There was a lawsuit that ended not long ago in which some city had held promotional exams for firefighters (for lieutenant or captain, IIRC). None of the firefighters that passed the exam was a minority, so what did the city do? They threw out the results completely. They'd made up their minds that they were going to have minorities pass the test and be promoted. Naturally, the firefighters who had passed the test and would have been eligible for promotion sued. A few months ago, they won and had their eligibility for promotion reinstated.
That was in Hartford CT. The reason the department threw out the results of the original tests was because of a CT state law that requires state and city agencies to only use racially indiscriminate methods to determine eligibility for promotion. In other words, test results cannot produce disparate results between protected and non-protected classes. There were a large number of Caucasian, Black, and Latino firefighters that took that test. Because all of the 11 people that passed were Caucasian, the department's lawyers determined that the promotion exam had some kind of disparate selection bias, and was required by law to disregard the results of the test.
The Hartford FD was in a tough spot, they had to find a way to be compliant with two different laws. The first compels organizations to disregard race in making hiring and promotion decisions (EEO), the second compels them to ensure that their testing process does not have a disparate impact on any protected racial group (Affirmative Action). The FD took the course that resulted in the fewest lawsuits, namely from the 11 guys that rightfully passed, rather than deal with suits from the dozens that could make a reasonable case for discrimination.
I also used to work for a CLEC. I remember on one occasion I had to get a customer CSR (Customer Service Record) from this one little podunk mom and pop rural carrier by Fed-ex. They refused to fax or send anything electronically, and made my company pay the shipping charges. To be fair, it's probably because we were trying to take their lines, so I understand them being cranky. But still, its ridiculous.
It confuses me why anyone (phone companies or the USPTO) would even want their documentation on paper. Electronicize that stuff, and eliminate a huge amount of wasted expense in paper, shipping, and storage.
And it could afford small tokens of civilisation like universal healthcare, and a renewable energy infrastructure.
But we don't need things like renewable energy infrastructure as long as we have a military capable of invading countries that have oil. That's renewable energy, American style.
Invading other countries and forcing our will on them is an inalienable American right. After all, if not for our ridiculously unnecessary wars, where would we keep our robot donkeys? Not in my back yard.
My memory is a little incomplete on this, but from my college years in Psych I recall a study along these lines.
About 20 Priests were recruited, they were told they were to give a lecture about morality and an obligation to do good deeds (or something like that), and they were made to believe they were running late to their appointment. Along their route to their lecture, study confederates staged a man faking a heart attack, with a crowd standing by watching. Again my memory fails me a little, but I recall only something like 2 or 3 of these Priests stopped to offer assistance. Even though these people were primed with the concept of having a duty to offer assistance, they failed to do so because they were late to their appointment.
I wont defend that kind of inactivity on a personal level, but considering our evolutionary background where it was the sick and weak that were taken by predators, it does not surprise me that groups of people can rationalize not stepping up to intervene.
Yes it is. In Germany. The US constitution is not universal, you know.
If y'all knew any better we wouldn't a had to come all the way over thar and kick all your butts like we did back in W W 2. The good lord passed the word down to our forefathers that ever' man has the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. And datgum it if failing to provide a good christian education ain't denyin them their right to pursue their happiness like a coon dog down a rabbit hole.
Just look at what we done been doing out in the Iraq. Some of them towel headed gentlemen thought they ought to be denyin people their right to believe in Jesus hisself. Teaching about this mohamed feller come around AFTER Jesus, and they good 'ol JC ain't the son of god. Blasphemy.
I tell you free thinking "rational" your-o-peein's" what, ya'll would do perty good for yourselves if you just accept that us here over in America got it pretty good, and that you all could learn a thing or two from us. Over here, its the law: you can't have this "evolution" nonsense shoved at your children without giving them the christian version too.
Yes it is. In Germany. The US constitution is not universal, you know.
Seriously though, your absolutely correct. Education and Healthcare are rights in most developed countries. I can't understand how our country hasn't gotten on board with that yet.
Big fan of home schooling myself, however the biggest problem with home schooling isn't the quality of education. It is the lack of socialization. Home school kids are massively underdeveloped socially, they miss out on a lot of cues that the rest of the population learned the hard way in social environment.
Just to play devils advocate, the social environment that can be found in some schools can also be deleterious to normal social development. Problems can occur with the extreme example of home schooled children that never leave the home and only socialize with their immediate family, but this doesn't always have to be the case. Steps can be taken to ensure that home schooled children receive some amount of socialization (youth sports, boy/girl scouts, volunteer and charity organizations, etc). Parents just need to make sure their home schooled children actually leave the home on a regular basis.
Sounds like your just angry and pick out Fox because Fox News is the undisputed leader in news today, and is smoking all these lefty, old-guard stations. They're the only ones who don't slobber over Obama every day.
I think there are lots of people that would dispute that. A lot of people. Fox News may have a huge viewership, but even many of those viewers understand that Fox News is as much Political Entertainment as News. I love watching Fox News to see conservatives drooling over democrat misteps and competing with each other in an apparent "who loves our country and hates terrorists more" contest. I don't see them as a top news source, but I do see stories reported there that I would not expect to see on MSNBC (and vice versa).
I like your point about networks having specific slant. Fox has an intriguing blend of actual news and punditry; as much as they like to claim they are "fair and balanced", careful observation of their content indicates otherwise (/Captain Obvious). Fox seems very comfortable blurring the line, and their personalities are very good at it. The difference between Fox and others is the obviousness of their political leanings. Fox is very, very blunt about where their support lies. Some organizations are more subtle, but that slant still exists.
It's like firing a gun in a random direction in the middle of NY, and saying that you didn't expect the bullets to hit someone.
With respect, I think a better analogy would be firing a gun in the middle of NY knowing that 1) You will kill the person you are trying to kill and that 2) that bullet will tear right through that person and probably kill anyone unlucky enough to be standing downrange. Dropping explosives onto a high value target is very very likely to kill that target, but is also very very likely to kill anyone standing near them, innocent or not. The Risk/Benefit analysis here is about the value of killing the bad guy, versus the ramifications of potentially killing innocents.
That said, I do agree with you. Anyone dropping ordnance has to know that they will be killing someone. The burden that those people live with, is that they can't know who else they might kill in the process. I can't imagine what its like to have to do that.
The machines must be able to produce a hard copy for use in any court action.
That is a good point, except that as things stand right now, there is no legal requirement to present any evidence that a person has failed this kind of screening. This imaging system alone would not be used to determine guilt or innocence; rather it would be used to identify which individuals may be carrying something they shouldn't, and should be detained for in depth screening.
I work on a program to develop security screening technologies. The TSA, and other organizations, have made it a design requirement (and I mean that in the technical way) that screening technologies be completely anonymous, and not record any information about a person once they have left screening.
Would like to see something of Alistair Reynolds' made into a movie. With the Avatar success, I think someone could make one of those worlds pretty well...
But, you know, something totally original is good too.
Yes. I would absolutely pay to go see Pushing Ice, as long is it was well made and faithful to the characters and scope of the novel. However I would hate to see a poorly made film based on one of Alistair Reynolds' books.
My bank has none of these problems. When I call their main number, I go through an automated security system to identify and authenticate myself. I'm then transferred directly to a rep at my local branch, who already has my account information up.
Of course my bank is small, 5 branches and a central office. The issues you describe are inherent to larger national banks. I wouldn't classify them as "guilty" as if it were a crime or a weakness. Those issues you describe are a combined cost savings and complaint deterrent measure; it makes it much harder for you to successfully contest charges and fees. That is part and parcel with having the advantages of such a large bank (i.e. greater banking services and ATM locations).
You could avoid those problems by simple picking a smaller financial institution that is more focused on the satisfaction of their individual members.
Considering the state of the world, I don't think some people would mind trying having temporarily having a king to kick the asshats out of government.
Personally, I think we should get rid of the notion that everyone is qualified to vote. It may have worked back when the whole country was ten thousand people, everyone knew you, and your words actually meant something, but that's obviously not the case with 300 million people.
Just think about it: there was nobody better suited to lead a country, than Clinton, Bush or Obama? And how the hell did Bush get reelected?
Perhaps Citizenship and the right to vote can be secured through some form of Federal service. I'm sure I saw that is some horrendous film based on a classic sci-fi text somewhere...
by the time my son grows up there will be more books to read so i don't really care if he never reads any of my old Tom Clancy books. besides, how often do kids do the same things as parents?
Some of my favorite books to read when I was a kid was my fathers old Hardy Boys set. I still have my mothers collection of Ian Flemmings novels. Though I rarely read it, I have a bible that's been passed down through 4 generations of my family.
I do get your point, the vast majority of content that I read and I expect my children will read is not historically significant. Its technical literature or pleasure reading that will grow outdated. However, there is something significant in being able to hand down copies of noteworthy texts.
A great example: for Christmas my mother gave my girlfriend her copy of The Joy of Cooking , my mom had filled in the margins with all sorts of notes on how to modify and healthify the recipes. You can't do that with a digital copy.
Yes the buddy system is hardly confined to missile silos. I was a day labourer and factory worker in Oz during the 70's & 80's, standard industrial saftey rules say that no worker is to be alone where machinery or confined spaces are involved.
I had no idea that the Lollipop Guild had such rigorous safety guidelines.
Could it be because middle class parents are more likely to push back against drug recommendations?
Yes, that's very true. I'm going to try to explain in a way that doesn't make me sound bigoted and ignorant, I apologize if I cross a line.
People and Families from lower class backgrounds are socially conditioned not to question authority figures, i.e. Police, Teachers, Doctors (there is social conditioning to resist and resent these authority figures, but not to question their decisions). Individuals and Families from middle and upper class background tend to be better educated, and have a greater sense of entitlement. They tend to be more communicative with Doctors, and require more detailed explanations of treatments before they submit. Lower wealth and level of education generally translates into greater deference to authority.
And I see a lot of bickering over the argument that Correlation does not equal Causation. In order to truly scientifically define causation, a researcher would need to recruit a representative sample pool, randomly assign them to experimental conditions, and watch them over time. Never mind that running this kind of research design would be a monster to implement, Researchers dealing with human subjects are ethically prohibited from knowingly placing their Participants into a situation where they would come to harm. We will never see a study "proving" a causal relationship between smoking and cancer, for example. If they are trying to prove a hypothesis that smoking causes cancer, no Researcher could ever instruct a Participant to smoke cigarettes.
That would actually be a wonderful opportunity for retailers like to step in and take more responsibility for where the product goes. GameStop's and Walmart's could very easily display like games together, offering parents the opportunity to compare a Mature game with a similar less mature game.
(there's certainly no counterpart to the infamous nuke sequence)
I found the nuke-ing in the new game to be much more unsettling than in the first game. You do have a point in that it was not new, and thus not a surprise, but it depicted a much more horrific act with much greater (virtual) implications.
You are right though that the game was short. COD games have always followed that model; very short but wonderfully exciting single player campaigns. Personally I love it, I don't like spending 40+ gameplay hours to tell a story. But that's a personal preference.
Xbox live is a whole different kind of awful. In my opinion, networks like XBL can be worse than forums/chatrooms (aside from things like targeted pedophilia).
I'm an adult, and I like to think I have a thick skin about most things. I am wise enough to know that words are just words. Even still, I hear things over XBL that make me embarrassed to be part of that kind of community. People there treat each other like crap, with no expectation of any consequences. I've seen those kind of positive adult/child interactions in WOW or older online games. As a kid I used to play paintball fairly regularly, I saw a lot of that kind of mentoring. I never see that on XBL. It might be fair to say that anyone that plays over Xbox Live should be kept away from everyone else.
I agree children should be have some level of separation on a network like that, real time voice chat makes filtering and content restrictions really hard. Positive role models are definitely good for children, but in my experience those just don't exist on Xbox. Maybe its just the games I'm playing, but it doesn't seem like that. I am not a parent, and it may sound hypocritical, but my child will never be allowed to interact on networks like that.
That there are differences does not mean there are not universals.
Name me three "body language universals".
There are lots actually, especially among facial expressions (as noted above). Smiles, sneers, crying, frowns, etc are all understood to be fairly universal behaviors. They are universal responses to stimuli, and they are commonly understood by people irrespective of culture. The thing is that these relatively simple behaviors that are likely innate to the organism, rather than learned behaviors. Many of these reflexes are even understood across species.
He then gets offended when the Spaniard moves his hands in a gesture which is perfectly normal for this country, but unusual and much more confrontational in the US.
This is an example of a more complex learned behavior. You are correct in that this kind of gesture can only be understood within its cultural context; however this is not true "body language". This might be considered as simply Language, that happens to involve the hands. A better example to illustrate your point would be that of handshakes or eye contact. These behaviors, though they seem very simple and straightforward, do show huge differences across cultures.
If you'd settle for just one example of a body language universal, consider sexual arousal. Male sexual arousal is fairly easy to identify, and is generally understood across all cultures.
Slashdot Mirror
There was a lawsuit that ended not long ago in which some city had held promotional exams for firefighters (for lieutenant or captain, IIRC). None of the firefighters that passed the exam was a minority, so what did the city do? They threw out the results completely. They'd made up their minds that they were going to have minorities pass the test and be promoted. Naturally, the firefighters who had passed the test and would have been eligible for promotion sued. A few months ago, they won and had their eligibility for promotion reinstated.
That was in Hartford CT. The reason the department threw out the results of the original tests was because of a CT state law that requires state and city agencies to only use racially indiscriminate methods to determine eligibility for promotion. In other words, test results cannot produce disparate results between protected and non-protected classes. There were a large number of Caucasian, Black, and Latino firefighters that took that test. Because all of the 11 people that passed were Caucasian, the department's lawyers determined that the promotion exam had some kind of disparate selection bias, and was required by law to disregard the results of the test.
The Hartford FD was in a tough spot, they had to find a way to be compliant with two different laws. The first compels organizations to disregard race in making hiring and promotion decisions (EEO), the second compels them to ensure that their testing process does not have a disparate impact on any protected racial group (Affirmative Action). The FD took the course that resulted in the fewest lawsuits, namely from the 11 guys that rightfully passed, rather than deal with suits from the dozens that could make a reasonable case for discrimination.
I also used to work for a CLEC. I remember on one occasion I had to get a customer CSR (Customer Service Record) from this one little podunk mom and pop rural carrier by Fed-ex. They refused to fax or send anything electronically, and made my company pay the shipping charges. To be fair, it's probably because we were trying to take their lines, so I understand them being cranky. But still, its ridiculous.
It confuses me why anyone (phone companies or the USPTO) would even want their documentation on paper. Electronicize that stuff, and eliminate a huge amount of wasted expense in paper, shipping, and storage.
And it could afford small tokens of civilisation like universal healthcare, and a renewable energy infrastructure.
But we don't need things like renewable energy infrastructure as long as we have a military capable of invading countries that have oil. That's renewable energy, American style.
Invading other countries and forcing our will on them is an inalienable American right. After all, if not for our ridiculously unnecessary wars, where would we keep our robot donkeys? Not in my back yard.
My memory is a little incomplete on this, but from my college years in Psych I recall a study along these lines.
About 20 Priests were recruited, they were told they were to give a lecture about morality and an obligation to do good deeds (or something like that), and they were made to believe they were running late to their appointment. Along their route to their lecture, study confederates staged a man faking a heart attack, with a crowd standing by watching. Again my memory fails me a little, but I recall only something like 2 or 3 of these Priests stopped to offer assistance. Even though these people were primed with the concept of having a duty to offer assistance, they failed to do so because they were late to their appointment.
I wont defend that kind of inactivity on a personal level, but considering our evolutionary background where it was the sick and weak that were taken by predators, it does not surprise me that groups of people can rationalize not stepping up to intervene.
Some of us are also students in psychology or otherwise, who hear it every time anything remotely connected to social psychology is brought up.
Wish I had mod points. Thank you for that.
Yes it is. In Germany. The US constitution is not universal, you know.
If y'all knew any better we wouldn't a had to come all the way over thar and kick all your butts like we did back in W W 2. The good lord passed the word down to our forefathers that ever' man has the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. And datgum it if failing to provide a good christian education ain't denyin them their right to pursue their happiness like a coon dog down a rabbit hole.
Just look at what we done been doing out in the Iraq. Some of them towel headed gentlemen thought they ought to be denyin people their right to believe in Jesus hisself. Teaching about this mohamed feller come around AFTER Jesus, and they good 'ol JC ain't the son of god. Blasphemy.
I tell you free thinking "rational" your-o-peein's" what, ya'll would do perty good for yourselves if you just accept that us here over in America got it pretty good, and that you all could learn a thing or two from us. Over here, its the law: you can't have this "evolution" nonsense shoved at your children without giving them the christian version too.
Yes it is. In Germany. The US constitution is not universal, you know.
Seriously though, your absolutely correct. Education and Healthcare are rights in most developed countries. I can't understand how our country hasn't gotten on board with that yet.
Big fan of home schooling myself, however the biggest problem with home schooling isn't the quality of education. It is the lack of socialization. Home school kids are massively underdeveloped socially, they miss out on a lot of cues that the rest of the population learned the hard way in social environment.
Just to play devils advocate, the social environment that can be found in some schools can also be deleterious to normal social development. Problems can occur with the extreme example of home schooled children that never leave the home and only socialize with their immediate family, but this doesn't always have to be the case. Steps can be taken to ensure that home schooled children receive some amount of socialization (youth sports, boy/girl scouts, volunteer and charity organizations, etc). Parents just need to make sure their home schooled children actually leave the home on a regular basis.
Sounds like your just angry and pick out Fox because Fox News is the undisputed leader in news today, and is smoking all these lefty, old-guard stations. They're the only ones who don't slobber over Obama every day.
I think there are lots of people that would dispute that. A lot of people. Fox News may have a huge viewership, but even many of those viewers understand that Fox News is as much Political Entertainment as News. I love watching Fox News to see conservatives drooling over democrat misteps and competing with each other in an apparent "who loves our country and hates terrorists more" contest. I don't see them as a top news source, but I do see stories reported there that I would not expect to see on MSNBC (and vice versa).
I like your point about networks having specific slant. Fox has an intriguing blend of actual news and punditry; as much as they like to claim they are "fair and balanced", careful observation of their content indicates otherwise (/Captain Obvious). Fox seems very comfortable blurring the line, and their personalities are very good at it. The difference between Fox and others is the obviousness of their political leanings. Fox is very, very blunt about where their support lies. Some organizations are more subtle, but that slant still exists.
The main difference being that, they actually use the money and spend it on their citizens in visible ways.
We do spend it in visible ways. In fact even as we speak many of our sons, fathers, and brothers are having a great visible tour of sunny Iraq!
communist threat of what?
Borscht. Its terrifying stuff.
It's like firing a gun in a random direction in the middle of NY, and saying that you didn't expect the bullets to hit someone.
With respect, I think a better analogy would be firing a gun in the middle of NY knowing that 1) You will kill the person you are trying to kill and that 2) that bullet will tear right through that person and probably kill anyone unlucky enough to be standing downrange. Dropping explosives onto a high value target is very very likely to kill that target, but is also very very likely to kill anyone standing near them, innocent or not. The Risk/Benefit analysis here is about the value of killing the bad guy, versus the ramifications of potentially killing innocents.
That said, I do agree with you. Anyone dropping ordnance has to know that they will be killing someone. The burden that those people live with, is that they can't know who else they might kill in the process. I can't imagine what its like to have to do that.
The machines must be able to produce a hard copy for use in any court action.
That is a good point, except that as things stand right now, there is no legal requirement to present any evidence that a person has failed this kind of screening. This imaging system alone would not be used to determine guilt or innocence; rather it would be used to identify which individuals may be carrying something they shouldn't, and should be detained for in depth screening.
I work on a program to develop security screening technologies. The TSA, and other organizations, have made it a design requirement (and I mean that in the technical way) that screening technologies be completely anonymous, and not record any information about a person once they have left screening.
Would like to see something of Alistair Reynolds' made into a movie. With the Avatar success, I think someone could make one of those worlds pretty well...
But, you know, something totally original is good too.
Yes. I would absolutely pay to go see Pushing Ice, as long is it was well made and faithful to the characters and scope of the novel. However I would hate to see a poorly made film based on one of Alistair Reynolds' books.
My bank has none of these problems. When I call their main number, I go through an automated security system to identify and authenticate myself. I'm then transferred directly to a rep at my local branch, who already has my account information up.
Of course my bank is small, 5 branches and a central office. The issues you describe are inherent to larger national banks. I wouldn't classify them as "guilty" as if it were a crime or a weakness. Those issues you describe are a combined cost savings and complaint deterrent measure; it makes it much harder for you to successfully contest charges and fees. That is part and parcel with having the advantages of such a large bank (i.e. greater banking services and ATM locations).
You could avoid those problems by simple picking a smaller financial institution that is more focused on the satisfaction of their individual members.
Considering the state of the world, I don't think some people would mind trying having temporarily having a king to kick the asshats out of government.
Personally, I think we should get rid of the notion that everyone is qualified to vote. It may have worked back when the whole country was ten thousand people, everyone knew you, and your words actually meant something, but that's obviously not the case with 300 million people.
Just think about it: there was nobody better suited to lead a country, than Clinton, Bush or Obama? And how the hell did Bush get reelected?
Perhaps Citizenship and the right to vote can be secured through some form of Federal service. I'm sure I saw that is some horrendous film based on a classic sci-fi text somewhere...
by the time my son grows up there will be more books to read so i don't really care if he never reads any of my old Tom Clancy books. besides, how often do kids do the same things as parents?
Some of my favorite books to read when I was a kid was my fathers old Hardy Boys set. I still have my mothers collection of Ian Flemmings novels. Though I rarely read it, I have a bible that's been passed down through 4 generations of my family.
I do get your point, the vast majority of content that I read and I expect my children will read is not historically significant. Its technical literature or pleasure reading that will grow outdated. However, there is something significant in being able to hand down copies of noteworthy texts.
A great example: for Christmas my mother gave my girlfriend her copy of The Joy of Cooking , my mom had filled in the margins with all sorts of notes on how to modify and healthify the recipes. You can't do that with a digital copy.
Give it up. I was born in Bangor.
Bangor? I barely even know her!
Yes the buddy system is hardly confined to missile silos. I was a day labourer and factory worker in Oz during the 70's & 80's, standard industrial saftey rules say that no worker is to be alone where machinery or confined spaces are involved.
I had no idea that the Lollipop Guild had such rigorous safety guidelines.
Could it be because middle class parents are more likely to push back against drug recommendations?
Yes, that's very true. I'm going to try to explain in a way that doesn't make me sound bigoted and ignorant, I apologize if I cross a line.
People and Families from lower class backgrounds are socially conditioned not to question authority figures, i.e. Police, Teachers, Doctors (there is social conditioning to resist and resent these authority figures, but not to question their decisions). Individuals and Families from middle and upper class background tend to be better educated, and have a greater sense of entitlement. They tend to be more communicative with Doctors, and require more detailed explanations of treatments before they submit. Lower wealth and level of education generally translates into greater deference to authority.
And I see a lot of bickering over the argument that Correlation does not equal Causation. In order to truly scientifically define causation, a researcher would need to recruit a representative sample pool, randomly assign them to experimental conditions, and watch them over time. Never mind that running this kind of research design would be a monster to implement, Researchers dealing with human subjects are ethically prohibited from knowingly placing their Participants into a situation where they would come to harm. We will never see a study "proving" a causal relationship between smoking and cancer, for example. If they are trying to prove a hypothesis that smoking causes cancer, no Researcher could ever instruct a Participant to smoke cigarettes.
That would actually be a wonderful opportunity for retailers like to step in and take more responsibility for where the product goes. GameStop's and Walmart's could very easily display like games together, offering parents the opportunity to compare a Mature game with a similar less mature game.
(there's certainly no counterpart to the infamous nuke sequence)
I found the nuke-ing in the new game to be much more unsettling than in the first game. You do have a point in that it was not new, and thus not a surprise, but it depicted a much more horrific act with much greater (virtual) implications.
You are right though that the game was short. COD games have always followed that model; very short but wonderfully exciting single player campaigns. Personally I love it, I don't like spending 40+ gameplay hours to tell a story. But that's a personal preference.
Xbox live is a whole different kind of awful. In my opinion, networks like XBL can be worse than forums/chatrooms (aside from things like targeted pedophilia).
I'm an adult, and I like to think I have a thick skin about most things. I am wise enough to know that words are just words. Even still, I hear things over XBL that make me embarrassed to be part of that kind of community. People there treat each other like crap, with no expectation of any consequences. I've seen those kind of positive adult/child interactions in WOW or older online games. As a kid I used to play paintball fairly regularly, I saw a lot of that kind of mentoring. I never see that on XBL. It might be fair to say that anyone that plays over Xbox Live should be kept away from everyone else.
I agree children should be have some level of separation on a network like that, real time voice chat makes filtering and content restrictions really hard. Positive role models are definitely good for children, but in my experience those just don't exist on Xbox. Maybe its just the games I'm playing, but it doesn't seem like that. I am not a parent, and it may sound hypocritical, but my child will never be allowed to interact on networks like that.
What is "valid" supposed to mean?
What's "wrong" supposed to mean?
What is "explanations of the Universe" supposed to mean?
That there are differences does not mean there are not universals.
Name me three "body language universals".
There are lots actually, especially among facial expressions (as noted above). Smiles, sneers, crying, frowns, etc are all understood to be fairly universal behaviors. They are universal responses to stimuli, and they are commonly understood by people irrespective of culture. The thing is that these relatively simple behaviors that are likely innate to the organism, rather than learned behaviors. Many of these reflexes are even understood across species.
He then gets offended when the Spaniard moves his hands in a gesture which is perfectly normal for this country, but unusual and much more confrontational in the US.
This is an example of a more complex learned behavior. You are correct in that this kind of gesture can only be understood within its cultural context; however this is not true "body language". This might be considered as simply Language, that happens to involve the hands. A better example to illustrate your point would be that of handshakes or eye contact. These behaviors, though they seem very simple and straightforward, do show huge differences across cultures.
If you'd settle for just one example of a body language universal, consider sexual arousal. Male sexual arousal is fairly easy to identify, and is generally understood across all cultures.
Dude, I heard there's no re-spawn points in RL.
What if you get lag out there? Your dead!