Well, not conservative/liberal (those words only have the relevant meaning in the US, and "liberal" is still fairly right-wing by global standards) but right/left.
And you summarise their respective/aims/, yes, and all the faults that come with each.
A right wing conspiracy theory is much more likely to be on a grand scale because a philosophy which promotes the ego is likely to end up with something subjective rather than objective.
Perhaps you misunderstand the appeal to authority? It's also not invalid in all circumstances.
It is not that it is untrue to say, for example, "the APA today are more likely to say something scientific than Westboro Baptist Church". But I do not think that it adds anything to a discussion. If the writer thought that various well-respected scientific bodies could be trusted, he wouldn't have suggested that autism was unreal. So your argument comes down to "the APA has more authority than you".
You may argue that perhaps the OP wasn't aware that mainstream medicine recognises autism. But to me this is much less likely than the OP disagreeing with the opinion of mainstream medicine.
(Of course, OP was probably trolling. But I am assuming good faith.)
But some very skilled and qualified researchers who, if anyone, would be entitled to make a diagnosis came to a conclusion on the matter [nih.gov].
I am not sure they're making a diagnosis, though. In that article there is careful use of phrases from "suggestive of" or "not seem much doubt" to "seemed fairly certain". An impression from a professional is quite different from a diagnosis. IOW it is merely very plausible that Newton was Asperger.
I think there is an important distinction because giving the impression that people can be diagnosed remotely, as it were, gives the impression that an autism diagnosis is not thorough. It reinforces the belief that autism is eligible for "Internet diagnosis".
Anyway, what I mean is that it feels like you're being misinterpreted because to you, you're speaking in a way that makes sense to you, and other people just don't think what you're thinking. And even when you become aware of it, it's still a struggle because you don't know exactly what to say. I usually just copy mannerisms I've seen from TV and real life into a sort of script of how to act.
and notice the racial characteristics of Olympic winners
What is a racial characteristic, please? Is it dusky skin? A hooked nose, maybe? Please, enlighten us. Try not to cite too many German texts from early or mid C20.
People who have anal sex are obviously more at risk because the likelihood of transmission is much higher than with vaginal sex.
No-one denies this. HIV awareness campaigns often focus on gay men for this reason. Few people are in denial about it any more. Indeed, some gay men have had it so pounded into them that "being gay will get you AIDS" that subcultures have formed decided they're going to get HIV anyway, so might as well not use protection. This is quite sad, but it's by the bye.
Perhaps you're going for the "faggots are promiscuous lol" angle, in which case I invite you to work out how widespread HIV would be if gays had as much random unprotected anal sex as straight people had vaginal sex.
That's like saying a butcher is best positioned to evaluate how much meat someone needs to throw a successful barbeque.
Which they are.
I'm sure what you're saying is, "But uh there's a butcher conspiracy and they'll all say AS MUCH MEAT AS POSSIBLE because that'll make them rich!"
Except that - and I thought this is what you free markedroids always argue when you say that All Regulation Is Evil - it's in no butcher's interest to lie about how much meat someone needs, as then they'll stop being trusted and no-one will listen to them any more.
Not that the analogy is valid, of course, as a climatologist is a lot more likely to get big funding from big business if he sells out his soul and says "global warming doesn't exist.. err I mean has nowt to do with humans yo" than if he gets paid a government wage to tell the truth.
I hear what you're saying and it sounds like "stop oppressing the ultra-rich!"
Everyone, prodded hard enough, can be shown to hold dear some unsubstantiated hypotheses about the world.
But someone on the right has the ultimate aim of helping themselves, either convinced or pretending to be convinced that it'll help other people if everyone strives to help himself. This is an ego-increasing exercise, and too much ego produces an insane amount of self-belief. Self-belief is the origin of faith or conspiracy or whatever you want to call it. This is why conspiracy theories on the right are very well-organised: there is a tremendous amound of unwarranted self-belief.
Those on the left do have their own conspiracy theories, but they tend to be a lot weaker and less organised. This is because it's hard to reconcile "be selfless and love one another" with "here's this thing I think and I have no evidence for it but I am quite convinced in myself". Selfless objectivity and subjectivity tend not to mix. Leftist conspiracy theories are thus more a failure of mind than inherent to the principles of their politics.
At most a climitologist can rightfully say the Earth is warming, CO2 is the cause and human activity is the likely cause of the increase of CO2. Beyond that they should say NOTHING. Other scientists, in other fields, are qualified to evaluate proposed policies.
Que? A climatologist is best positioned to evaluate a proposal to see how it may affect the climate.
The second they use the cloak of science to push policy solutions they aren't scientists anymore, they are amateur politicians. Emphasis on the amateur.
Oh, it seems that you are confused by the meaning of "politician". For one thing, all good politicians are "amateur" - a professional politician is the worst sort.
Next, a politician isn't someone who creates "policy solutions". A politician in a representative democracy represents the voice of the people. He selects from the among the expert proposals the ones which align with the people's wishes, puts them forward to a legislature, listens to the alternatives, debates them, and ultimately votes on them in line with the wishes of those he represents.
To recap: a politician does not create solutions. He is not a professional in any particular field. He can't be - he's voted in as a voice of the people, not an expert on a particular thing.
A lot of people simply want to set up a social environment where the strongest can exploit the weak. They do this either because they already have strength or because they believe they can reach for that rainbow.
It is said that we should not attribute to malice what can be explained by incompetence. But your captains of politics and corporate welfare aren't incompetent - they're smart as hell and I'm sure they know exactly what they're doing.
False. People are reading it, and peope buy into it so it needs to be addressed. Not for the troll, but for the other readers.
Fair enough. It depends on the environment. Sometimes you're just perpetuating abuse by feeding a troll, because you encourage them to do it more.
He pointed out that they are more qualified then the poster probably is; which is a safe bet.
This is appeal to authority.
He also pointed out that you can get the information for yourself. So no Appeal to Authority.
Making some inappropriate statements then playing a get-out-of-jail-free card is no substitute for just not making the inappropriate statements in the first place.
"but the problem is not necessarily "misinterpretation"." It almost always is.
Autism isn't a problem with the receiver - it's a difficulty in communication experienced by the autistic person. Disability denial won't get autistic people or (where necessary) their carers anywhere.
If you express yourself badly then the other person can and absolutely should try to accommodate for it - but that doesn't mean that you didn't still express yourself badly. You must adjust your method of communication so that the receiver can understand you. In particular, it is wrong to say e.g. "I made a factually correct statement therefore only one possible context can apply to it". You have to consider the context of your statements from the PoV of the receiver. Effective interpersonal communication is hard.
I watch and help my daughter deal with autism. You have no idea what it's like
What is it with the preponderance of "you have no idea" today? Has it crossed your mind that I have had experience with autistic people?
to have a daughter who is kind, smart, and wants to be friends with her peer. But her peers always misinterpret her and shy way from her.
Are you sure that the problem is misinterpretation rather than misstatement? If the problem is that her peers "always misinterpret" then your daughter has no condition at all - her peers do.
Perhaps you are saying that her peers could make more effort to grasp what she is trying to communicate. Yes, this sort of awareness would be great. But they're still ~12 years old and adults also suck at this sort of thing. Perhaps the peers are incapable or insecure in themselves - maybe they're lovely but just not that "smart".
I have less time for people who are deliberately intolerant of the disabled, the sick or the just-not-that-bright (all the same in nature's eyes), but - absent external support - it requires a greater than average mind to adapt to a wide variety of needs.
A lonely 12 year old is a very sad thing to watch.
Hm... I had very little interest in other people when I was 12. Mind you, I've had the more traditional "socially backward" label applied to me well before my 12th birthday, many many years ago now. I don't think I was a sad thing to watch.
I regularly visit a family member who sometimes has psychotic hallucinations and talks to people who are not there - is she a sad thing to watch? Not really. It's just nature inflicting its indifferent self. Better to identify the problem and see how it can be managed. And she has managed a lot better since the days that her father and other family members, in thorough denial, wanted to do everything other than medicate and rehabilitate.
I do appreciate your response, by the way. I obviously have not lived your personal experience and I am sure that it can be very challenging for you and your daughter at times. I wish you the best.
I agree with the sentiment of your post, but I feel you're making some errors which harm your cause:
I find it terribly inhumane and malicious of you to spread this sort of attitude.
It is trolling. Trolls want to hear you tell them how inhumane and malicious they are. You don't buy from spammers and you don't feed the trolls.
undoubtedly more qualified than you on this subject
I have come to call this "academic Top Trumps". Appeal to authority would have harmed you for the majority of history, so I wouldn't start appealing to it now. Link to evidence produced by respected authorities, sure, but make sure the argument rests in the evidence.
Isaac Newton had Asperger's Syndrome
One simply cannot perform a diagnosis based on reading the (edited) writings of some individual and third party accounts of his behaviour. Don't do it. It's not scientific and it makes a mockery of proper autism diagnoses.
You don't know what it's like to always feel uncomfortable around people.
There are a lot more people who "always feel uncomfortable around people" and who aren't autistic.
your thoughts being constantly misinterpreted by those around you.
Thoughts cannot be misinterpreted - only the expressions of those thoughts. It is more accurate to say that the autistic person has difficulty communicating effectively. Those who are not autistic can of course try to accommodate for this difficulty, but the problem is not necessarily "misinterpretation".
Autism affects day-to-day functioning on a long-term basis. It is a disability. Civilisation tries to accommodate for those with disabilities rather than mocking them or locking them away. Ultimately, the height of civilisation involves respecting everyone well-meaning who is not a 100% healthy genius.
...surely he was intelligent enough to know from history that all total information awareness campaigns are ultimately used to oppress the people who are supposed to be empowered by information.
And when he allowed half a dozen big businesses to essentially take over and steer W3C in their image, surely he knew that any altruistic or academic value in W3C would be diminished.
Alas, the man is saying, "I've set something up for you. I've allowed you to take it over. But it concerns me." Well, it should concern you, TBL. But, next time you give a knife to a serial killer, don't expect him to use it to cook you a delicious meal.
I know you're trolling, but there are autistic kids. Really, they are. They simply do not interact with the real world. Their brain appears unable to deal with the mess of details and they obsess instead over much simpler, more ordered things.
The distinguishing abilities of a non-autistic are just one component of intelligence, so in archaic (i.e. politically incorrect terms) an autistic is just in some ways "retarded". These days we like to ignore that there are actually innately smart and less smart people because that would cast a shadow over meritocracy and make the angry, exploiting elite less justified in suggesting, "If you're poor, it's because you didn't work hard enough!" So we like to find labels to distinguish the "disabled" from the "stupid". But nature doesn't recognise these differences.
I am glad for all these labels, though, because people who are "stupid" are cruelly dismissed whereas people with another label tend to be treated with more sensitivity. I want every reason, genetic or environmental, for not being a healthy genius to be identified and labelled.
Having said this, I have no doubt that there are some misdiagnoses of autism - and I don't just mean Internet self-diagnoses. And the problem with a spectrum condition is that everyone has some aspects of it, so the "very high functioning autistic" is mostly "some guy with a few mild autistic traits". These are the guys who are both capable and often willing to be LOUD about their condition, giving a very wrong impression of what autism (in the non-mild form) actually is and how much it disables a person. It would be like an amputee who has lost one foot setting up expectations wrt/ a quadruple amputee who has no limbs whatever.
...Microsoft's favoured bedfellow in the free software community.
Why is there no "year of Linux on the desktop"? Well, my friends, it is not because Apple are cunning this or Microsoft are abusive that. It is because no-one has yet come up with a compelling reason to deploy POS like GNOME outside the basement.
...deleted discussion of my $1 trillion idea, so I never got to put it into action.
Norton's figures are thus way too low.
Excluding this, though, Norton may be including the media industry association criminals who overvalue the loss of copying bits representing a Britney Spears wailing lament, or whatever the cool kids are listening to these days.
(0) "advanced treatment (like with cancer)" - that is embarrassingly vague, almost as wide as "like with viruses". And what do you mean that it won't always cost you? Have you identified some edge cases where American hospitals provide better charitable cancer care than the NHS?
(1) The problem with MS was its abuse of its dominant position. If by "virtual monopoly" OP means "dominant position in certain areas on its own merits" then who cares?
It doesn't have to, but you need a bunch of selfless geniouses running the thing to hope for that to happen.
The civil service in the UK pre-Thatcher was strongly meritocratic and based heavily on the principle of service to the nation - in return, you got job security and excellent benefits. So, like you say, selfless geniuses. 30 years of Thatcherism have slowly eroded this, but Britain has survived worse things.
But then when Bush shuts off funding around embryos, everyone is up in arms. That is a predictable consequence of putting a monopoly or market control into the hands of a democracy.
What? Democracy = voice of people. The government could also have banned embryo research entirely if the people wanted it.
the current situation is better than if you didn't have it, but I don't think anyone on either side is open to discussing it.
Countries which have tried both methods tend to prefer the national healthcare one. This may be "just theory" for America, but for Europe it's based on experience in private and public healthcare and a huge range of different implementations across a continent.
Especially when a Libertarian view is labelled as "going back 100 years",
That's because it is. Worse, though, is the offering of dogma - I don't want "a Libertarian view" or "a Communist view" or "a Capitalist view" - I want something which works. And, in healthcare, Europe has something which works.
like we would be driving around in Model T cars. When it ignores that the lack of road would cause innovation to potentially bring about flying cars.
"would cause... potentially..." I agree that state funding of the road network was an awful idea - not because I object to state funding in the citizen's interest but because I object to corporate welfare. Again, much of mainland Europe is far ahead on public transport, though e.g. the Beeching Axe in the UK was little more than the result of throwing money at cars and leaving trains to languish.
Unfortunately, he may propose laws which will be aye'd by those self-interested Tories and their yellow lickspittles. Yes, Minister isn't quite accurate - see how the DWP has basically become a spokesperson for IDS's personal Himmler-esque (*) philosophy.
Fortunately, Cunt is stupid and will not do such a good job of harming the NHS as Lansley, a true demon.
But, yes, the NHS remains a wonderful thing. And anyone who rejects national healthcare systems in principle is, without exception, either a buffoon or a sadomasochist.
But there is such thing as law hard to get rid of, which I expect is what your parent meant.
For example, the EU Parliament has veto on creation of laws, but does not have any power to repeal laws. So even if the directly elected representatives of the people are entirely opposed to some law, it cannot be repealed without the consent of the Council, unless it can somehow be declared invalid by the Court of Justice (e.g. secondary legislation outside of the EU's jurisdiction).
While I'm here, it's fairly common for various powermongering interestings to want laws to be easier to implement than to repeal. Consider patents: international patent agreements are such that a patent made in one country has to be recognised in many countries; yet an invalidation of the patent in one country does not propagate.
0) The NHS is excellent - far better than American healthcare. I say that using all the data I have seen and from personal experience of both systems.
1) The UK government does not have a "virtual monopoly" - it has no exclusive right to provide healthcare at all. It does provide some forms of healthcare so well (e.g. emergency) that alternative providers are fairly rare, and other forms of healthcare with waiting lists (e.g. elective hip replacements) such that there's a healthy variety of private providers. I belong to a mutual much older than the NHS which provides discretionary treatment for elective conditions.
2) Thatcher was an idiot put in charge, but the NHS soldiered on. Blair was an idiot put in charge, but the NHS soldiered on. Major and Brown stuck their dicks in a bit but didn't do anything remarkable compared to their superior predecessors. It was Lansley who has done the most damage to the NHS with the Health and Social Care Act 2012, not because he is an idiot but because he's a fucking smart and fucking nasty man. Cunt, already widely known in Britain as corrupt, silly little man, is just pissing on the wreckage.
3) The NHS didn't really exist before 1948, and that was in the wake of something far worse than we're facing now. If things get shit, we regroup, re-educate and rebuild. It's not like history has a linear progression - we're always repeating the same mistakes and having to correct them.
Why does everyone seem to assume that "regulation" or even "good regulation" means a damn thing? Is nobody looking at the rest of the worlds' economic situation?
Yes, and that's why some people regret getting rid of the good regulation through the '90s.
Now, I'll grant you that novice code monkeys shouldn't be building the equivalent of a bank
Because otherwise things like in the TFA might happen.
the only real difference between this and a "real" bank is that it doesn't have Federal backing.
That and the fact that a bunch of kids don't hack into real banks every fortnight and steal the money.
And a token doesn't correspond to any individual's money.
Anonymity will go straight out the window as soon as they do (thereby eliminating one of the bigger benefits of BC),
Bitcoin isn't any more anonymous than a numbered bank account, love.
Trust someone with your money because nobody takes "cash" anymore
Buy more than iPhones. Lots of people take cash.
and hope like hell that they don't fuck it up. If they do fuck up, then you hope that they'll be willing to make it "right".
Sounds like you have chosen shitty banks/etc. Mine very rarely fuck up and right their mistakes quickly. Never lost a penny through individual bank error.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, not conservative/liberal (those words only have the relevant meaning in the US, and "liberal" is still fairly right-wing by global standards) but right/left.
And you summarise their respective /aims/, yes, and all the faults that come with each.
A right wing conspiracy theory is much more likely to be on a grand scale because a philosophy which promotes the ego is likely to end up with something subjective rather than objective.
Thanks for responding.
Perhaps you misunderstand the appeal to authority? It's also not invalid in all circumstances.
It is not that it is untrue to say, for example, "the APA today are more likely to say something scientific than Westboro Baptist Church". But I do not think that it adds anything to a discussion. If the writer thought that various well-respected scientific bodies could be trusted, he wouldn't have suggested that autism was unreal. So your argument comes down to "the APA has more authority than you".
You may argue that perhaps the OP wasn't aware that mainstream medicine recognises autism. But to me this is much less likely than the OP disagreeing with the opinion of mainstream medicine.
(Of course, OP was probably trolling. But I am assuming good faith.)
But some very skilled and qualified researchers who, if anyone, would be entitled to make a diagnosis came to a conclusion on the matter [nih.gov].
I am not sure they're making a diagnosis, though. In that article there is careful use of phrases from "suggestive of" or "not seem much doubt" to "seemed fairly certain". An impression from a professional is quite different from a diagnosis. IOW it is merely very plausible that Newton was Asperger.
I think there is an important distinction because giving the impression that people can be diagnosed remotely, as it were, gives the impression that an autism diagnosis is not thorough. It reinforces the belief that autism is eligible for "Internet diagnosis".
Anyway, what I mean is that it feels like you're being misinterpreted because to you, you're speaking in a way that makes sense to you, and other people just don't think what you're thinking. And even when you become aware of it, it's still a struggle because you don't know exactly what to say. I usually just copy mannerisms I've seen from TV and real life into a sort of script of how to act.
This makes sense.
1/10.
and notice the racial characteristics of Olympic winners
What is a racial characteristic, please? Is it dusky skin? A hooked nose, maybe? Please, enlighten us. Try not to cite too many German texts from early or mid C20.
What?
People who have anal sex are obviously more at risk because the likelihood of transmission is much higher than with vaginal sex.
No-one denies this. HIV awareness campaigns often focus on gay men for this reason. Few people are in denial about it any more. Indeed, some gay men have had it so pounded into them that "being gay will get you AIDS" that subcultures have formed decided they're going to get HIV anyway, so might as well not use protection. This is quite sad, but it's by the bye.
Perhaps you're going for the "faggots are promiscuous lol" angle, in which case I invite you to work out how widespread HIV would be if gays had as much random unprotected anal sex as straight people had vaginal sex.
The trouble here is that you're treating "economics" as a science.
That's like saying a butcher is best positioned to evaluate how much meat someone needs to throw a successful barbeque.
Which they are.
I'm sure what you're saying is, "But uh there's a butcher conspiracy and they'll all say AS MUCH MEAT AS POSSIBLE because that'll make them rich!"
Except that - and I thought this is what you free markedroids always argue when you say that All Regulation Is Evil - it's in no butcher's interest to lie about how much meat someone needs, as then they'll stop being trusted and no-one will listen to them any more.
Not that the analogy is valid, of course, as a climatologist is a lot more likely to get big funding from big business if he sells out his soul and says "global warming doesn't exist.. err I mean has nowt to do with humans yo" than if he gets paid a government wage to tell the truth.
I hear what you're saying and it sounds like "stop oppressing the ultra-rich!"
Everyone, prodded hard enough, can be shown to hold dear some unsubstantiated hypotheses about the world.
But someone on the right has the ultimate aim of helping themselves, either convinced or pretending to be convinced that it'll help other people if everyone strives to help himself. This is an ego-increasing exercise, and too much ego produces an insane amount of self-belief. Self-belief is the origin of faith or conspiracy or whatever you want to call it. This is why conspiracy theories on the right are very well-organised: there is a tremendous amound of unwarranted self-belief.
Those on the left do have their own conspiracy theories, but they tend to be a lot weaker and less organised. This is because it's hard to reconcile "be selfless and love one another" with "here's this thing I think and I have no evidence for it but I am quite convinced in myself". Selfless objectivity and subjectivity tend not to mix. Leftist conspiracy theories are thus more a failure of mind than inherent to the principles of their politics.
At most a climitologist can rightfully say the Earth is warming, CO2 is the cause and human activity is the likely cause of the increase of CO2. Beyond that they should say NOTHING. Other scientists, in other fields, are qualified to evaluate proposed policies.
Que? A climatologist is best positioned to evaluate a proposal to see how it may affect the climate.
The second they use the cloak of science to push policy solutions they aren't scientists anymore, they are amateur politicians. Emphasis on the amateur.
Oh, it seems that you are confused by the meaning of "politician". For one thing, all good politicians are "amateur" - a professional politician is the worst sort.
Next, a politician isn't someone who creates "policy solutions". A politician in a representative democracy represents the voice of the people. He selects from the among the expert proposals the ones which align with the people's wishes, puts them forward to a legislature, listens to the alternatives, debates them, and ultimately votes on them in line with the wishes of those he represents.
To recap: a politician does not create solutions. He is not a professional in any particular field. He can't be - he's voted in as a voice of the people, not an expert on a particular thing.
A lot of people simply want to set up a social environment where the strongest can exploit the weak. They do this either because they already have strength or because they believe they can reach for that rainbow.
It is said that we should not attribute to malice what can be explained by incompetence. But your captains of politics and corporate welfare aren't incompetent - they're smart as hell and I'm sure they know exactly what they're doing.
You, Sir, are what is known as a "data point".
False. People are reading it, and peope buy into it so it needs to be addressed. Not for the troll, but for the other readers.
Fair enough. It depends on the environment. Sometimes you're just perpetuating abuse by feeding a troll, because you encourage them to do it more.
He pointed out that they are more qualified then the poster probably is; which is a safe bet.
This is appeal to authority.
He also pointed out that you can get the information for yourself. So no Appeal to Authority.
Making some inappropriate statements then playing a get-out-of-jail-free card is no substitute for just not making the inappropriate statements in the first place.
"but the problem is not necessarily "misinterpretation"."
It almost always is.
Autism isn't a problem with the receiver - it's a difficulty in communication experienced by the autistic person. Disability denial won't get autistic people or (where necessary) their carers anywhere.
If you express yourself badly then the other person can and absolutely should try to accommodate for it - but that doesn't mean that you didn't still express yourself badly. You must adjust your method of communication so that the receiver can understand you. In particular, it is wrong to say e.g. "I made a factually correct statement therefore only one possible context can apply to it". You have to consider the context of your statements from the PoV of the receiver. Effective interpersonal communication is hard.
I watch and help my daughter deal with autism. You have no idea what it's like
What is it with the preponderance of "you have no idea" today? Has it crossed your mind that I have had experience with autistic people?
to have a daughter who is kind, smart, and wants to be friends with her peer. But her peers always misinterpret her and shy way from her.
Are you sure that the problem is misinterpretation rather than misstatement? If the problem is that her peers "always misinterpret" then your daughter has no condition at all - her peers do.
Perhaps you are saying that her peers could make more effort to grasp what she is trying to communicate. Yes, this sort of awareness would be great. But they're still ~12 years old and adults also suck at this sort of thing. Perhaps the peers are incapable or insecure in themselves - maybe they're lovely but just not that "smart".
I have less time for people who are deliberately intolerant of the disabled, the sick or the just-not-that-bright (all the same in nature's eyes), but - absent external support - it requires a greater than average mind to adapt to a wide variety of needs.
A lonely 12 year old is a very sad thing to watch.
Hm... I had very little interest in other people when I was 12. Mind you, I've had the more traditional "socially backward" label applied to me well before my 12th birthday, many many years ago now. I don't think I was a sad thing to watch.
I regularly visit a family member who sometimes has psychotic hallucinations and talks to people who are not there - is she a sad thing to watch? Not really. It's just nature inflicting its indifferent self. Better to identify the problem and see how it can be managed. And she has managed a lot better since the days that her father and other family members, in thorough denial, wanted to do everything other than medicate and rehabilitate.
I do appreciate your response, by the way. I obviously have not lived your personal experience and I am sure that it can be very challenging for you and your daughter at times. I wish you the best.
I agree with the sentiment of your post, but I feel you're making some errors which harm your cause:
I find it terribly inhumane and malicious of you to spread this sort of attitude.
It is trolling. Trolls want to hear you tell them how inhumane and malicious they are. You don't buy from spammers and you don't feed the trolls.
undoubtedly more qualified than you on this subject
I have come to call this "academic Top Trumps". Appeal to authority would have harmed you for the majority of history, so I wouldn't start appealing to it now. Link to evidence produced by respected authorities, sure, but make sure the argument rests in the evidence.
Isaac Newton had Asperger's Syndrome
One simply cannot perform a diagnosis based on reading the (edited) writings of some individual and third party accounts of his behaviour. Don't do it. It's not scientific and it makes a mockery of proper autism diagnoses.
You don't know what it's like to always feel uncomfortable around people.
There are a lot more people who "always feel uncomfortable around people" and who aren't autistic.
your thoughts being constantly misinterpreted by those around you.
Thoughts cannot be misinterpreted - only the expressions of those thoughts. It is more accurate to say that the autistic person has difficulty communicating effectively. Those who are not autistic can of course try to accommodate for this difficulty, but the problem is not necessarily "misinterpretation".
Autism affects day-to-day functioning on a long-term basis. It is a disability. Civilisation tries to accommodate for those with disabilities rather than mocking them or locking them away. Ultimately, the height of civilisation involves respecting everyone well-meaning who is not a 100% healthy genius.
...surely he was intelligent enough to know from history that all total information awareness campaigns are ultimately used to oppress the people who are supposed to be empowered by information.
And when he allowed half a dozen big businesses to essentially take over and steer W3C in their image, surely he knew that any altruistic or academic value in W3C would be diminished.
Alas, the man is saying, "I've set something up for you. I've allowed you to take it over. But it concerns me." Well, it should concern you, TBL. But, next time you give a knife to a serial killer, don't expect him to use it to cook you a delicious meal.
I know you're trolling, but there are autistic kids. Really, they are. They simply do not interact with the real world. Their brain appears unable to deal with the mess of details and they obsess instead over much simpler, more ordered things.
The distinguishing abilities of a non-autistic are just one component of intelligence, so in archaic (i.e. politically incorrect terms) an autistic is just in some ways "retarded". These days we like to ignore that there are actually innately smart and less smart people because that would cast a shadow over meritocracy and make the angry, exploiting elite less justified in suggesting, "If you're poor, it's because you didn't work hard enough!" So we like to find labels to distinguish the "disabled" from the "stupid". But nature doesn't recognise these differences.
I am glad for all these labels, though, because people who are "stupid" are cruelly dismissed whereas people with another label tend to be treated with more sensitivity. I want every reason, genetic or environmental, for not being a healthy genius to be identified and labelled.
Having said this, I have no doubt that there are some misdiagnoses of autism - and I don't just mean Internet self-diagnoses. And the problem with a spectrum condition is that everyone has some aspects of it, so the "very high functioning autistic" is mostly "some guy with a few mild autistic traits". These are the guys who are both capable and often willing to be LOUD about their condition, giving a very wrong impression of what autism (in the non-mild form) actually is and how much it disables a person. It would be like an amputee who has lost one foot setting up expectations wrt/ a quadruple amputee who has no limbs whatever.
...Microsoft's favoured bedfellow in the free software community.
Why is there no "year of Linux on the desktop"? Well, my friends, it is not because Apple are cunning this or Microsoft are abusive that. It is because no-one has yet come up with a compelling reason to deploy POS like GNOME outside the basement.
...deleted discussion of my $1 trillion idea, so I never got to put it into action.
Norton's figures are thus way too low.
Excluding this, though, Norton may be including the media industry association criminals who overvalue the loss of copying bits representing a Britney Spears wailing lament, or whatever the cool kids are listening to these days.
(0) "advanced treatment (like with cancer)" - that is embarrassingly vague, almost as wide as "like with viruses". And what do you mean that it won't always cost you? Have you identified some edge cases where American hospitals provide better charitable cancer care than the NHS?
(1) The problem with MS was its abuse of its dominant position. If by "virtual monopoly" OP means "dominant position in certain areas on its own merits" then who cares?
It doesn't have to, but you need a bunch of selfless geniouses running the thing to hope for that to happen.
The civil service in the UK pre-Thatcher was strongly meritocratic and based heavily on the principle of service to the nation - in return, you got job security and excellent benefits. So, like you say, selfless geniuses. 30 years of Thatcherism have slowly eroded this, but Britain has survived worse things.
But then when Bush shuts off funding around embryos, everyone is up in arms. That is a predictable consequence of putting a monopoly or market control into the hands of a democracy.
What? Democracy = voice of people. The government could also have banned embryo research entirely if the people wanted it.
the current situation is better than if you didn't have it, but I don't think anyone on either side is open to discussing it.
Countries which have tried both methods tend to prefer the national healthcare one. This may be "just theory" for America, but for Europe it's based on experience in private and public healthcare and a huge range of different implementations across a continent.
Especially when a Libertarian view is labelled as "going back 100 years",
That's because it is. Worse, though, is the offering of dogma - I don't want "a Libertarian view" or "a Communist view" or "a Capitalist view" - I want something which works. And, in healthcare, Europe has something which works.
like we would be driving around in Model T cars. When it ignores that the lack of road would cause innovation to potentially bring about flying cars.
"would cause... potentially..." I agree that state funding of the road network was an awful idea - not because I object to state funding in the citizen's interest but because I object to corporate welfare. Again, much of mainland Europe is far ahead on public transport, though e.g. the Beeching Axe in the UK was little more than the result of throwing money at cars and leaving trains to languish.
It recognises it but doesn't care.
Don't attribute to competence what can be clearly explained as malice.
*expecting to meet surgeon before procedure, patient walks into empty room*
*voice comes out of nowhere*
"Do not be afraid, for I am the invisible hand of the free market. And I shall be operating on you today."
Unfortunately, he may propose laws which will be aye'd by those self-interested Tories and their yellow lickspittles. Yes, Minister isn't quite accurate - see how the DWP has basically become a spokesperson for IDS's personal Himmler-esque (*) philosophy.
Fortunately, Cunt is stupid and will not do such a good job of harming the NHS as Lansley, a true demon.
But, yes, the NHS remains a wonderful thing. And anyone who rejects national healthcare systems in principle is, without exception, either a buffoon or a sadomasochist.
(*) Since the Daily Mail (a popular British newspaper) overtly praised the government for its "arbeit macht frei" (sic) approach, it's difficult to accuse me of Godwinning the discussion.
But there is such thing as law hard to get rid of, which I expect is what your parent meant.
For example, the EU Parliament has veto on creation of laws, but does not have any power to repeal laws. So even if the directly elected representatives of the people are entirely opposed to some law, it cannot be repealed without the consent of the Council, unless it can somehow be declared invalid by the Court of Justice (e.g. secondary legislation outside of the EU's jurisdiction).
While I'm here, it's fairly common for various powermongering interestings to want laws to be easier to implement than to repeal. Consider patents: international patent agreements are such that a patent made in one country has to be recognised in many countries; yet an invalidation of the patent in one country does not propagate.
No, not really.
0) The NHS is excellent - far better than American healthcare. I say that using all the data I have seen and from personal experience of both systems.
1) The UK government does not have a "virtual monopoly" - it has no exclusive right to provide healthcare at all. It does provide some forms of healthcare so well (e.g. emergency) that alternative providers are fairly rare, and other forms of healthcare with waiting lists (e.g. elective hip replacements) such that there's a healthy variety of private providers. I belong to a mutual much older than the NHS which provides discretionary treatment for elective conditions.
2) Thatcher was an idiot put in charge, but the NHS soldiered on. Blair was an idiot put in charge, but the NHS soldiered on. Major and Brown stuck their dicks in a bit but didn't do anything remarkable compared to their superior predecessors. It was Lansley who has done the most damage to the NHS with the Health and Social Care Act 2012, not because he is an idiot but because he's a fucking smart and fucking nasty man. Cunt, already widely known in Britain as corrupt, silly little man, is just pissing on the wreckage.
3) The NHS didn't really exist before 1948, and that was in the wake of something far worse than we're facing now. If things get shit, we regroup, re-educate and rebuild. It's not like history has a linear progression - we're always repeating the same mistakes and having to correct them.
What will happen here:
1. Invention will be commercialised;
2. "Assistance device" corporate welfare company will try to sell this to local authorities;
3. Old and disabled people will be offered this as a cheap alternative to the help they actually need;
4. Such people will fall anyway;
5. And then need more NHS and residential care than they would have otherwise.
Why does everyone seem to assume that "regulation" or even "good regulation" means a damn thing? Is nobody looking at the rest of the worlds' economic situation?
Yes, and that's why some people regret getting rid of the good regulation through the '90s.
Now, I'll grant you that novice code monkeys shouldn't be building the equivalent of a bank
Because otherwise things like in the TFA might happen.
the only real difference between this and a "real" bank is that it doesn't have Federal backing.
That and the fact that a bunch of kids don't hack into real banks every fortnight and steal the money.
And a token doesn't correspond to any individual's money.
Anonymity will go straight out the window as soon as they do (thereby eliminating one of the bigger benefits of BC),
Bitcoin isn't any more anonymous than a numbered bank account, love.
Trust someone with your money because nobody takes "cash" anymore
Buy more than iPhones. Lots of people take cash.
and hope like hell that they don't fuck it up. If they do fuck up, then you hope that they'll be willing to make it "right".
Sounds like you have chosen shitty banks/etc. Mine very rarely fuck up and right their mistakes quickly. Never lost a penny through individual bank error.