Stupidity is not a religion, but you sir are still an idiot if you believe one is no more probable than the other.
*sigh*
First off, religious belief or lack therof is a rather horrible way to judge the competency of an intelligence.
Secondly, I didn't make any claim, in the refereneced post, as to which conclusion is correct. (Parsimony tells us that, barring evidence of God's existance, we should act as if he does not. Faith tells us otherwise, but science and faith are not good bedfellows.)
Thirdly, probability has absolutly nothing to do with history. It either really did happen one way, or it really didn't happen that way. Perhaps you meant "plausible?" Which, unless you limit plausibilty to what is acceptable to atheism-tained science, they both are. (Science is properly agnostic, neither knowing nor caring if God exists or not, as He seems to be content to not prove His existance.)
Fourthly, your grammar is horrid. Perhaps you meant something like the following:
Stupidity is not a religion--but you, sir, are still an idiot if you believe that neither one of those theories is more credible than the other.
A tactic used by civil rights workers back in the 60's was to have so many people present, and so many people arrested that they overwhelmed the system, forcing the let-go of the rest.
I believe that the court system has be revised so as to allow for concurrent offenders to be tried together.
So, presumably, RIAA could try all users of KaZaa over X songs in a single court.
And even if not that, a no-show in a court case automatically loses. So, if the RIAA comes with enough lawyers to each case, and the defendants don't make it, then RIAA wins by default.
Enough cases and favorable precedent will be set somewhere. Some of these precedents will make their way up to district courts, and could eventually make their way all the way to the Supreme Court, a risk the **AA's just can't take. We've seen this before from the **AA's where they were afraid of a precedent going against them and dropped the case. They know about this, and don't dare make this as widespread as many people seem to believe they would.
I hope, on many many levels, that the RIAA finally 'puts up or shuts up.' Either they go for the cases, and let the law be the law be the law, or they go the Apple route and simply adapt to the new technology.
I suspect that the RIAA knows percisely how many file-sharers it can sue without the courts dying on them, and it won't sue those it can't prosecute.
You are always free to contact the copyright holder of any work available under the GPL and request licensing under different terms, you know.
Only for single author projects. Any sizable GPL'd program has an innumerable ammount of unlisted authors--except for those who have had rights assigned to them by the FSF, and I doubt that the FSF would allow circumvention of their own license.
I'm really unclear on what aspect of the GPL needs to be "challenged". If the GPL does not apply, then copyright law forbids the things people are doing with those works the authors placed under the GPL. It's not a use license, but if you don't accept it, the law is clear: you don't have the right to do certain things with that code.
The basic concept of copyleft has yet to be held up or torn down by a court. It is entirely possibe that, if copyleft is found to be an unfair use of copyright law, the GPL will be re-interpreted as merely a waiver of liability and a release into the public domain.
The GPL just covers so few instances--and for most of those that it does cover, the authors are either far too small to contest the GPL, or far too large to use GPL'd code.
Effectivly you'd be impinging on the absolute rights of copyright holders to control distribution of their works.
Like what the concept of copyleft could be construed to do.
Mind you, I don't think that it's likely SCOTUS would toss out the concept, but it's possible. Especially given that no law I know of explicitly authorizes copyleft or copyleft-like concepts.
The GPL doesn't mean business. It means common ground and contractorship.
The GPL, by design, will make it unprofitable to sell software sight unseen. If the GPL became dominant, software would be limited to an add-on provided by OEMs, contractors, and philantrophic coders.
Before you call that a troll--if YOU could be paid $12000 (welfare) to stay home and code, with no boss and little-to-no prejudice against how you get the money, would you?
And then you find out if you side has what it takes to win.
Ghandi had the plight of the oppressed, the moral high ground, and the triple guilt of the Anglican White Empire.
What does GNU have? Some sour grapes against software developers, and a license designed to turn copyright on its head.
It's entirely possible that the concept of copyleft could be tossed out, as being an unfair infringement upon the innovation and artistic progress of others. It's also entirely possible that it'll be upheld lock stock and barrel.
No one, AFAIK, has attempted to challenge the GPL and taken it to court. (If you know otherwise, please site case name and / or court.) Until that happens, it's a license that may have some or more parts of it removed.
(For the GNUelots, the "entirely possible" would require a case getting to the Supreme Court.)
How about GIMP, CinePaint, Blender, the various LaTeX environments, GhostScript, OpenOffice.org, etc.
How about seeing the boundary of the cursor, working with the OS standard UI, not pretending that my Win32 box is a UNIX box, bookmarked PDFs, easy-to-create PDF forms, a proper word count, a grammar checker, etc., etc.
There are replacements, but side by side they're not wining any converts--which means that the established market-leaders have SOMETHING worth hundreds of dollars for.
NOW is the time to put the wheels in motion that are going to save us from government control over all intellectual property.
*blink* *blink*
You DO realize that, if not for the weight and rule of the government, intellectual property wouldn't be?
We need to force some change- we need to show the media empire that it can't hold onto it's current business model, that it's greedy little eyes need to open up a little and see the damage they are causing.
Then do so via convincing artists to allow BitTorrents of their songs (or zip'd albums, or singles, etc) to be downloaded.
If your foe is the media empire, your ally must be the artist. If the artist is not your ally in a fight to change their business, then you are the artist's foe.
I want a reliable system, which more complexity always works against.
You're apparantly not familiar with the concept of "redundancy."
Of course, I'd be concerned about the replacement plan for these fans. When the warrant goes up in X years, how much will it be to replace a suddenly dead fan?
SERIOUSLY, the FBI has no place at all getting involved with copyright issues.
Wrong.
The FBI is the federal government's public domestic police arm. Copyright is a federal law, and if you infringe it on a high enough scale, it's a federal crime..
Ergo, the FBI is involved with criminal copyright enforcement. Either them or the Secret Service.
(And, besides which, we have a shiney new Department of Homeland Security to crack down on terrorism--let the FBI get back to busting organized crime et al.)
plus, your assertion that bigger brains = bigger faces = increased mating potential is bunk
Why? Because you have other animals with smaller brains? Are _you_ attracted to a bright colorful bird? I didn't think so.
larger brains equalling more aesthetically pleasing faces? so are better looking people automatically smarter? Ask most of us/. crowd - big brains doesnt automatically equal good looks.
Aside from the conceit that/.ers think that we're smarter than everyone else (we're not), having a bigger brain means that you're _likely_ to have more intelligence--not that you do, or even that you have more potential intelligence.
Of course a certain size head is desirable and gets women--but that could be just because of the preferred norm for the species, rather than any underlying characteristic. Or, it might be a factor. No way to test.
My point wasn't "look at all these arguments for bigger brains, we must have superfluous mass", it was "don't think that we use all of our brains just because they're a certain size--there are other possible answers."
Then why do I have to scrape my face every morning? Some evolutionary joke means that if I don't, I'll soon be sucking on last week's eggs and tripping over neverending beard, something chicks don't dig. Maybe beards (and head hair) are ways of ensuring that we use sharp implements -- blame it on the black monolith...
It's actualy possible to groom and keep clean a beard, and a good portion of human women consider a beard attractive.
Likewise, there are human breeds that have little to no facial hair; being the american mutt breed that I am, I could never shave and not have more than a few bits of hair on my face.
In any case, having a beard or not having a beard is pretty much equal when it comes to getting women--it's just that the beard needs to be either clean-shaven or properly-grown. That in-between stage is what kills the love life.
The fact that evolution is willing to pay such a high penalty (increased childbirth fatalities) for large brains indicates that there must be an offsetting evolutionary advantage to having large brains. The notion that much of our brain is therefore "unused" doesn't really make sense from an evolutionary standpoint.
Then why do I have an appendix? (Or slim body hairs?)
Evolution does not look at any one characteristic. It looks at the whole of the being. And, between equally fit species, there's still a measure of chance.
Let's ignore the obvious rebuttal to your point (use of the brain's savant abilities is proportional; if we have a brain half the design, we might have half of the all-around intelligence) and focus on the evolutionary advantages of having unused brain tissue.
First off, we're able to survive brain damage much easier. Being able to be thwacked in the head and still bring food home--and maybe go out and hunt some more the next day--is an obvious evolutionary advantage.
Secondly, it increases mating. Having a bigger brain means our heads are shaped different--in a more asthetically pleasing fashion. The face is a human's primary means of identification and emotional communication--a clearer face is an obvious evolutionary advantage, within the species.
Thirdly, it's entirely possible that over the uncounted generations of prehistory, human-ancestor-groups who had savants among them simply outperformed other human-ancestor-groups who did not, thus neccistating a retention of the savant abilities. Not a clear evolutionary advantage, but a distinct possibility.
While your childbirth arugment is a good one, for it to work we'd need to have some mechanism to actually shrink brain mass at the start. Bugger me if I can think of one that'd work--larger hips would be a much easier evolutionary adaptation.
I believe Lawyers provide a direct and potent counterexample to your thesis.
I don't know about you, but every lawyer I've ever met has been compassionate, ethical, and an all-around nice guy.
They just get (very) bad press because they have to do what their clients want, and their clients are often rich, and, ergo, often scumbags.
Re:alternatives and cultural rant ahead...
on
Working with ADHD?
·
· Score: 1
I have actually heard that many believe it to be similar to being hopped up on speed, all the time, without ever comming down, and ever crasing. You have so much nervous energy that it is physically painful to sit still. Your attention wanders so quickly that you can't focus long enough to gain control, unless you are deeply interested in the subject, in which case you hyperfocus to the point that when you do finally come out of it 30 hours later you find that you are incredibly hungry thirsty, and in pain from having to go to the bathroom (if you havn't soiled yourself from not noticing). You also find that you can multi-task to the point of being able to pay full attention to two or more things, and gain all of the information you need. Imagine not being able to tell that people are angry with you or annoyed, or interested in a subject because you can't pick up on non-verbal cues without concentrating on them, then learning them by rote. Imagine not being able to control emotional outbursts. Imagine not being able to stop yourself from acting on every impulse you recieve.
Thank you. That's exactly the sort of thing that I wanted to hear.
Bullshit. You can imagine and think you understand. You can pretend to understand, but without direct expierence in something, it is impossible for you to understand. I know for a fact that you can't understand because the hell that is ADD is not possible to truely put into words. You may be able to have some empathy, but that is not the same as fully understanding.
You're an elitist, victimized schmuck.
AND you've convinced me that ADD is a real condition, deserving as any of medication to correct. Congradulations.
But it doesn't change the fact that you've acted like an ass this entire discussion. Good day.
A while back, when we moved into the apartment before the one we're in now, we decided to give MCI a chance. The price was good, the calling was good--but it was 9 weeks before the phone was installed. When we moved apartments into the one we're in now, it was going to be another 4-12 weeks to get the phone service transfered. (We called Verizon, and got it done the same day.)
Unless you have to share your phone line with another person, or need it to connect to an ISP, my suggestoin is to skip the land line and get a cell phone. My friends who have cells are _easier_ to get ahold of than those with land lines, and activation / transfer takes hours or days, not weeks or months.
Re:alternatives and cultural rant ahead...
on
Working with ADHD?
·
· Score: 1
Agreed, but it isn't going to happen. No matter how much you stamp your feet and say it should be such, it isn't going to happen without mass violence, which would be unacceptable.
Violence isn't necessary, just politics and advocacy.
Still, in Second Grade you're not doing anything stressful enough to merit correction. If you can't cut it, they should take you out of school or put you back in first grade (and before that, a different teacher).
Well, you were doing so good at not pissing me off, and now you have to go say something like this.
Sorry if I pissed you off. But social promotion is a load of BS. If a kid can't cut the grade, give them a different teacher, put them in a different school, or make them repeat it. If they still have problems, THEN you medicate.
I took the third grade over again, because I was simply not mature enough to handle fourth grade when I started it. I went from being a poor student to being a rather bright kid; I just needed that extra few months of development.
Did YOU repeat a grade, or go to a different school? Or did you just get slapped with mind-altering medicine at an early age on one doctor's call?
Without the meds, I could have repeated the first grade several times without being able to handle things.
You don't know that. You can't know that. I'm sure that the medicine did help you--but a drug helping you do something doesn't mean that you were unable to do it on your own. (You may very well have been; I can't know if you could or could not, either.)
With the meds, I would have easily been able to handle fourth or fifth.
I assume you took the meds. Did you then jump through the school ranks? Did you advance even one year ahead, or even fill your last year of HS with college level courses? If not, stop bragging.
As I said before, if you don't know what it's like maybe you ought to keep your mouth shut and learn from someone who DOES know what it is like.
*ahem.*
I repeat. Describe the subjective qualities, in layman's human terms. I don't care if you brain responds to the drugs better or if you get high on water or have an allergy to paper.
I want to hear from you what ADD / ADHD is, without you falling back on medical arcana that describe the biology behind the condition without describing the condition.
If you don't have conrete experence in something, it is impossible for you to understand. Your comments and flippiant attitude are not helpful, they are harmful, and I reserve the right to loathe you and wish you ill.
Feel free to loathe me and wish me ill. Just tell me when you do it, or else I shall learn nothing.
It is possible for a human being to understand something that they did not undergo. To claim otherwise is insulting elitist victimization, and I don't think that you are a victim.
We are talking about people who think the universe began in 4004 BC, a belief that is just as ludicrous as thinking pi equals 3.
Come again?
Pi is a defineable concept. Saying that Pi is equal to 3.00 is as indefensible as saying that "Speed Limit 55 means that you need to drive at 5500 RPMs."
OTOH, caiming that the universe was artifically constructed in 4004 BC is no more or less ludicrous than claiming that it started billions of years ago as one tiny speck. Neither one can be proven by duplication of effort or checking with the designer (God apparantly never got a P.O. box or a telephone line).
While Metallica may have been legally permitted to do what they did, in the end, they SUED their own fans for being overly enthusiastic.
Did they? I know that they got Napster to block certain user accounts, but I didn't hear about Metallica actually taking a fan to court. (The RIAA did, but they're lawyers.)
I might actually check out St. Anger to get at the concert recordings, IF Metallica first apologizes for all the crap they pulled over Napster a few years ago.
Did you download (non-concert studio) Metallica songs from Napster? Did YOU apologize? (Did you let them know that you feel slighted? And remember--they're near-luddites and don't read/.)
If not, then STFU.
Otherwise, this is pure hypocracy, and a rather sad attempt at pulling back in fans who are deservedly quite angry with them.
*sigh*
Copyright isn't about money or music, really--it's about control of one's creation. We've all agreed, decades ago, that when someone is making something, they get to decide when to release it into the wild; while we can disagree on how much control they have after it's in the wild, the agreement of whether or not to release it is a valid one.
The Napster flashpoint was unfinished, unreleased songs. Decry copyright all that you want, distributing someone's art before they're done with it is still wrong.
I shouldn't have to pay the bandwidth costs for someone else's opinion any more than they should have to pay them for mine.
Exactly. If you critize someone, you have to allow them a rebuttal--and if someone critizies you, they have to allow you to rebut.
It's not a violation of the freedom of speech per se. It's an infringement upon your right to exclusivly use your property in an attempt to improve the quality of speach.
Re:alternatives and cultural rant ahead...
on
Working with ADHD?
·
· Score: 1
K. I'm listening.
Describe ADHD in human terms. You can include neurochemical references if you wish, but I consider them the physical expression of the brain, not necessarily either the cause or the result of brain activity. (Note my line about "show the brain how it's supposed to work", above.)
Feel free to include quotes and references as well, if you feel they help explain ADHD.
Slashdot Mirror
Stupidity is not a religion, but you sir are still an idiot if you believe one is no more probable than the other.
*sigh*
First off, religious belief or lack therof is a rather horrible way to judge the competency of an intelligence.
Secondly, I didn't make any claim, in the refereneced post, as to which conclusion is correct. (Parsimony tells us that, barring evidence of God's existance, we should act as if he does not. Faith tells us otherwise, but science and faith are not good bedfellows.)
Thirdly, probability has absolutly nothing to do with history. It either really did happen one way, or it really didn't happen that way. Perhaps you meant "plausible?" Which, unless you limit plausibilty to what is acceptable to atheism-tained science, they both are. (Science is properly agnostic, neither knowing nor caring if God exists or not, as He seems to be content to not prove His existance.)
Fourthly, your grammar is horrid. Perhaps you meant something like the following:
Stupidity is not a religion--but you, sir, are still an idiot if you believe that neither one of those theories is more credible than the other.
(IANAL-RU?)
A tactic used by civil rights workers back in the 60's was to have so many people present, and so many people arrested that they overwhelmed the system, forcing the let-go of the rest.
I believe that the court system has be revised so as to allow for concurrent offenders to be tried together.
So, presumably, RIAA could try all users of KaZaa over X songs in a single court.
And even if not that, a no-show in a court case automatically loses. So, if the RIAA comes with enough lawyers to each case, and the defendants don't make it, then RIAA wins by default.
Enough cases and favorable precedent will be set somewhere. Some of these precedents will make their way up to district courts, and could eventually make their way all the way to the Supreme Court, a risk the **AA's just can't take. We've seen this before from the **AA's where they were afraid of a precedent going against them and dropped the case. They know about this, and don't dare make this as widespread as many people seem to believe they would.
I hope, on many many levels, that the RIAA finally 'puts up or shuts up.' Either they go for the cases, and let the law be the law be the law, or they go the Apple route and simply adapt to the new technology.
I suspect that the RIAA knows percisely how many file-sharers it can sue without the courts dying on them, and it won't sue those it can't prosecute.
Who is he to tell me what is morally/ethically right or wrong?
A human being.
As a human, we all percieve and extroll ethics and morals--it's part of our nature.
As a human (you ARE human, aren't you?) you may agree or disagree with his statements of ethics and morals as you see fit.
like everyone having to put on their pants, one leg at a time.
:) It's not that hard; you just need something to roll back on.
Am the only one who does it both legs at once?
You are always free to contact the copyright holder of any work available under the GPL and request licensing under different terms, you know.
Only for single author projects. Any sizable GPL'd program has an innumerable ammount of unlisted authors--except for those who have had rights assigned to them by the FSF, and I doubt that the FSF would allow circumvention of their own license.
I'm really unclear on what aspect of the GPL needs to be "challenged". If the GPL does not apply, then copyright law forbids the things people are doing with those works the authors placed under the GPL. It's not a use license, but if you don't accept it, the law is clear: you don't have the right to do certain things with that code.
The basic concept of copyleft has yet to be held up or torn down by a court. It is entirely possibe that, if copyleft is found to be an unfair use of copyright law, the GPL will be re-interpreted as merely a waiver of liability and a release into the public domain.
The GPL just covers so few instances--and for most of those that it does cover, the authors are either far too small to contest the GPL, or far too large to use GPL'd code.
Effectivly you'd be impinging on the absolute rights of copyright holders to control distribution of their works.
Like what the concept of copyleft could be construed to do.
Mind you, I don't think that it's likely SCOTUS would toss out the concept, but it's possible. Especially given that no law I know of explicitly authorizes copyleft or copyleft-like concepts.
The GPL doesn't mean business. It means common ground and contractorship.
The GPL, by design, will make it unprofitable to sell software sight unseen. If the GPL became dominant, software would be limited to an add-on provided by OEMs, contractors, and philantrophic coders.
Before you call that a troll--if YOU could be paid $12000 (welfare) to stay home and code, with no boss and little-to-no prejudice against how you get the money, would you?
...then they laugh at you, then they fight you...
And then you find out if you side has what it takes to win.
Ghandi had the plight of the oppressed, the moral high ground, and the triple guilt of the Anglican White Empire.
What does GNU have? Some sour grapes against software developers, and a license designed to turn copyright on its head.
It's entirely possible that the concept of copyleft could be tossed out, as being an unfair infringement upon the innovation and artistic progress of others. It's also entirely possible that it'll be upheld lock stock and barrel.
No one, AFAIK, has attempted to challenge the GPL and taken it to court. (If you know otherwise, please site case name and / or court.) Until that happens, it's a license that may have some or more parts of it removed.
(For the GNUelots, the "entirely possible" would require a case getting to the Supreme Court.)
How about GIMP, CinePaint, Blender, the various LaTeX environments, GhostScript, OpenOffice.org, etc.
How about seeing the boundary of the cursor, working with the OS standard UI, not pretending that my Win32 box is a UNIX box, bookmarked PDFs, easy-to-create PDF forms, a proper word count, a grammar checker, etc., etc.
There are replacements, but side by side they're not wining any converts--which means that the established market-leaders have SOMETHING worth hundreds of dollars for.
Ignoring these facts will not a majority OS make.
NOW is the time to put the wheels in motion that are going to save us from government control over all intellectual property.
*blink* *blink*
You DO realize that, if not for the weight and rule of the government, intellectual property wouldn't be?
We need to force some change- we need to show the media empire that it can't hold onto it's current business model, that it's greedy little eyes need to open up a little and see the damage they are causing.
Then do so via convincing artists to allow BitTorrents of their songs (or zip'd albums, or singles, etc) to be downloaded.
If your foe is the media empire, your ally must be the artist. If the artist is not your ally in a fight to change their business, then you are the artist's foe.
I want a reliable system, which more complexity always works against.
You're apparantly not familiar with the concept of "redundancy."
Of course, I'd be concerned about the replacement plan for these fans. When the warrant goes up in X years, how much will it be to replace a suddenly dead fan?
SERIOUSLY, the FBI has no place at all getting involved with copyright issues.
Wrong.
The FBI is the federal government's public domestic police arm. Copyright is a federal law, and if you infringe it on a high enough scale, it's a federal crime..
Ergo, the FBI is involved with criminal copyright enforcement. Either them or the Secret Service.
(And, besides which, we have a shiney new Department of Homeland Security to crack down on terrorism--let the FBI get back to busting organized crime et al.)
plus, your assertion that bigger brains = bigger faces = increased mating potential is bunk
/. crowd - big brains doesnt automatically equal good looks.
/.ers think that we're smarter than everyone else (we're not), having a bigger brain means that you're _likely_ to have more intelligence--not that you do, or even that you have more potential intelligence.
Why? Because you have other animals with smaller brains? Are _you_ attracted to a bright colorful bird? I didn't think so.
larger brains equalling more aesthetically pleasing faces? so are better looking people automatically smarter? Ask most of us
Aside from the conceit that
Of course a certain size head is desirable and gets women--but that could be just because of the preferred norm for the species, rather than any underlying characteristic. Or, it might be a factor. No way to test.
My point wasn't "look at all these arguments for bigger brains, we must have superfluous mass", it was "don't think that we use all of our brains just because they're a certain size--there are other possible answers."
It is from that 12% they deduct the Advance they were given to produce it in the first place.
Maybe you're not familiar with the concept of "advance."
An advance is an interest-free loan from the producer to the artist against the earnings of the album.
Then why do I have to scrape my face every morning? Some evolutionary joke means that if I don't, I'll soon be sucking on last week's eggs and tripping over neverending beard, something chicks don't dig. Maybe beards (and head hair) are ways of ensuring that we use sharp implements -- blame it on the black monolith...
It's actualy possible to groom and keep clean a beard, and a good portion of human women consider a beard attractive.
Likewise, there are human breeds that have little to no facial hair; being the american mutt breed that I am, I could never shave and not have more than a few bits of hair on my face.
In any case, having a beard or not having a beard is pretty much equal when it comes to getting women--it's just that the beard needs to be either clean-shaven or properly-grown. That in-between stage is what kills the love life.
The fact that evolution is willing to pay such a high penalty (increased childbirth fatalities) for large brains indicates that there must be an offsetting evolutionary advantage to having large brains. The notion that much of our brain is therefore "unused" doesn't really make sense from an evolutionary standpoint.
Then why do I have an appendix? (Or slim body hairs?)
Evolution does not look at any one characteristic. It looks at the whole of the being. And, between equally fit species, there's still a measure of chance.
Let's ignore the obvious rebuttal to your point (use of the brain's savant abilities is proportional; if we have a brain half the design, we might have half of the all-around intelligence) and focus on the evolutionary advantages of having unused brain tissue.
First off, we're able to survive brain damage much easier. Being able to be thwacked in the head and still bring food home--and maybe go out and hunt some more the next day--is an obvious evolutionary advantage.
Secondly, it increases mating. Having a bigger brain means our heads are shaped different--in a more asthetically pleasing fashion. The face is a human's primary means of identification and emotional communication--a clearer face is an obvious evolutionary advantage, within the species.
Thirdly, it's entirely possible that over the uncounted generations of prehistory, human-ancestor-groups who had savants among them simply outperformed other human-ancestor-groups who did not, thus neccistating a retention of the savant abilities. Not a clear evolutionary advantage, but a distinct possibility.
While your childbirth arugment is a good one, for it to work we'd need to have some mechanism to actually shrink brain mass at the start. Bugger me if I can think of one that'd work--larger hips would be a much easier evolutionary adaptation.
I believe Lawyers provide a direct and potent counterexample to your thesis.
I don't know about you, but every lawyer I've ever met has been compassionate, ethical, and an all-around nice guy.
They just get (very) bad press because they have to do what their clients want, and their clients are often rich, and, ergo, often scumbags.
I have actually heard that many believe it to be similar to being hopped up on speed, all the time, without ever comming down, and ever crasing. You have so much nervous energy that it is physically painful to sit still. Your attention wanders so quickly that you can't focus long enough to gain control, unless you are deeply interested in the subject, in which case you hyperfocus to the point that when you do finally come out of it 30 hours later you find that you are incredibly hungry thirsty, and in pain from having to go to the bathroom (if you havn't soiled yourself from not noticing). You also find that you can multi-task to the point of being able to pay full attention to two or more things, and gain all of the information you need. Imagine not being able to tell that people are angry with you or annoyed, or interested in a subject because you can't pick up on non-verbal cues without concentrating on them, then learning them by rote. Imagine not being able to control emotional outbursts. Imagine not being able to stop yourself from acting on every impulse you recieve.
Thank you. That's exactly the sort of thing that I wanted to hear.
Bullshit. You can imagine and think you understand. You can pretend to understand, but without direct expierence in something, it is impossible for you to understand. I know for a fact that you can't understand because the hell that is ADD is not possible to truely put into words. You may be able to have some empathy, but that is not the same as fully understanding.
You're an elitist, victimized schmuck.
AND you've convinced me that ADD is a real condition, deserving as any of medication to correct. Congradulations.
But it doesn't change the fact that you've acted like an ass this entire discussion. Good day.
A while back, when we moved into the apartment before the one we're in now, we decided to give MCI a chance. The price was good, the calling was good--but it was 9 weeks before the phone was installed. When we moved apartments into the one we're in now, it was going to be another 4-12 weeks to get the phone service transfered. (We called Verizon, and got it done the same day.)
Unless you have to share your phone line with another person, or need it to connect to an ISP, my suggestoin is to skip the land line and get a cell phone. My friends who have cells are _easier_ to get ahold of than those with land lines, and activation / transfer takes hours or days, not weeks or months.
Violence isn't necessary, just politics and advocacy.
Well, you were doing so good at not pissing me off, and now you have to go say something like this.
Sorry if I pissed you off. But social promotion is a load of BS. If a kid can't cut the grade, give them a different teacher, put them in a different school, or make them repeat it. If they still have problems, THEN you medicate.
I took the third grade over again, because I was simply not mature enough to handle fourth grade when I started it. I went from being a poor student to being a rather bright kid; I just needed that extra few months of development.
Did YOU repeat a grade, or go to a different school? Or did you just get slapped with mind-altering medicine at an early age on one doctor's call?
Without the meds, I could have repeated the first grade several times without being able to handle things.
You don't know that. You can't know that. I'm sure that the medicine did help you--but a drug helping you do something doesn't mean that you were unable to do it on your own. (You may very well have been; I can't know if you could or could not, either.)
With the meds, I would have easily been able to handle fourth or fifth.
I assume you took the meds. Did you then jump through the school ranks? Did you advance even one year ahead, or even fill your last year of HS with college level courses? If not, stop bragging.
As I said before, if you don't know what it's like maybe you ought to keep your mouth shut and learn from someone who DOES know what it is like.
*ahem.*
I repeat. Describe the subjective qualities, in layman's human terms. I don't care if you brain responds to the drugs better or if you get high on water or have an allergy to paper.
I want to hear from you what ADD / ADHD is, without you falling back on medical arcana that describe the biology behind the condition without describing the condition.
If you don't have conrete experence in something, it is impossible for you to understand. Your comments and flippiant attitude are not helpful, they are harmful, and I reserve the right to loathe you and wish you ill.
Feel free to loathe me and wish me ill. Just tell me when you do it, or else I shall learn nothing.
It is possible for a human being to understand something that they did not undergo. To claim otherwise is insulting elitist victimization, and I don't think that you are a victim.
We are talking about people who think the universe began in 4004 BC, a belief that is just as ludicrous as thinking pi equals 3.
Come again?
Pi is a defineable concept. Saying that Pi is equal to 3.00 is as indefensible as saying that "Speed Limit 55 means that you need to drive at 5500 RPMs."
OTOH, caiming that the universe was artifically constructed in 4004 BC is no more or less ludicrous than claiming that it started billions of years ago as one tiny speck. Neither one can be proven by duplication of effort or checking with the designer (God apparantly never got a P.O. box or a telephone line).
*sigh*
While Metallica may have been legally permitted to do what they did, in the end, they SUED their own fans for being overly enthusiastic.
Did they? I know that they got Napster to block certain user accounts, but I didn't hear about Metallica actually taking a fan to court. (The RIAA did, but they're lawyers.)
I might actually check out St. Anger to get at the concert recordings, IF Metallica first apologizes for all the crap they pulled over Napster a few years ago.
/.)
Did you download (non-concert studio) Metallica songs from Napster? Did YOU apologize? (Did you let them know that you feel slighted? And remember--they're near-luddites and don't read
If not, then STFU.
Otherwise, this is pure hypocracy, and a rather sad attempt at pulling back in fans who are deservedly quite angry with them.
*sigh*
Copyright isn't about money or music, really--it's about control of one's creation. We've all agreed, decades ago, that when someone is making something, they get to decide when to release it into the wild; while we can disagree on how much control they have after it's in the wild, the agreement of whether or not to release it is a valid one.
The Napster flashpoint was unfinished, unreleased songs. Decry copyright all that you want, distributing someone's art before they're done with it is still wrong.
I shouldn't have to pay the bandwidth costs for someone else's opinion any more than they should have to pay them for mine.
Exactly. If you critize someone, you have to allow them a rebuttal--and if someone critizies you, they have to allow you to rebut.
It's not a violation of the freedom of speech per se. It's an infringement upon your right to exclusivly use your property in an attempt to improve the quality of speach.
K. I'm listening.
Describe ADHD in human terms. You can include neurochemical references if you wish, but I consider them the physical expression of the brain, not necessarily either the cause or the result of brain activity. (Note my line about "show the brain how it's supposed to work", above.)
Feel free to include quotes and references as well, if you feel they help explain ADHD.