i don't think these studies are saying advertising and consumerism are the cause of all depression. it seems to me it's about depression in those who really have no good reason to be depressed.
it's an advertiser's job to make you unhappy. if you are content with what you have, and only wish to buy things you need, a lot of worthless junk would never get sold. think about how your (imaginary?) girlfriend/wife goes shopping to make herself feel better. materialism is condemned by just about every religion that preaches happiness through the "denial of the crystalline" -- to quote a Meshuggah song (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9IiP-Vdx_F8). advertisers want to create depression in you because it's proven to drive sales. you spend to fill the void, and the void is created by attachment to status and the expensive crap required to get it. all of this was true for tv, and now it's our interactive tv, the internet.
a lot of people weigh more than 154lbs and are perfectly healthy. you compare their weight against their height and adjust for gender. if you're a male 6 feet tall or more then you are underweight at 154lbs.
MPAA, not to be denied, went after a programmer in the US that worked on the site. In exchange for dropping his case, he agreed to testify in the UK case and pay the MPAA $10k in go-away money.
to clarify, the boston programmer thought it was a good deal because he was facing a $250,000 fine and 5 years in prison for conspiracy to commit copyright infringement under US law. the ~$10k was what the UK couple paid him for the work he did for their site. they say he broke the law, but now he's just broke even.
he better hope he doesn't go to prison for something else. they hate it when the new fish is a rat.
well, no, you really did insinuate that, even if only subconsciously. you used the term "parents" as opposed to the genetically-neutral "mentors." you also pointed out the mother's occupation (seemingly gleaned from her twitter account? so you had to go looking for a direct genetic link? it wasn't in TFA...) and speculated that his father was an engineer. i do not see an argument for "biology tutor" or "sister-in-law" or any other source of environmental guidance sans a direct genetic link.
not that i disagree. i think it's more than a definite possibility, i think it's likely. 100% of the time? no. but genetics and environment are what shape a person. if you have both to your advantage in some field of science and you enter a science fair, then i believe you will be more likely to win it. not destined, but more likely. despite what they tell you in school, not just anyone can be an astronaut or the president. that's life.
i'm also going to assume by eugenics you mean its greek roots, "good genes." nobody is talking about superiority. i'm talking about variance. evolution favors having a variety of species (as opposed to a dominance of a species), and a variety within a species as well -- all of whom rely on each other for survival and life beyond that. but someone with good genes for intellect who is raised in poverty and/or abuse will have less resources available to them to do certain things, like win a science fair, or make innovations in health/medicine, or both at the same time. they could still win, but when they do it's remarkable and that's what you seemed to imply when you said
Pressed if disks are accepted, the company responded that “All common database products provide a capability to extract to a common file format like.csv.”
what a professional answer. and by that i mean it didn't answer the question at all.
i don't know about this. i mean, we have the superbowl to decide the world champions of football, and we're the only ones who play it. could be the fault lies in considering anyone but the us in the study. in fact, that would be downright unamerican.
the way of the world dude. contest or no contest this is how shit works out. rarely is your genius mathematician from the favelas of rio or the mean streets of compton. they're usually the son or daughter of two other recognized geniuses. your average kid will bust out the baking soda volcano. genetics and environment are not fair for everyone. if they were there'd be no purpose for evolution.
Slashdot Mirror
also, are we all going to become soldiers too?
i don't think these studies are saying advertising and consumerism are the cause of all depression. it seems to me it's about depression in those who really have no good reason to be depressed.
yeah it sounds like it from your other comments. http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2867697&cid=40081583#comment_link_40081583
http://www.alternet.org/health/68043
it's an advertiser's job to make you unhappy. if you are content with what you have, and only wish to buy things you need, a lot of worthless junk would never get sold. think about how your (imaginary?) girlfriend/wife goes shopping to make herself feel better. materialism is condemned by just about every religion that preaches happiness through the "denial of the crystalline" -- to quote a Meshuggah song (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9IiP-Vdx_F8). advertisers want to create depression in you because it's proven to drive sales. you spend to fill the void, and the void is created by attachment to status and the expensive crap required to get it. all of this was true for tv, and now it's our interactive tv, the internet.
http://www.psychologicalscience.org/index.php/news/releases/consumerism-and-its-antisocial-effects-can-be-turned-onor-off.html
that's not how you determine if someone is overweight. this is: http://www.bmi-calculator.net/
a lot of people weigh more than 154lbs and are perfectly healthy. you compare their weight against their height and adjust for gender. if you're a male 6 feet tall or more then you are underweight at 154lbs.
MPAA, not to be denied, went after a programmer in the US that worked on the site. In exchange for dropping his case, he agreed to testify in the UK case and pay the MPAA $10k in go-away money.
to clarify, the boston programmer thought it was a good deal because he was facing a $250,000 fine and 5 years in prison for conspiracy to commit copyright infringement under US law. the ~$10k was what the UK couple paid him for the work he did for their site. they say he broke the law, but now he's just broke even.
he better hope he doesn't go to prison for something else. they hate it when the new fish is a rat.
ah, now we understand. eugenics carries such a nasty connotation with it that people often miss the point. i'm glad we agree.
i know, right? try explaining the mod points
did i fuck your wife or something? you can safely assume she wasn't worth it...
southern california also has precious few basements, for some reason.
dubya bush? is that you?
it's always "the appropriate time to continue ... efforts ... in a different forum" when you're about to be slammed with "allegations of ... misconduct."
a "chilled work environment" is a great thing for any NOC. maybe NRC not so much...
so the summary was updated?
maybe "scared straight" is an inappropriate way to frame this?
and only one-way, multiple lane roads. you know, for parallel processing.
not that i disagree. i think it's more than a definite possibility, i think it's likely. 100% of the time? no. but genetics and environment are what shape a person. if you have both to your advantage in some field of science and you enter a science fair, then i believe you will be more likely to win it. not destined, but more likely. despite what they tell you in school, not just anyone can be an astronaut or the president. that's life.
i'm also going to assume by eugenics you mean its greek roots, "good genes." nobody is talking about superiority. i'm talking about variance. evolution favors having a variety of species (as opposed to a dominance of a species), and a variety within a species as well -- all of whom rely on each other for survival and life beyond that. but someone with good genes for intellect who is raised in poverty and/or abuse will have less resources available to them to do certain things, like win a science fair, or make innovations in health/medicine, or both at the same time. they could still win, but when they do it's remarkable and that's what you seemed to imply when you said
It's nevertheless a commendable result.
[emphasis mine]
the other 10% was manufacturing rock candy, i mean, growing sugar crystals.
... his test, which is roughly 28 times cheaper and faster, and over 100 times more sensitive than current tests
our current tests are essentially useless. this is obviously much better, and a great stepping stone to getting greater accuracy.
applies to education too.
Ghidorah > Godzilla > Mothra > Gamera > Rodan
Pressed if disks are accepted, the company responded that “All common database products provide a capability to extract to a common file format like .csv.”
what a professional answer. and by that i mean it didn't answer the question at all.
i don't know about this. i mean, we have the superbowl to decide the world champions of football, and we're the only ones who play it. could be the fault lies in considering anyone but the us in the study. in fact, that would be downright unamerican.
the way of the world dude. contest or no contest this is how shit works out. rarely is your genius mathematician from the favelas of rio or the mean streets of compton. they're usually the son or daughter of two other recognized geniuses. your average kid will bust out the baking soda volcano. genetics and environment are not fair for everyone. if they were there'd be no purpose for evolution.
there were two eclipses yesterday.