It's anecdotal and has no empirical backing. Pilot studies aren't showing promise, but a larger study is required to make any definitive conclusions.
It's likely because of the incidence of intestinal disorders, namely celiac disease, switching the diet is providing treatment for the specific disorder improves their children's symptoms, but isn't actually affecting the underlying autism.
So the above doesn't actually treat "autism", it treats certain debilitating aspects of it. The personality nuances may still be intact after treatment, we don't know for sure yet.
In the study we're discussing now, "autism-like" was a good choice of words. We're not actually certain the mice had autism: they simply displayed symptoms that scientists concluded were autistic.
In the end autism isn't studied enough to make any definite conclusions about anything. On a more philosophical note, however, imagine if there were an introvert vaccine that turned introverts into extroverts. Perhaps we're closing in on a point where we can alter people's personalities, which has some wide implications for the penal and mental health systems.
It's exacerbated by a society that doesn't take it seriously.
No, really, no one takes the fact you have a mental illness seriously until you do something completely batshit crazy like shoot up a school. If I had a nickel for every time someone told me I didn't have a reason to feel depressed...
You are ignored, basically, until you commit a crime. THEN people care. Until then you're not ill, you're just a lazy loafer.
Okay okay, sure it doesn't appeal to the whole process.
But we are talking about something that seems, to me, like it would end up in the Supreme Court anyway. If true, why spend a bunch of time and money just stalling the inevitable.
No no, I think it brings up an excellent point. (Okay maybe he does have an axe to grind, but does that excuse what's actually going on?)
In a recent meandering about the nuances about cell phone plans, in an attempt to find the best one for the lowest cost, I came across fine print details about tethering. Pretty much all prepaid services (Net10, Straight Talk, Aio, iWireless, etc.) forbid tethering your cell phone to any other device. Which is... Well absurd when you think about it.
But it's somehow legal.
Should an ISP be permitted to tell you how you're allowed to connect to their network, explicitly prohibiting setting up a wireless network? It's tantamount to having a toll road forbid anyone from using their road because they passed over a bridge a few miles back (and they don't want any bridge crosser coming through their road).
There's a practical reason for it, sure (tethering increases data use which means greater cost), but as I said before, this illustrates a greater point. And that's that we like to find excuses to find ways around rules to partake in exploitative behavior. The question of it being right or wrong never even entered into their minds; instead it's, "Can I get way with doing this?"
Well, it's likely he won't stay anonymous for long.
The whole thing makes me scratch my head though. Seems like a bad and unprofessional idea to just announce it's a honeypot. If I were setting it up I'd just say the site is closing down then dish out lawsuits or what have you or whatever else, I don't know. An anti-piracy stance (in the typical MPAA fashion) is a very unpopular one on the internet. There's nothing to gain.
But he even announced he's doing it again, and it's likely he'll be tracked down and effortlessly exposed.
Sounds more like some script kiddie who is pulling some prank or what have you. But apparently tracking down who was behind was just handed to us on a silver platter, right here. Names and address included.
So it's a legitimate business. Well good luck against the internet, if they even take your vBulletin forum and website that was coded by fifth grader seriously. I wonder if they even know how to extract the data in any meaningful way.
I seem to have misunderstood the article. If they are penalizing credits for quitting, then it does count as forced labor. Keep in mind "offer himself voluntarily" doesn't apply if you offer yourself for an electrical engineering position but they make you clean toilets. Which is synonymous to what they're doing here.
Actually if you read the law in question then you'll see that forced labor is defined so it's under "menace of penalty". I suppose a lawyer could argue the credits are a reward for the course and not a penalty and thus legal, but that would be defying the spirit of the law.
I'd like to see U.S. customs seize the items the moment they hit our borders, but I doubt they will.
Freedom for all, except if you're a large corporation, it seems.
I think I can agree with the author on that point.
Destroyed himself?
Well thanks for pointing out the obvious, suicide is by definition self destructive.
---
But let's cut through the crap now shall we? MIT, you've disgraced yourself. I don't think it's your fault you don't have a backbone; you hire people for their brains, not for their strength of will or conviction. And so too are your students chosen for intellect and character. Which is something I appreciate and hold in high regard. But it seems you lack strength in your character.
Neither does this excuse you. Aaron's blood is on your hands, and you must carry that burden.
It's your responsibility to protect your students. He was a naive idealist, no argument here, but yet you let him die. Yes; you LET him die. Fearful for your own status and the legal action of an out of control prosecutor, you stepped out of the way when the gun was pointed at him. And even now you're trying to dodge all the bullets, trying to cling to neutrality.
And I say this as someone aspiring to go to MIT some day.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, it's not like a government can forcibly seize assets and keep you from launching to begin with.
You should look at the statistics for people who attend Harvard. 30% of their students have a family that pulls in 150k or more.
You mean besides have serious diplomatic repercussions with pretty much everyone?
Yeah I can't see why pissing on your economic partner could be a very bad idea.
Nuclear option is a bad one.
How's that working out for you?
I like this line of thinking.
It's very likely that people with ASD are far more susceptible to anxiety and depression disorders, but this might be due to the ludicrous amount of bullying autistic children receive (38% in this study over a single month).
It's anecdotal and has no empirical backing. Pilot studies aren't showing promise, but a larger study is required to make any definitive conclusions.
It's likely because of the incidence of intestinal disorders, namely celiac disease, switching the diet is providing treatment for the specific disorder improves their children's symptoms, but isn't actually affecting the underlying autism.
There's already a good lead that amino acid supplementation may cure a certain rare form of autism, but there are many different causes. It's important to note that the study wasn't done on humans (research ongoing), and the type presents with intellectual disability (retardation) and epilepsy.
So the above doesn't actually treat "autism", it treats certain debilitating aspects of it. The personality nuances may still be intact after treatment, we don't know for sure yet.
In the study we're discussing now, "autism-like" was a good choice of words. We're not actually certain the mice had autism: they simply displayed symptoms that scientists concluded were autistic.
In the end autism isn't studied enough to make any definite conclusions about anything. On a more philosophical note, however, imagine if there were an introvert vaccine that turned introverts into extroverts. Perhaps we're closing in on a point where we can alter people's personalities, which has some wide implications for the penal and mental health systems.
It's exacerbated by a society that doesn't take it seriously.
No, really, no one takes the fact you have a mental illness seriously until you do something completely batshit crazy like shoot up a school. If I had a nickel for every time someone told me I didn't have a reason to feel depressed...
You are ignored, basically, until you commit a crime. THEN people care. Until then you're not ill, you're just a lazy loafer.
Yup yup!
Just think of the poor starving lawyers!
So if my computer just happens to download your copyrighted files by algorithm, it's okay because it was all done by a computer.
Sounds reasonable to me.
Okay okay, sure it doesn't appeal to the whole process.
But we are talking about something that seems, to me, like it would end up in the Supreme Court anyway. If true, why spend a bunch of time and money just stalling the inevitable.
No no, I think it brings up an excellent point. (Okay maybe he does have an axe to grind, but does that excuse what's actually going on?)
In a recent meandering about the nuances about cell phone plans, in an attempt to find the best one for the lowest cost, I came across fine print details about tethering. Pretty much all prepaid services (Net10, Straight Talk, Aio, iWireless, etc.) forbid tethering your cell phone to any other device. Which is... Well absurd when you think about it.
But it's somehow legal.
Should an ISP be permitted to tell you how you're allowed to connect to their network, explicitly prohibiting setting up a wireless network? It's tantamount to having a toll road forbid anyone from using their road because they passed over a bridge a few miles back (and they don't want any bridge crosser coming through their road).
There's a practical reason for it, sure (tethering increases data use which means greater cost), but as I said before, this illustrates a greater point. And that's that we like to find excuses to find ways around rules to partake in exploitative behavior. The question of it being right or wrong never even entered into their minds; instead it's, "Can I get way with doing this?"
Hobbes would have a field day with this.
Not when brave rhymes with stupid.
Sounds like this whole situation could have been prevented if the NSA didn't overstep their authority.
Well, it's likely he won't stay anonymous for long.
The whole thing makes me scratch my head though. Seems like a bad and unprofessional idea to just announce it's a honeypot. If I were setting it up I'd just say the site is closing down then dish out lawsuits or what have you or whatever else, I don't know. An anti-piracy stance (in the typical MPAA fashion) is a very unpopular one on the internet. There's nothing to gain.
But he even announced he's doing it again, and it's likely he'll be tracked down and effortlessly exposed.
Sounds more like some script kiddie who is pulling some prank or what have you. But apparently tracking down who was behind was just handed to us on a silver platter, right here. Names and address included.
So it's a legitimate business. Well good luck against the internet, if they even take your vBulletin forum and website that was coded by fifth grader seriously. I wonder if they even know how to extract the data in any meaningful way.
If that's true she can sue the government for the lost wages.
You're right!
Self-driving horse? No thank you.
That's funny, I'd rather someone remove my blood marrow than have the flu.
I thought this at first too, but then it occurred to me that the opposite is more likely.
The Chinese government is cracking down on corruption, and in turn the corrupt are cracking down to silence anyone who would make them look bad.
A bit of a correction:
I seem to have misunderstood the article. If they are penalizing credits for quitting, then it does count as forced labor. Keep in mind "offer himself voluntarily" doesn't apply if you offer yourself for an electrical engineering position but they make you clean toilets. Which is synonymous to what they're doing here.
Actually if you read the law in question then you'll see that forced labor is defined so it's under "menace of penalty". I suppose a lawyer could argue the credits are a reward for the course and not a penalty and thus legal, but that would be defying the spirit of the law.
I'd like to see U.S. customs seize the items the moment they hit our borders, but I doubt they will.
Freedom for all, except if you're a large corporation, it seems.
We'll just be footing the bill.
My mistake.
I got caught up in my moral outrage.
Dangerously naive? Perhaps.
I think I can agree with the author on that point.
Destroyed himself?
Well thanks for pointing out the obvious, suicide is by definition self destructive.
---
But let's cut through the crap now shall we? MIT, you've disgraced yourself. I don't think it's your fault you don't have a backbone; you hire people for their brains, not for their strength of will or conviction. And so too are your students chosen for intellect and character. Which is something I appreciate and hold in high regard. But it seems you lack strength in your character.
Neither does this excuse you. Aaron's blood is on your hands, and you must carry that burden.
It's your responsibility to protect your students. He was a naive idealist, no argument here, but yet you let him die. Yes; you LET him die. Fearful for your own status and the legal action of an out of control prosecutor, you stepped out of the way when the gun was pointed at him. And even now you're trying to dodge all the bullets, trying to cling to neutrality.
And I say this as someone aspiring to go to MIT some day.