An example of a racist would be someone who implies that all Muslims/Arabs are a single race and calls people racists for saying derogatory things about them.
Calling someone a "darkie" is a racial slur but is not precise about a race it is referring to. You can have you spick darkies, your nigger darkies, your sand nigger darkies, even your chink darkies.
Now... How about calling someone who bunches all those people as "darkies" a racist, for "saying derogatory things about them"? Is that racist too?
See how that goes? A racist does not have to be precise about their derogatory terms and actions to be racist. They can even be extra nice to the people in question and still be racist.
That's because racism and racist slurs all in the intent of the user - not the person it is aimed at OR the third party observer. Which is why it is perfectly normal for the most of the world to call all those people with black skin simply blacks without being racist. Instead of coming up with a PC term involving Africa and a local national distinction. Imagine the faux pas a Frenchman would commit for calling a Jamaican blackman a "French African". Oh boy!
Ah! But should he call him an "African" implying that "they are all alike" and more - that's racism and the person doing that is a racist. And more importantly - a FUCKING RETARDED ASSHOLE.
So you see... it does not really matter how we call that person who goes around "saying derogatory things about them" - as long that term is synonymous with being a FUCKING RETARDED ASSHOLE. Racist, nationalist, fascist, ethnicist, religionist... it's all the same.
And it's OK. Really. It is! There is no moral or political issue with calling someone who is a FUCKING RETARDED ASSHOLE a FUCKING RETARDED ASSHOLE. Regardless of their persuasion and the brand of their retardedness.
This is not a gender problem, this is a people problem.
Quite. THIS, as in this particular case, it is primarily obvious mobbing performed on her by the WIFE of one of the founders of GitHub.
Sure, there are other issues, like the other employee who came out of nowhere professing his love and then started to bully her passive aggressively for "rejecting him". Though she was already in "a committed relationship" with another employee of GitHub.
But this is primarily mobbing, plain and simple. Done by the proverbial "bosses wife". FFS - founder who's wife had issues with Horvath demanded her boyfriend to resign cause it was ",bad judgement' to date coworkers".
I.e. She was pressured by "the wife", while her boyfriend was pressured by "the husband". That's NOT SEXISM. They clearly took precautions so it would not be seen as sexism. Founder and his wife were MOBBING their employees.
That is not how Facebook started, hence the end of the Facebook "as a community" era.
One, that is a fallacy. By that logic any growth that company or technology may achieve is anomalous instead of say... a part of the plan to expand or even natural growth and development.
Two, Facebook never was "a community" any more than "the Internet" ever was one. It was always a service ON WHICH communities were created and where they grew. And where they keep being created today.
Again... The author is babbling nonsense, pushed onward by confirmation bias.
A review of 177 studies involving more than 24,000 depressed patients found placebos alleviated symptoms in 38 percent, while antidepressants reduced them in 46 percent. Psychotherapy alone reduced symptoms in 47 percent, about the same as antidepressants but usually at higher cost. Best of all was combining antidepressants and psychotherapy, with a 52 percent success rate. A review of 96 studies published from 1980 to 2005 concluded the placebo effect was likely responsible for 68 percent of the improvement seen in patients taking antidepressants. Another review pegged it at 84 percent. What's more, the placebo effect appears to be growing over time. Some research says there's no medicinal benefit. A European study of "active placebos" (where the placebo mimicked the drug's side effects) found no significant difference between placebos and antidepressants. The latter were just particularly persuasive fakes.
The fact that the placebo effect is increasing the more they keep prescribing them is most likely due to overprescription of antidepressants to misdiagnosed patients. When you treat everything with an antidepressant of course it will eventually show the same (or even lesser) effect as placebo - CAUSE YOU'RE NOT TREATING THOSE ACTUALLY DEPRESSED.
Same thing would happen if they started putting people's arms and legs in casts for every single bruise. It would show that in most cases, immobilization via plaster cast is no better than placebo as a treatment for healing injured arms and legs.
The fact that they are achieving similar results with psychotherapy alone indicates that those are not people with chemical or hormonal issues. They are probably just "sad" and not clinically depressed at all. OR... looking for a "high". They go to a psych, fill out a questionnaire and answer "yes" when asked if they are depressed. Or answer a question. Same thing.
Same method is used to determine if those pills worked - they fill out a questionnaire and answer "yes". If they used that method for diagnosing cancer, everyone who ever went to a doctor would be diagnosed with cancer. And there'd be some AMAZING results regarding all the things that completely cure cancer. From foot-rubs to lava lamps.
Not to invoke an argument, but the TFA talks about listening to sermons and reading the bible.
No. Here is what it says.
"Harold G. Koenig, director of the Center for Spirituality, Theology, and Health at Duke University and a professor of psychiatry"... author of "The Healing Power of Faith", "Faith and Mental Health"... "Listening to sermons and reading religious works like the Bible may also invoke a cognitive benefit, Koenig said."
I.e. Faith guy says maybe faith good for brain.
Also, that Discovery article is crap. That "One recent study, published in December of 2013 in JAMA Psychiatry" - no it wasn't. And which study does this sentence refer to? The supposed December 2013 JAMA one (actually published in February 2014) or the 2011 one?
And while a 2011 study found a shrinking of the hippocampus among people of certain religions, Koenig, a co-author of the study, points out that no one has replicated that work yet.
Cause, it either says that Koenig is a co-author of the JAMA study (which he isn't, but which is no made clear anywhere in the article which doesn't even name the study it discusses) and he disagrees with the data from the 2011 study... OR, he is a co-author of 2011 study (which he was) which says that certain religious people have a shrinking hippocampus. With which he disagrees as well, pointing out "no one has replicated that work yet".
Koenig is essentially saying "Fuck my study which shows how religion may actually be bad for your brain. Don't look at it. Nothing to see there. Not replicated. Bad study. Bad!"
Also, everything Koenig and that other guy who had nothing to do with the study (he apparently has not even read it) but they asked him to comment on it anyway, Dr. Majid Fotuhi, said about the social effect... pure bullshit. From the actual study:
Importance of religion or spirituality, but not frequency of attendance, was associated with thicker cortices in the left and right parietal and occipital regions, the mesial frontal lobe of the right hemisphere, and the cuneus and precuneus in the left hemisphere, independent of familial risk.
Going to church does not matter. How much you THINK that religion or spirituality matter to you matters.
Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints believe that tracing family lineage is essential for special religious ceremonies that seal family units together for eternity. According to Mormons, this fulfills a Biblical prophecy stating that the prophet Elijah would return to "turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers."[2]
They are actively fulfilling a Biblical prophecy ONLY by determining genealogical lineage AND then baptizing the dead. Simply baptizing them just makes them Mormon. In the minds of the LDS followers.
Only the genealogically backed baptism, fulfills the prophecy of The Second ComingTM. Kinda like those Texans and Israelis who are breeding red heifers in order to bring about the end of the world.
That's right! Both these groups are jerking off to the idea of Armageddon! And yet nobody is rounding them up into prisons and concentration camps under suspicion of conspiracy to kill everyone on the planet! I know! Insane!
The BYU team has no interest in it from a religious perspective.
So... Are you saying that they are NOT Mormons or are you questioning their faith and calling them bad Mormons? Being that BYU stands for Brigham Young University which is owned and operated by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
It is owned and operated by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church), and, excluding online students, is the largest religious university and one of the largest private universities in the U.S., with 34,000 on-campus students.[8][9][10]
Approximately 98% of the university's 34,000 students are members of the LDS Church, and one-third of its American students come from within the state of Utah.[11] BYU students are required to follow an honor code, which mandates behavior in line with LDS teachings (e.g., academic honesty, adherence to dress and grooming standards, and abstinence from extramarital sex and from the consumption of drugs and alcohol).[12] Many students (78% of men, 10% of women) take a two-year hiatus from their studies at some point to serve as Mormon missionaries.[13][14]
And being that it is first and foremost a religious institution.
BYU is thus considered by its leaders to be at heart a religious institution, wherein, ideally, religious and secular education are interwoven in a way that encourages the highest standards in both areas.[141] This weaving of the secular and the religious aspects of a religious university goes back as far as Brigham Young himself, who told Karl G. Maeser when the Church purchased the school: "I want you to remember that you ought not to teach even the alphabet or the multiplication tables without the Spirit of God."[142]
And as it happens, it's something that can be pretty much completely hidden today if you buy BTC as you need it and pay via somebody like Bitpay that fixes the price for a period of time.
You are completely missing the point.
I can go and buy gold and diamonds and bear skins TODAY - but they are useless to me as a currency in my local shop that won't accept them. Why? Because the risque and taxes attached are too high for THEM. THE SELLERS OF ITEMS.
They would either have to get rid of my gold, diamonds, bear skins or BTC right away OR face possible consequences of huge losses when that "pretty much completely hidden today" volatility kicks in. Same goes for online retailers. Only those willing to gamble on heavy losses (and possible tax issues) would use something so volatile.
And if I'm gonna use an intermediary like Bitpay - what's the point of BTC? Why not simply use Paypal? Or, you know, cash and credit cards? An established, secure, widely accepted way of paying (and being paid) for various things.
I don't see any way for the price to ever be fixed to actual currencies
You pay all your bills in BTC? Food, water, electricity, clothing, transport, medical bills... Try talking your local cashier into accepting some perfectly usable Yen. And that's an actual currency. Used by MILLIONS of people every second for centuries. AND you can actually hold it in your hand.
As for your regulation talk... You're doing some ignoratio elenchi there. Paypal is a service using real world currencies. Any regulation present or not would regulate Paypal.
BTC regulation would regulate BTC. Not exchanges. Bitcoin itself needs regulation. Just like the dollar is regulated.
I'd say that too if I hadn't seen people who teach math completely misinterpreting the data, from an example they chose themselves as a teaching example. And more. Nobody bats an eye - those making the mistakes apparently don't know or don't care they are teaching the students wrong, and students are there only to get a passing grade, mumbling to themselves "I'm never gonna need this anyway".
And then you have all those med and bio graduates who really don't understand statistics, and then all those people with various masters and doctorates (Hello appeal to authority!) in fields completely unrelated to statistics (but who should and DO use it in order to get various studies done) who REALLY don't understand statistics...
But screw that. Remember this discussion couple of months ago? Feel free to browse through all those comments explaining and arguing hows and whys, (particularly those +5 Insightfuls) before you click here.
Read it again. The entire article is a "I'm smarter than these sheep ho-ho-ho. Look at how knowledgeated I am." love letter from the writer to himself.
I'd have to use at least three different colored highlighters and the Wikipedia's list of fallacies to comb through that article. He might as well be arguing that all those kids and talking animals on boxes of cereals and candy ARE ONLY PRETENDING TO BE ECSTATIC about those products - ergo, they are as evil as creationists.
But this is my favorite part.
" I invited a biologist friend who studies human gut bacteria to come take a look with me. She read the healing claims printed on a handful of bottles and frowned. âoeThis is bullshit,â she said, and went off to buy some vegetables."
What is? What are you not telling us?! WHAT DID SHE READ!!!? What is it that the magical scientist won't tell us!!? WHAAAAAT!!!?
You don't go arguing about something being "OMG not scientific" and then build that argument on the fine art of appeal to authority and... well, bullshit. Presenting someone calling something "Bullshit" as an argument is a whole list of fallacies of its own.
Instead, one should say "Product A claims this, this and this. That is false, because this, this and this study either proves it to be false or shows no proof of it being true or having any other provable effect." And then give us links to those studies cause if there is one thing we know for sure - JOURNALISTS DON'T UNDERSTAND MATH AND STATISTICS.
That's why they went to study stuff that does not require math AND/OR statistics.
Bullets don't divide and multiply every 15-20 minutes while just sitting there in the air waiting to hit you. Or in the case of bacteria, while swimming there in the water you're still slowly filtering.
However, this method is probably still useful for filtering out various other harmful particles found in water. And if you got wood and tools to construct a filtering apparatus, you can probably boil that filtered water too. Yeah, yeah, I know, they were testing this as a solution for people who can't afford burning all that fuel.
And then there is the option of leaving the filtered water inside a transparent container, sitting in direct sunlight for a while, which they apparently haven't tested.
The real question here is: would you be willing to use Bitcoin to pay somebody money? (If not, what bit about it don't you trust enough for doing that?)
No. The real question is would EVERYONE from whom I want to buy something accept the payment in Bitcoin - BECAUSE of the wild fluctuation of its value when converted back into cash. When I pay for something on eBay using PayPal neither I nor the seller have to worry about ludicrous changes in value of the money I paid with.
Followup questions being: Can Bitcoin ever have a fixed exchange rate to actual currencies? When will Bitcoin achieve that?
My guess is, probably not on the first - because people treat it as if it is both a gamble and as if hoarding it is a good... no BRILLIANT idea as its value will always go up. After all, there being a limited number of BTC out there its value MUST continuously go up, right? Which makes it highly susceptible to pump-and-dump schemes.
Which answers the second question - when people stop being stupid hoarders. AND when some heavy regulation of BTC takes place - which would probably kill it as any regulation would first and foremost concentrate on making it impossible to use BTC for criminal activities. And that would probably mean something like using your real name and a biometric ID for any BTC exchange.
Seriously? Come on! Isn't it the high time to stop with that shit? This discrimination can not be allowed to stand any longer. Too long have we been thought that it is only women who can aspire towards a career of marrying a rich and handsome individual. Or at the very least rich. Very. Where is MY supermodel sugar-mommy?
But seriously... get that shit out of the way, convince the girls that not only do they not need to get married and have babies to be a complete person but that the marriage as a career option is demeaning and strictly for sleazy gigolos and dumb weaklings and you got your problem solved. As a bonus, not only will there be more women in EVERY high paying profession (taking our jobs... but hey...), marriage will become a thing of the past. Nudge-nudge, wink-wink...
No. Really. 100$ incentive can't hold a candle to that all day every day "marry rich-make babies-be happy forever" training that they go through every second of their life.
I mean, come on. Would you rather study and work OR would you impregnate supermodels for food, rent and everything else?
Other than waging war what is the everyday use of tanks, artillery shells, nuclear submarines, grenades, bombs, high caliber bullets, biological and chemical weapons, flame throwers and Gatling guns? Just to name a few.
They are all just objects. Like pebbles or fallen branches.
Here... try this fun mental exercise. Someone sends you flowers. No card or anything. Next day someone sends you a spent 9 mm casing.
Did those flowers suddenly become a possible sinister threat or has that spent casing become romantic? Feel free to switch the order those items come in. One of them will always be a tool for killing humans.
Now for comparison, instead of a spent casing (which is totally NOT a weapon OR threatening in any way) - you get a smallish kitchen knife in the mail. Or a hammer. Used. Both.
For extra credit, try that fun exercise with people you know. See if they call cops on your ass.
Personally, I would prefer that the most powerful weapons be under the control of somebody who is, to at least some degree, on my side.
And your delusion just got a hilariously ironic selfish overtone. Over a layer of distrust. To at least some degree.
"I don't really trust A to protect me from A but I'm fine with A having a huge stockpile of weapons of mass destruction cause A claims it needs them to protect me from B. So though I don't thrust A, I can't risk the chance that they may be right about B, cause that may, possibly, to at least some degree, somewhat endanger my ass. Here A, have the biggest club in the world though I don't trust you with other things, you're perfectly safe with huge genocide creating clubs."
All is fine. After all... almost no one dies in those accidents even when they do happen.
September 18, 1980 â" At about 6:30 p.m., an airman conducting maintenance on a USAF Titan-II missile at Little Rock Air Force Base's Launch Complex 374-7 in Southside (Van Buren County), just north of Damascus, Arkansas, dropped a socket from a socket wrench, which fell about 80 feet (24 m) before hitting and piercing the skin on the rocket's first-stage fuel tank, causing it to leak. The area was evacuated. At about 3:00 a.m., on September 19, 1980, the hypergolic fuel exploded. The W53 warhead landed about 100 feet (30 m) from the launch complex's entry gate; its safety features operated correctly and prevented any loss of radioactive material. An Air Force airman was killed and the launch complex was destroyed.
And then... there are things like this, which is not on the list above because it was not a nuclear accident. Only a regular accident and a malfunction that still required the military to try to stop a nuclear launch by parking an armored car on top of the silo.
Because all your adversaries are completely logical and reasonable robots. Also, infallible. Just like you! Nobody will EVER use such a weapon in anger, madness of through accident and lack of oversight. I for one have never ever dropped a hammer on my foot, I'm sure that bureaucracies of the world are perfectly capable of not doing the same only with nukes.
After all... weapons of war and killing are actually tools of peace and love. Every year people gather in Hiroshima in "thank god for nukes or many people might have died in an invasion" celebration. Look how happy and peaceful they are. What more proof would anyone need?
The only app I'd want is a drunk driving app. An app that detects eyelid dilation, eye movements per minute, and eye movement speed could set off warnings when a driver is unsafe (too tired, too drunk). And that doesn't even use the external-facing camera.
An app that tracks the items you are handling (phone, keys, wallet, children...) taking a snapshot of the last time you were holding it and where. For bonus functionality include shape and color recognition (sell cans of specially formulated transparent dye invisible to human eye but noticeable to cameras) to let you know "where's your shit" when you walk into a room. Very useful for humans who must live surrounded by other humans who keep moving "their shit".
There you go. You (or whoever reads this and develops or instructs someone to develop such an app) can give me my 10% of the profits when you become a millionaire.
1: I don't want to get punched in the face because people get tired of being recorded.
If you spend your time around violent people who are willing to risk incarceration and monetary penalties for assaulting someone over a piece of technology they posses - sounds to me you actually need a device which not only is capable of recording and uploading for safe keeping incidences of such attacks but it also makes it very obvious that you are in possession of such a device, thus preventing instances of getting "punched in the face because people get tired of X".
2: I don't want to hit the restroom, forgetting to take the glasses off, and be hit by a felony, improper photography charge.
Again. Evidence retaining device. Proves your innocence in court and to police. Proves harassment and malice on the part of the person suing you. Thus either making people around you more polite OR making you money in counter suits for harassment.
3: I don't care about seeing ads when I look around.
Me neither. Which is why I'm using add blockers on my phone. And computer. Now if there was something that could block them in real life... but Glass is not there yet.
4, 5, 6, 7, 8
Oh... So you went into IT for the money... huh? So sorry to hear that. Too late to switch to being a banker? Or a lawyer?
Slashdot Mirror
An example of a racist would be someone who implies that all Muslims/Arabs are a single race and calls people racists for saying derogatory things about them.
Calling someone a "darkie" is a racial slur but is not precise about a race it is referring to.
You can have you spick darkies, your nigger darkies, your sand nigger darkies, even your chink darkies.
Now... How about calling someone who bunches all those people as "darkies" a racist, for "saying derogatory things about them"?
Is that racist too?
See how that goes? A racist does not have to be precise about their derogatory terms and actions to be racist.
They can even be extra nice to the people in question and still be racist.
That's because racism and racist slurs all in the intent of the user - not the person it is aimed at OR the third party observer.
Which is why it is perfectly normal for the most of the world to call all those people with black skin simply blacks without being racist.
Instead of coming up with a PC term involving Africa and a local national distinction.
Imagine the faux pas a Frenchman would commit for calling a Jamaican blackman a "French African". Oh boy!
Ah! But should he call him an "African" implying that "they are all alike" and more - that's racism and the person doing that is a racist.
And more importantly - a FUCKING RETARDED ASSHOLE.
So you see... it does not really matter how we call that person who goes around "saying derogatory things about them" - as long that term is synonymous with being a FUCKING RETARDED ASSHOLE.
Racist, nationalist, fascist, ethnicist, religionist... it's all the same.
And it's OK. Really. It is!
There is no moral or political issue with calling someone who is a FUCKING RETARDED ASSHOLE a FUCKING RETARDED ASSHOLE.
Regardless of their persuasion and the brand of their retardedness.
there are MUCH better drugs to get high on than shitty antidepressants.
Legally?
This is not a gender problem, this is a people problem.
Quite.
THIS, as in this particular case, it is primarily obvious mobbing performed on her by the WIFE of one of the founders of GitHub.
Sure, there are other issues, like the other employee who came out of nowhere professing his love and then started to bully her passive aggressively for "rejecting him".
Though she was already in "a committed relationship" with another employee of GitHub.
But this is primarily mobbing, plain and simple. Done by the proverbial "bosses wife".
FFS - founder who's wife had issues with Horvath demanded her boyfriend to resign cause it was ",bad judgement' to date coworkers".
I.e. She was pressured by "the wife", while her boyfriend was pressured by "the husband".
That's NOT SEXISM. They clearly took precautions so it would not be seen as sexism.
Founder and his wife were MOBBING their employees.
That is not how Facebook started, hence the end of the Facebook "as a community" era.
One, that is a fallacy.
By that logic any growth that company or technology may achieve is anomalous instead of say... a part of the plan to expand or even natural growth and development.
Two, Facebook never was "a community" any more than "the Internet" ever was one.
It was always a service ON WHICH communities were created and where they grew. And where they keep being created today.
Again... The author is babbling nonsense, pushed onward by confirmation bias.
Also, whoever wrote that does not realize that Facebook is not a site or social space but a service.
So that argument could just as well be used against a telephone, postal service, roads... with equal relevance and correctness.
Placebos are more effective than prescribed antidepressants.
You are misinterpreting what you probably heard somewhere.
http://www.straightdope.com/co...
A review of 177 studies involving more than 24,000 depressed patients found placebos alleviated symptoms in 38 percent, while antidepressants reduced them in 46 percent. Psychotherapy alone reduced symptoms in 47 percent, about the same as antidepressants but usually at higher cost. Best of all was combining antidepressants and psychotherapy, with a 52 percent success rate.
A review of 96 studies published from 1980 to 2005 concluded the placebo effect was likely responsible for 68 percent of the improvement seen in patients taking antidepressants. Another review pegged it at 84 percent. What's more, the placebo effect appears to be growing over time.
Some research says there's no medicinal benefit. A European study of "active placebos" (where the placebo mimicked the drug's side effects) found no significant difference between placebos and antidepressants. The latter were just particularly persuasive fakes.
The fact that the placebo effect is increasing the more they keep prescribing them is most likely due to overprescription of antidepressants to misdiagnosed patients.
When you treat everything with an antidepressant of course it will eventually show the same (or even lesser) effect as placebo - CAUSE YOU'RE NOT TREATING THOSE ACTUALLY DEPRESSED.
Same thing would happen if they started putting people's arms and legs in casts for every single bruise.
It would show that in most cases, immobilization via plaster cast is no better than placebo as a treatment for healing injured arms and legs.
The fact that they are achieving similar results with psychotherapy alone indicates that those are not people with chemical or hormonal issues.
They are probably just "sad" and not clinically depressed at all. OR... looking for a "high".
They go to a psych, fill out a questionnaire and answer "yes" when asked if they are depressed.
Or answer a question. Same thing.
Same method is used to determine if those pills worked - they fill out a questionnaire and answer "yes".
If they used that method for diagnosing cancer, everyone who ever went to a doctor would be diagnosed with cancer.
And there'd be some AMAZING results regarding all the things that completely cure cancer. From foot-rubs to lava lamps.
Not to invoke an argument, but the TFA talks about listening to sermons and reading the bible.
No. Here is what it says.
"Harold G. Koenig, director of the Center for Spirituality, Theology, and Health at Duke University and a professor of psychiatry"... author of "The Healing Power of Faith", "Faith and Mental Health"... "Listening to sermons and reading religious works like the Bible may also invoke a cognitive benefit, Koenig said."
I.e. Faith guy says maybe faith good for brain.
Also, that Discovery article is crap.
That "One recent study, published in December of 2013 in JAMA Psychiatry" - no it wasn't.
And which study does this sentence refer to? The supposed December 2013 JAMA one (actually published in February 2014) or the 2011 one?
And while a 2011 study found a shrinking of the hippocampus among people of certain religions, Koenig, a co-author of the study, points out that no one has replicated that work yet.
Cause, it either says that Koenig is a co-author of the JAMA study (which he isn't, but which is no made clear anywhere in the article which doesn't even name the study it discusses) and he disagrees with the data from the 2011 study...
OR, he is a co-author of 2011 study (which he was) which says that certain religious people have a shrinking hippocampus.
With which he disagrees as well, pointing out "no one has replicated that work yet".
Koenig is essentially saying "Fuck my study which shows how religion may actually be bad for your brain. Don't look at it. Nothing to see there. Not replicated. Bad study. Bad!"
Also, everything Koenig and that other guy who had nothing to do with the study (he apparently has not even read it) but they asked him to comment on it anyway, Dr. Majid Fotuhi, said about the social effect... pure bullshit.
From the actual study:
Importance of religion or spirituality, but not frequency of attendance, was associated with thicker cortices in the left and right parietal and occipital regions, the mesial frontal lobe of the right hemisphere, and the cuneus and precuneus in the left hemisphere, independent of familial risk.
Going to church does not matter. How much you THINK that religion or spirituality matter to you matters.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G...
Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints believe that tracing family lineage is essential for special religious ceremonies that seal family units together for eternity. According to Mormons, this fulfills a Biblical prophecy stating that the prophet Elijah would return to "turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers."[2]
They are actively fulfilling a Biblical prophecy ONLY by determining genealogical lineage AND then baptizing the dead.
Simply baptizing them just makes them Mormon. In the minds of the LDS followers.
Only the genealogically backed baptism, fulfills the prophecy of The Second ComingTM.
Kinda like those Texans and Israelis who are breeding red heifers in order to bring about the end of the world.
That's right! Both these groups are jerking off to the idea of Armageddon!
And yet nobody is rounding them up into prisons and concentration camps under suspicion of conspiracy to kill everyone on the planet!
I know! Insane!
The BYU team has no interest in it from a religious perspective.
So... Are you saying that they are NOT Mormons or are you questioning their faith and calling them bad Mormons?
Being that BYU stands for Brigham Young University which is owned and operated by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
It is owned and operated by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church), and, excluding online students, is the largest religious university and one of the largest private universities in the U.S., with 34,000 on-campus students.[8][9][10]
Approximately 98% of the university's 34,000 students are members of the LDS Church, and one-third of its American students come from within the state of Utah.[11] BYU students are required to follow an honor code, which mandates behavior in line with LDS teachings (e.g., academic honesty, adherence to dress and grooming standards, and abstinence from extramarital sex and from the consumption of drugs and alcohol).[12] Many students (78% of men, 10% of women) take a two-year hiatus from their studies at some point to serve as Mormon missionaries.[13][14]
And being that it is first and foremost a religious institution.
BYU is thus considered by its leaders to be at heart a religious institution, wherein, ideally, religious and secular education are interwoven in a way that encourages the highest standards in both areas.[141] This weaving of the secular and the religious aspects of a religious university goes back as far as Brigham Young himself, who told Karl G. Maeser when the Church purchased the school: "I want you to remember that you ought not to teach even the alphabet or the multiplication tables without the Spirit of God."[142]
And as it happens, it's something that can be pretty much completely hidden today if you buy BTC as you need it and pay via somebody like Bitpay that fixes the price for a period of time.
You are completely missing the point.
I can go and buy gold and diamonds and bear skins TODAY - but they are useless to me as a currency in my local shop that won't accept them.
Why? Because the risque and taxes attached are too high for THEM. THE SELLERS OF ITEMS.
They would either have to get rid of my gold, diamonds, bear skins or BTC right away OR face possible consequences of huge losses when that "pretty much completely hidden today" volatility kicks in.
Same goes for online retailers. Only those willing to gamble on heavy losses (and possible tax issues) would use something so volatile.
And if I'm gonna use an intermediary like Bitpay - what's the point of BTC? Why not simply use Paypal? Or, you know, cash and credit cards?
An established, secure, widely accepted way of paying (and being paid) for various things.
I don't see any way for the price to ever be fixed to actual currencies
You pay all your bills in BTC? Food, water, electricity, clothing, transport, medical bills...
Try talking your local cashier into accepting some perfectly usable Yen.
And that's an actual currency. Used by MILLIONS of people every second for centuries. AND you can actually hold it in your hand.
As for your regulation talk...
You're doing some ignoratio elenchi there.
Paypal is a service using real world currencies. Any regulation present or not would regulate Paypal.
BTC regulation would regulate BTC. Not exchanges. Bitcoin itself needs regulation.
Just like the dollar is regulated.
I'd say that too if I hadn't seen people who teach math completely misinterpreting the data, from an example they chose themselves as a teaching example. And more.
Nobody bats an eye - those making the mistakes apparently don't know or don't care they are teaching the students wrong, and students are there only to get a passing grade, mumbling to themselves "I'm never gonna need this anyway".
And then you have all those med and bio graduates who really don't understand statistics, and then all those people with various masters and doctorates (Hello appeal to authority!) in fields completely unrelated to statistics (but who should and DO use it in order to get various studies done) who REALLY don't understand statistics...
But screw that.
Remember this discussion couple of months ago?
Feel free to browse through all those comments explaining and arguing hows and whys, (particularly those +5 Insightfuls) before you click here.
Read it again.
The entire article is a "I'm smarter than these sheep ho-ho-ho. Look at how knowledgeated I am." love letter from the writer to himself.
I'd have to use at least three different colored highlighters and the Wikipedia's list of fallacies to comb through that article.
He might as well be arguing that all those kids and talking animals on boxes of cereals and candy ARE ONLY PRETENDING TO BE ECSTATIC about those products - ergo, they are as evil as creationists.
But this is my favorite part.
" I invited a biologist friend who studies human gut bacteria to come take a look with me. She read the healing claims printed on a handful of bottles and frowned. âoeThis is bullshit,â she said, and went off to buy some vegetables."
What is? What are you not telling us?! WHAT DID SHE READ!!!? What is it that the magical scientist won't tell us!!? WHAAAAAT!!!?
You don't go arguing about something being "OMG not scientific" and then build that argument on the fine art of appeal to authority and... well, bullshit.
Presenting someone calling something "Bullshit" as an argument is a whole list of fallacies of its own.
Instead, one should say "Product A claims this, this and this. That is false, because this, this and this study either proves it to be false or shows no proof of it being true or having any other provable effect."
And then give us links to those studies cause if there is one thing we know for sure - JOURNALISTS DON'T UNDERSTAND MATH AND STATISTICS.
That's why they went to study stuff that does not require math AND/OR statistics.
Yeah, yeah, I know, they were testing this as a solution for people who can't afford burning all that fuel.
Bullets don't divide and multiply every 15-20 minutes while just sitting there in the air waiting to hit you.
Or in the case of bacteria, while swimming there in the water you're still slowly filtering.
However, this method is probably still useful for filtering out various other harmful particles found in water.
And if you got wood and tools to construct a filtering apparatus, you can probably boil that filtered water too.
Yeah, yeah, I know, they were testing this as a solution for people who can't afford burning all that fuel.
And then there is the option of leaving the filtered water inside a transparent container, sitting in direct sunlight for a while, which they apparently haven't tested.
The real question here is: would you be willing to use Bitcoin to pay somebody money? (If not, what bit about it don't you trust enough for doing that?)
No.
The real question is would EVERYONE from whom I want to buy something accept the payment in Bitcoin - BECAUSE of the wild fluctuation of its value when converted back into cash.
When I pay for something on eBay using PayPal neither I nor the seller have to worry about ludicrous changes in value of the money I paid with.
Followup questions being:
Can Bitcoin ever have a fixed exchange rate to actual currencies?
When will Bitcoin achieve that?
My guess is, probably not on the first - because people treat it as if it is both a gamble and as if hoarding it is a good... no BRILLIANT idea as its value will always go up.
After all, there being a limited number of BTC out there its value MUST continuously go up, right?
Which makes it highly susceptible to pump-and-dump schemes.
Which answers the second question - when people stop being stupid hoarders.
AND when some heavy regulation of BTC takes place - which would probably kill it as any regulation would first and foremost concentrate on making it impossible to use BTC for criminal activities.
And that would probably mean something like using your real name and a biometric ID for any BTC exchange.
Seriously?
Come on! Isn't it the high time to stop with that shit? This discrimination can not be allowed to stand any longer.
Too long have we been thought that it is only women who can aspire towards a career of marrying a rich and handsome individual. Or at the very least rich. Very.
Where is MY supermodel sugar-mommy?
But seriously... get that shit out of the way, convince the girls that not only do they not need to get married and have babies to be a complete person but that the marriage as a career option is demeaning and strictly for sleazy gigolos and dumb weaklings and you got your problem solved.
As a bonus, not only will there be more women in EVERY high paying profession (taking our jobs... but hey...), marriage will become a thing of the past. Nudge-nudge, wink-wink...
No. Really.
100$ incentive can't hold a candle to that all day every day "marry rich-make babies-be happy forever" training that they go through every second of their life.
I mean, come on.
Would you rather study and work OR would you impregnate supermodels for food, rent and everything else?
Loaded what now?
Bitcoin? No thanks.
I try to avoid investing in pyramid schemes and lottery tickets.
No. Really. If it gets down to a dollar for say... 100 bitcons... and you get a certificate you can hang on a wall...
I'd buy that.
there aren't enough breaths of air in this world
So, a sudden simultaneous deflation of breath caused the scarcity of breathable air?
Considering how both breath and bitcoins are full of hot air, I do believe you may be onto something there.
Your thinking is beyond delusional.
Other than waging war what is the everyday use of tanks, artillery shells, nuclear submarines, grenades, bombs, high caliber bullets, biological and chemical weapons, flame throwers and Gatling guns? Just to name a few.
They are all just objects. Like pebbles or fallen branches.
Here... try this fun mental exercise.
Someone sends you flowers. No card or anything.
Next day someone sends you a spent 9 mm casing.
Did those flowers suddenly become a possible sinister threat or has that spent casing become romantic?
Feel free to switch the order those items come in.
One of them will always be a tool for killing humans.
Now for comparison, instead of a spent casing (which is totally NOT a weapon OR threatening in any way) - you get a smallish kitchen knife in the mail.
Or a hammer.
Used. Both.
For extra credit, try that fun exercise with people you know. See if they call cops on your ass.
Personally, I would prefer that the most powerful weapons be under the control of somebody who is, to at least some degree, on my side.
And your delusion just got a hilariously ironic selfish overtone.
Over a layer of distrust. To at least some degree.
"I don't really trust A to protect me from A but I'm fine with A having a huge stockpile of weapons of mass destruction cause A claims it needs them to protect me from B.
So though I don't thrust A, I can't risk the chance that they may be right about B, cause that may, possibly, to at least some degree, somewhat endanger my ass.
Here A, have the biggest club in the world though I don't trust you with other things, you're perfectly safe with huge genocide creating clubs."
Well... we're really not supposed to look. Nothing to see here, move along.
All is fine. After all... almost no one dies in those accidents even when they do happen.
September 18, 1980 â" At about 6:30 p.m., an airman conducting maintenance on a USAF Titan-II missile at Little Rock Air Force Base's Launch Complex 374-7 in Southside (Van Buren County), just north of Damascus, Arkansas, dropped a socket from a socket wrench, which fell about 80 feet (24 m) before hitting and piercing the skin on the rocket's first-stage fuel tank, causing it to leak. The area was evacuated. At about 3:00 a.m., on September 19, 1980, the hypergolic fuel exploded. The W53 warhead landed about 100 feet (30 m) from the launch complex's entry gate; its safety features operated correctly and prevented any loss of radioactive material. An Air Force airman was killed and the launch complex was destroyed.
And then... there are things like this, which is not on the list above because it was not a nuclear accident.
Only a regular accident and a malfunction that still required the military to try to stop a nuclear launch by parking an armored car on top of the silo.
And these were just misplaced.
What he said.
Because all your adversaries are completely logical and reasonable robots. Also, infallible. Just like you!
Nobody will EVER use such a weapon in anger, madness of through accident and lack of oversight.
I for one have never ever dropped a hammer on my foot, I'm sure that bureaucracies of the world are perfectly capable of not doing the same only with nukes.
After all... weapons of war and killing are actually tools of peace and love.
Every year people gather in Hiroshima in "thank god for nukes or many people might have died in an invasion" celebration.
Look how happy and peaceful they are. What more proof would anyone need?
The only app I'd want is a drunk driving app. An app that detects eyelid dilation, eye movements per minute, and eye movement speed could set off warnings when a driver is unsafe (too tired, too drunk). And that doesn't even use the external-facing camera.
An app that tracks the items you are handling (phone, keys, wallet, children...) taking a snapshot of the last time you were holding it and where.
For bonus functionality include shape and color recognition (sell cans of specially formulated transparent dye invisible to human eye but noticeable to cameras) to let you know "where's your shit" when you walk into a room.
Very useful for humans who must live surrounded by other humans who keep moving "their shit".
There you go.
You (or whoever reads this and develops or instructs someone to develop such an app) can give me my 10% of the profits when you become a millionaire.
1: I don't want to get punched in the face because people get tired of being recorded.
If you spend your time around violent people who are willing to risk incarceration and monetary penalties for assaulting someone over a piece of technology they posses - sounds to me you actually need a device which not only is capable of recording and uploading for safe keeping incidences of such attacks but it also makes it very obvious that you are in possession of such a device, thus preventing instances of getting "punched in the face because people get tired of X".
2: I don't want to hit the restroom, forgetting to take the glasses off, and be hit by a felony, improper photography charge.
Again. Evidence retaining device. Proves your innocence in court and to police.
Proves harassment and malice on the part of the person suing you. Thus either making people around you more polite OR making you money in counter suits for harassment.
3: I don't care about seeing ads when I look around.
Me neither. Which is why I'm using add blockers on my phone. And computer.
Now if there was something that could block them in real life... but Glass is not there yet.
4, 5, 6, 7, 8
Oh... So you went into IT for the money... huh? So sorry to hear that.
Too late to switch to being a banker? Or a lawyer?