Autism itself isn't something you can cure, nor would most autistics want you to attempt to do so.
Since you're making clear and expressive posts here, you are obviously a very high functioning autistic person. Since you can say you don't want it, it's obvious that it would be beyond unethical to "cure" you (assuming there was a cure). Nor can I see any reason that it would be necessary or even desirable. That is not even close to the same situation as with low functioning autistic people.
No. RTFA. It's not an article about treatment, but it says no such thing. "The children with autism received intensive treatment and, as a group, they improved on the behavioral tests over time.". The OP is guilty of binary thinking. They don't cure, but they do help.
That the current methods don't work is disappointing
The article certainly doesn't say that, and it's not true. The current methods are very time intensive and they don't work nearly as well as one would hope, but they do help. I've seen my nephew improve because of these treatments. Unfortunately he is still severely autistic and will never lead an independent, but for someone who has serious difficulties like him, even small things can help tremendously. Imagine not even being able to tell people what you want. He can at least do that now, albeit in rudimentary knowledge. For example, he can say he wants a hamburger instead of a hot dog (instead of throwing a fit because you can't communicate what you want - try it), or that you need to use the bathroom (hence find one in a public place), or any number of small things that most people take for granted being able to communicate, makes a dramatic difference.
Quoting in full because it shouldn't linger at a score 0 and I have no mod points today.
I've seen the Temple Grandin movie, and it's spectacular. However, it is about a very high-functioning form of autism.
My autistic cousin is not the high-functioning type. He can't speak, dress himself, or probably even use a toilet without assistance. He can't go out in public very often because he's prone to the kind of outbursts that would be excusable for a 2-year-old, but are likely to get a 30-year-old man like him arrested.
His parents love him very much and are glad that they had him, regardless of his many challenges. However, he is an only child and they had him rather late in life. If won't be long before they're physically unable to care for him, or simply die. And what then?
As a ward of the state, he will be much less useful to society than if he were "cured".
What if we were talking about sociopaths? Would you say that it's just a different way of thinking that doesn't need to be cured? Perhaps you'd suggest that they have a useful place in society as politicians, completely ignoring the fact that some of them become serial killers (and that maybe society would be better off in general if we didn't have sociopathic leaders).
dom
30% is max efficiency, which usually occurs at around 75% output power. You don't use anywhere near that much power cruising (with the possible exceptions of Montana and the Autobahn). Average efficiency in driving is 14-26% according to this: http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/atv.shtml That's a frustratingly wide range, but you get the idea. IIRC coal plants are about 40%. Combined cycle natural gas powered plants are approaching 60%.
Same reason our distant ancestors said "We've gotta come down from these trees eventually"
We came down from the trees because the trees were disappearing and we wanted something to eat. What is there to eat on Mars? What could we grow on Mars that we couldn't grow more easily than on Earth?
Toyota has managed to reduce the amount of platinum in the fuel cell to about 30g, just over $1,600 worth and is looking to reduce this even further.
I wonder what makes the cars cost $50k-$100k then. Is it just the low volume production? Are there things about fuel cells other than the platinum that make them expensive?
You will never exceed the benefits of having a tool wielding human in-situ with robotics.
If it took the same amount of time to develop the equipment for the missions, and they cost the same, you'd be absolutely right. But how many robots could you send to Mars for the price of sending one person?
It's a shame so much of NASA's human exploration has been cut back.
I wish I could agree, but I can't. I hate to say it because I grew up on the manned space program. As a kid I saw Neil Armstrong take the first steps on the moon (yes, that means I'm over 21) and thought what an historic moment it was. One of the things that we learned in those early days though is that people are fragile and manned space flight is horribly expensive. For a fraction of the price (10%?) you can send an unmanned mission. Frankly a lot of the support for manned space flight is that people want to see Buck Rogers, but almost all important scientific and practical work has been done by unmanned spacecraft. Please don't respond with examples of the work done in manned space flight. I know there's been some stuff, but it's tiny compared to the cost and what's been done unmanned. Also our ability to create robots (or whatever you want to call them) has increased dramatically since the early days.
Sure we could develop some cool tech for manned missions, but there are cheaper ways to do it. We could also create some cool robotic tech for unmanned missions. Before we send anybody to Mars, let's at least do an unmanned round trip.
Foxconn's long term plan is to replace many of the Chinese workers with robots:
Kind of like the American plan was in the 80's? I'm old enough to remember the emphasis on design for automated assembly. Then cheap labor stepped in, the MNC's got a short term gain, and all the expertise went overseas. So when they automate they'll be where we could've been 20 years ago.
It may be coincidental in that the companies looking to cut way back on quality are the ones moving to Mexico, so maybe it's not Mexico's fault, but the metric for a product consumer is the same - avoid stuff made in Mexico.
I'll take the Mexican stuff over the Chinese. I think you're right about why the quality is so bad. I've known a few companies that were able to get very good quality from their Mexican operations. It takes some effort, but it can be done. I think it's easier than in China though. I've also heard about a place called Estados Unidos de América, but I think it's next to Atlantis.
Slashdot Mirror
Autism itself isn't something you can cure, nor would most autistics want you to attempt to do so.
Since you're making clear and expressive posts here, you are obviously a very high functioning autistic person. Since you can say you don't want it, it's obvious that it would be beyond unethical to "cure" you (assuming there was a cure). Nor can I see any reason that it would be necessary or even desirable. That is not even close to the same situation as with low functioning autistic people.
In other words, the autism treatments don't work.
No. RTFA. It's not an article about treatment, but it says no such thing. "The children with autism received intensive treatment and, as a group, they improved on the behavioral tests over time.". The OP is guilty of binary thinking. They don't cure, but they do help.
That the current methods don't work is disappointing
The article certainly doesn't say that, and it's not true. The current methods are very time intensive and they don't work nearly as well as one would hope, but they do help. I've seen my nephew improve because of these treatments. Unfortunately he is still severely autistic and will never lead an independent, but for someone who has serious difficulties like him, even small things can help tremendously. Imagine not even being able to tell people what you want. He can at least do that now, albeit in rudimentary knowledge. For example, he can say he wants a hamburger instead of a hot dog (instead of throwing a fit because you can't communicate what you want - try it), or that you need to use the bathroom (hence find one in a public place), or any number of small things that most people take for granted being able to communicate, makes a dramatic difference.
I've seen the Temple Grandin movie, and it's spectacular. However, it is about a very high-functioning form of autism. My autistic cousin is not the high-functioning type. He can't speak, dress himself, or probably even use a toilet without assistance. He can't go out in public very often because he's prone to the kind of outbursts that would be excusable for a 2-year-old, but are likely to get a 30-year-old man like him arrested. His parents love him very much and are glad that they had him, regardless of his many challenges. However, he is an only child and they had him rather late in life. If won't be long before they're physically unable to care for him, or simply die. And what then? As a ward of the state, he will be much less useful to society than if he were "cured". What if we were talking about sociopaths? Would you say that it's just a different way of thinking that doesn't need to be cured? Perhaps you'd suggest that they have a useful place in society as politicians, completely ignoring the fact that some of them become serial killers (and that maybe society would be better off in general if we didn't have sociopathic leaders). dom
Mod parent up. +5
But different isn't necessarily bad, either.
A statement so broad and obvious it's meaningless.
How about instead of trying to eradicate people who aren't like you, you let them be?
If I could "eradicate" amputees by giving them new limbs I'd do it in a heartbeat.
30% is max efficiency, which usually occurs at around 75% output power. You don't use anywhere near that much power cruising (with the possible exceptions of Montana and the Autobahn). Average efficiency in driving is 14-26% according to this: http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/atv.shtml That's a frustratingly wide range, but you get the idea. IIRC coal plants are about 40%. Combined cycle natural gas powered plants are approaching 60%.
Same reason our distant ancestors said "We've gotta come down from these trees eventually"
We came down from the trees because the trees were disappearing and we wanted something to eat. What is there to eat on Mars? What could we grow on Mars that we couldn't grow more easily than on Earth?
Toyota has managed to reduce the amount of platinum in the fuel cell to about 30g, just over $1,600 worth and is looking to reduce this even further.
I wonder what makes the cars cost $50k-$100k then. Is it just the low volume production? Are there things about fuel cells other than the platinum that make them expensive?
yes they tried, but it does not mean that it is the wrong way to go. They just could not sell it to enough people
Doesn't sound like a great business model.
Battery swapping, on the other hand, is the most cost efficient, environmentally friendly, and quickest form of refueling an battery EV.
That would seem more credible if the company that tried it hadn't recently gone out of business.
A cottage industry has sprung up refurbing Prius batteries.
If they don't need to be replaced, why is there a market for refurbs?
and possibly Venus
Venus has a surface temperature of 462C.
Earth, with all it's culture, natural beauty, diversity and frankly, convenience
Ever been to New Jersey?
Otherwise I, reluctantly, have to agree.
We've gotta get off this rock eventually
Why?
You will never exceed the benefits of having a tool wielding human in-situ with robotics.
If it took the same amount of time to develop the equipment for the missions, and they cost the same, you'd be absolutely right. But how many robots could you send to Mars for the price of sending one person?
I still want to go to Mars
Understandable, but who is going to pay for it?
RMS would say that you're sacrificing your freedom if you allow non-Free malware to run on your GNU/Linux PC computer.
+5 Funny
My home has been struck by lightning 3 times in the past 20 years.
Do you live in central Florida? I understand that's "Lightning Alley". PITA electrically, but fun to watch.
We could just send the cockroaches instead and hope that in a thousand years, they'll turn into humans.
It can be done overnight.
Can't see the trees for the forest.
It's a shame so much of NASA's human exploration has been cut back.
I wish I could agree, but I can't. I hate to say it because I grew up on the manned space program. As a kid I saw Neil Armstrong take the first steps on the moon (yes, that means I'm over 21) and thought what an historic moment it was. One of the things that we learned in those early days though is that people are fragile and manned space flight is horribly expensive. For a fraction of the price (10%?) you can send an unmanned mission. Frankly a lot of the support for manned space flight is that people want to see Buck Rogers, but almost all important scientific and practical work has been done by unmanned spacecraft. Please don't respond with examples of the work done in manned space flight. I know there's been some stuff, but it's tiny compared to the cost and what's been done unmanned. Also our ability to create robots (or whatever you want to call them) has increased dramatically since the early days.
Sure we could develop some cool tech for manned missions, but there are cheaper ways to do it. We could also create some cool robotic tech for unmanned missions. Before we send anybody to Mars, let's at least do an unmanned round trip.
Never send a man to do a robot's job.
Transportation across the Pacific is scarily cheap
It's also scarily slow.
Foxconn's long term plan is to replace many of the Chinese workers with robots:
Kind of like the American plan was in the 80's? I'm old enough to remember the emphasis on design for automated assembly. Then cheap labor stepped in, the MNC's got a short term gain, and all the expertise went overseas. So when they automate they'll be where we could've been 20 years ago.
You have to wait until the market works it out.
But it always does in the long run. Of course in the long run we're all dead.
It may be coincidental in that the companies looking to cut way back on quality are the ones moving to Mexico, so maybe it's not Mexico's fault, but the metric for a product consumer is the same - avoid stuff made in Mexico.
I'll take the Mexican stuff over the Chinese. I think you're right about why the quality is so bad. I've known a few companies that were able to get very good quality from their Mexican operations. It takes some effort, but it can be done. I think it's easier than in China though. I've also heard about a place called Estados Unidos de América, but I think it's next to Atlantis.