worse, Y + X is less significant.
I'll answer your question; massive releases of nuclear contaminants into the environment will raise the number of cancers, birth defects and other health issues that are related to radioactive contamination and lower the environment's (already stressed) ability to supply quality foodstuffs.
Again, I'd like to point out that "we" (the general population of the world) are not responsible for the bulk of the environmental damage that has happened or is happening. "We" don't control/make decisions for Tepco, BP, Monsanto, etc., etc. Those sublimely paid, decision-making executives are responsible and should be held directly accountable for their actions. And how much environmental damage do you think the war machine causes? (Cue: sock puppets.) That's not "we" either. You'll know who "we" are when you're inside a FEMA camp!
Back to the cute kitten videos.....
Gee, I just realized: How do I know that in 10 or 15 years cute kitten watching won't be linked to a mental disorder or something? Then, if my internet activity is ever reviewed, I'll be the worse for it! Damn! Even watching kitten videos isn't safe!
Because of the ever increasing amounts of internet insecurity, shills paid to push corporate/government agendas and rebuke/dismiss detractors, "sock puppet" and AI posters, overzealous copyright take-down operations, pay-only access to verified (ie: useful) information, spamming, spoofing, bandwidth throttling, spying, tracking, personal information gathering, legal constraints and considerations, over-suspicion of anyone not 100% politically "correct" or aligned with power, agenda based "news", "echo effect" search results, and probably some other stuff I can't think of right now, the internet is quickly losing it's ability to be much other than a channel for light entertainment.
Has the internet hit it's nadir? It's probably only a matter of time before e-commerce fails in a major way due to these security leaks. And it may also be way too late to be useful in organizing any type of real grassroots socio-political change. Let's just go watch cute kittens on YouTube.
this is just stoopid...we've already done so much damage to this planet...
WE?
I had no part in the decision making process that led to any significant world or environment damaging, and I doubt you did either, unless you have a hand in directing activities of a industrial company or are involved in military decision making. You may very likely not even know anyone who did. Get it straight, the robber barons and financially powerful that direct the ecologically damaging activities are not "We". Not without contorting the meaning so as to blame the consumers for how the products used are produced. Were "we" dumping agent orange in Vietnam? "We" level mountaintops? Funny, I don't recall getting my share of the profits!
Little known fact: The iconic "Crying Indian" commercial of the 1970's was produced by a consortium of industrial polluters in order to throw the popular focus back on individuals at a time when industrial pollution was an exponentially greater problem. Sure, people threw garbage out their car window, and that's bad, but the cumulative damage from that was a tiny fraction of what industry was doing.
Wanted: Marine Life Impersonators. Must have own costume and be able to thrive in salt water conditions. Overtime available.
Mod me up! (Or I might sue yer ass.)
Ok, then, just for you, assuming you're actually serious, how about a dog metaphor? Should we kill all dogs because some are dangerous? We're talking about characterizing an entire species (and then eliminating it!) based on the aberrant behavior of a small subset of that species. Are most of the people you know unstable, warring, virus makers? If so, how long have you been incarcerated?
And.... as a matter of fact... our current overlords would like to have us believe that we are warlike and unpredictable, though we are not! There is an inverse relation between distrust among individuals and a unified mass population. If regular folk weren't driven to conflict along minor issues they might rise up and take back their birthright. They might wonder if a handful of trillionaires and multi-billionaires really deserve to own the planet.
"Divide and conquer!" In which case, "divide" means "artificially create warlike antagonisms between citizens." Artificially, i.e. not the natural condition.
Consider this: When humans gather in large groups voluntarily, it is almost always a peaceful happening. If violence does erupt, it's due to a small contingent of agitators, the police (themselves following orders), or there is some other extreme factor (like scarce resources, or a flash point has been reached due to extreme government measures). I've never warred with my neighbors, fellow shoppers, others sharing the parks, on the highway, etc., and they all pretty much seem to be getting along ok too. Doesn't look like a warlike species to me. Looks pretty much like folks just generally get along. If the species was truly warlike in nature, we would have long ago have eradicated ourselves from the planet, and saved the future AI's the trouble.
When humans gather in large groups involuntarily, it is almost always a violent scenario. But who conscripted them, and cui bono? Hint: It's never the farmer, nurse or small businessman.
Sure, humans have the capability to cause harm. So does almost every other species. Any horse can be made to bite or kick humans at any opportunity, and any horse might bite or kick in some scenario, but who will label the equine species "dangerous and unpredictable"?