This may not be the most appropriate forum to ask, but what is it like to be autistic? Do you perceive but not notice some information out there, or is it all just noise beyond a certain level?
Some things you may notice easily are more like background noise for me. Facial expressions, for example. I'm much better than I used to be (but that came from years of playing poker with friends). Some things that you would consider "background noise" are like alarms/blinking lights for me. Certain frequencies of sound, for example. Florecent lights, certain smells. ALL distracting and sometimes annoying.
Assuming that you have learned to decode non-verbal communication, is it something you have to concentrate on all of the time?
Pretty much, yes.
Does it ever become automatic?
Sort of. Some 'verbal' cues I refer to as causing "invoked responses". Automatic in that sense. Someone says "Hi", I might naturally ignore this but I automatically say "hi" now -- almost without control. The non-verbals are sometimes still a problem. Check for yawns (are they bored), listen to tone (is it high, soft, loud), look at the face (is it a smile or grimice). Then I go off the checklist in my head and figure if they want to move the conversation in a different direction, are really interested, are impatient and need to go somewhere in a hurry.
Are you "faking it" or do you really understand and value the underlying values and principles of that kind of social interaction? If you are "faking", are you doing it for your benefit or those around you?
Yes to all of the questions. Yes, I'm faking. It doesn't FEEL right to me. Yes I understand the value it has with friends and people I care about. I do the dance because it's not only important to THEM, but it's important that I relate to the people around me.
BTW - When reading your post, I had a some trouble understanding by what you meant by "queues". I think you meant "cues".
Yeahyeahyeah... I was at work kicking out a response on slashdot WHILE working on a ton of statistical reports in our client 'queue' WHILE tweaking some sql queries. It slipped by me. I'll lay my hands down to be smacked by a dictionary AFTER breakfast...
And what's the difference between having social skills and being able to fake having social skills?
Alert: Speaking as someone with Aspergers!
From an outside observer, not much. From the INSIDE, it's an un-natural mechanism we learn to allow us to relate to others. It's a weird 'dance' that is never natural -- and if you hang around us enough, you'll notice repeats in virtually the exact same way. If we don't do the 'dance', we can't get to the 'stuff' we want.
Example:
Person: "Hi Jhon! How are you?" Me: "Been better... been worse, can't complain" Person: "Why do you always answer that?" Me: "Because you always ask the same question.".
Actually, I'm not as bad as others on the spectrum (socially, that is). I'm lucky. I CAN emote quite well in writing, and pick up all kinds of queues in writing that I don't from faces of vocal inflections. If you see me pause after you say something to me it's probably me 'transcribing' the 'spoken word' to a 'pad' in my head which I then read-back to myself.
I got my wife to fall for me through daily letters. Happily married 10 years + 2 kids (+ another on the way), thank you! But god bless her, I'm not an easy person to live with!
Granted, we're talking about a SPECTRUM disorder -- most of my problems are related to perception of 'natural queues'. Others on the spectrum can have a variety of problems in addition...
Nonsense. If I built a car that runs on pure sunshine, am I evading the tax?
It actually depends on the wording of that states particular tax code. If you car runs on "sunshine" and "fuel" is defined in the code as "that which makes the car go" you would in fact be evading taxes.
Hell, many CA statutes define the present to be past and future, singular to be plural and masculine to be feminine and neuter:
Tenses. The present tense includes the past and future tenses, and the future tense includes the present tense. (Prior code 1-203)
1.04.040 Gender. The masculine gender includes the feminine and neuter. (Prior code 1-204)
1.04.050 Number. The singular number includes the plural, and the plural, the singular. (Prior code 1-205)
25%?!? That's insane. If computer users were more intelligent, more computer savvy, we wouldn't have all these problems. It's like going to a party and getting so drunk you don't know where you'll be in the morning...or who will be able to have their way with you in the evening.
People are not "smart" 100% of the time. Hell, look at the other drivers on the roads? I'm sure the bozo on his cell phone who almost side-swipes me isn't "dumb" all the time. Most people KNOW they shouldn't click on EVERYTHING... but you've got pretty "things" blinking around your web page and you are going to get quite a FEW who think "just one little click" wont hurt.
That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
Sigh... You start by saying that The Constitution says EXACTLY WHAT IT SAYS, No More, No Less. Then you try to loosely apply a statement from the DOI which makes a claim that SHOULD THE GOVERNMENT BECOME DESTRUCTIVE of "these ends"... And you use that to justify Federally funded healthcare and the IRS??? WTF?
Can you not see that you are reading stuff in to the Constitution by your own definition? How could the US have survived without federally funded healthcare if it is constitutionally mandated as you say?
You cannot see your own hypocrisy? Lets look at this statement of yours:
WHERE IN THE CONSTITUTION DOES IT *EXPLICITLY* SAY THE PRESIDENT IS IMMUNE FROM PROSECUTION WHILE IN OFFICE?
Pudge responds exactly how it's implied and how it's been historically viewed (the precidence).
Now I ask YOU with your own words, slightly modified: WHERE IN THE CONSTITUTION DOES IT *EXPLICITLY* SAY HEALTHCARE IS A RIGHT?
What you've done here is an attempt to make a case that the "right" is implied and ignore your earlier statements that Constitution says EXACTLY WHAT IT SAYS, No More, No Less.
To me, you are starting to appear like a "will rationalize anything to fit my world view" kook.
Hamilton was a piece of shit, and if he was shot dead 18 years earlier, the US would be a much better place. We all are aware of HIS biases and agenda, aren't we?
If you consider a fractured, weak and bankrupt US a better place, Sure! Aside from his post convention involvement, I'd say the strongest influence on the constitution was Adams -- but his intent is rarely, if ever brought up when considering "Founders Intent (tm)". He was far more involved than Jefferson (both of whom were in England at the time). Read their letters. I have. More over, read the State Constitution of MA and compare it to the US Constitution.
I don't really need the DOJ to tell me what the Constitution says, thanks. I'm perfectly able to read it myself.
Reading, yes. But I would suggest the quality you are lacking is UNDERSTANDING. Particularly where "all the pieces" fit together with regards of Federal Vs. Legislative Vs. Judicial...
The Constitution says EXACTLY WHAT IT SAYS, No More, No Less.
Were that apparent simplistic statement true (which our Judicial system had determined it was NOT so long ago) there would be no "right" to privacy, no "right" to an abortion, no IRS, no federally funded healthcare, etc etc etc...
Anyone contending differently has their own idealogical or political agenda. ( which apparently doesn't involve basic literacy. )
Anyone who makes such a statement has his own problems dealing with facts, history, precedence and function of the US Constitution.
Note to mikelieman: Just because YOU want something to work a certain way doesn't me that it DOES or that it SHOULD.
The indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would unconstitutionally undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions.
and
By virtue of the necessity of the defendant's appearance, the institution of criminal proceedings against a sitting President "would interfere with the President's unique official duties, most of which cannot be performed by anyone else." Id. at 28. Moreover, "[d]uring the past century the duties of the Presidency . . . have become so onerous that a President may not be able fully to discharge the powers and duties of his office if he had to defend a criminal prosecution." Id. Finally, "under our constitutional plan as outlined in Article I, sec. 3, only the Congress by the formal process of impeachment, and not a court by any process should be accorded the power to interrupt the Presidency or oust an incumbent." Id.
I am unsure what your justifications for your claims are -- but it doesn't jive with historic precedence. It sounds to me like you somehow think you are qualified to make such judgements on how our government works. From reading this thread, I can say with conviction that I think the DOJ is far more qualified than you to make such judgements, wouldn't you?
You're kidding right? Maybe being deliberately obtuse? THEFT certainly CAN register in CIVIL court. Just in case you walk through the world blindfolded, here's an example:
You steal my car. You get arrested and go to jail for a while (assuming a successful prosecution) or not. I then sue you in CIVIL court to re-coup damages (loss of my car, work wages, damages the car may have suffered, cost of a rental car, etc).
Another example:
You kill my son. You get arrested and go to jail (or not assuming a successful defence). I then sue you in CIVIL court to re-coup damage. Real life example: You are OJ Simpson.
CIVIL and CRIMINAL courts are not mutually exclusive. Since the civil court system can't wave their "magical make it never was" wand or punish the defendent as in CRIMINAL court, stuff like damaged goods, humilation and stress are awarded $$$ damages.
A history of consensual relationships does not have any merit to a sexual harassment case. Strange how with all those victims of his harassment that they needed a consensual partner to try to show a pattern of non-consensual sexual aggression. If they couldn't show that behavior through actual sexual misconduct from all these victims, how were they supposed to do so with someone who was not a victim at all?
Uncovering a history of relationships with STAFF/employees has TONS of merit in a sexual harassment case. Does the person accused have a history of making sexual advances? That those relationships were consensual is irrelevant in this part of discovery.
I would suggest you read up on what's required for a successful sexual harassment case. You may not LIKE how the legal system works in these cases -- but to deny HOW they work is just being blind to the facts.
Bush has said, and is continuing to say many things that have been PROVEN false.
This is a true statement. BECAUSE THE INTELLGENCE WAS BAD in many areas. I would like to suggest that had not Iraq consistantly violated the terms of cease fire it signed back in the 90's, the accuracy (or lack of) the intellegence reagarding WMD and other banned weapons wouldn't be an issue. Nor would we be in this morass.
And Reagan sold him Guns, what's your point? That we should base all of our foreign policy on what some oaf thought 4 years ago?
Clinton had the same intellegence apparatus in place used by Bush. And pretty much every other president in recent history. What this "oaf" though 4 years ago (would actually be 2 years ago, because we invaded Iraq in 03, and Clinton left office in 01, but let's not accuracy enter the discussion) really didn't change much.
Hmm, I'd like to know which bill that was.
Look it up. The Iraq Liberation Act. Passed by both houses and signed by Clinton in 98. One of the findings of the act:
Since March 1996, Iraq has systematically sought to deny weapons inspectors from the United Nations Special Commission on Iraq (UNSCOM) access to key facilities and documents, has on several occasions endangered the safe operation of UNSCOM helicopters transporting UNSCOM personnel in Iraq, and has persisted in a pattern of deception and concealment regarding the history of its weapons of mass destruction programs.
don't know whether to laugh until I collapse, or ask you what it is you're smoking, and where I can get some.
I'd suggest you go back and look at the case. Further, if objections were made and rejected -- and they WERE not relevant to the case, Clinton would have grounds for appeal.
While your statement is "cute", it is hardly illuminating or useful.
He was being asked about an entirely consensual (by all accounts) sexual act, to try to establish that he was a harasser? Can you really not see the flaw in the logic there?
That the act in question was or was not consensual is irrelevant. It's certainly within the rights of the plaintiff to show a history of behavior (relationships with staff). I might point out there were more than a single claim of harassment out there.
Clinton's relationship with Lewinsky was utterly irrelevant to the case at hand, as the only allegations of impropriety were related to infidelity, which is not what the lawsuit was supposed to be about.
You are just wrong. If the questions were irrelevant, they judge wouldn't have allowed them.
However, since the lawsuit actually was about the infidelity (as it was not a serious attempt to find him guilty, but only to ruin his reputation) the whole thing was a farce to begin with.
You just don't know what you are talking about. It lawsuit wasn't about "infidelity", nor was it about trying to "ruin his reputation". It was about sexual harassment.
The point remains that nothing Clinton did was as bad as what we've seen from Bush. If you believe that Clinton did wrong, then you can only believe that Bush did more wrong, or you are simply a hypocrite.
What Clinton did was proven and he plead out and was punished. What you BELIEVE Bush "did wrong" is hype with no substance.
Lied about the intelligence? Come on! He had the same intelligence EVERYONE had. Clinton himself thought he had WMD. Further, he signed a bill AUTHORIZING regime change in Iraq while he was in office!
Lied about Medicare costs? Is it a lie when numbers are just wrong? Or do you need any evidence to backup such claims? If it's a LIE, then lets impeach Kennedy and Kerry for The Big Dig fiasco. And every other federal government office holder with their name attached to anything.
Because it wasn't a CRIMINAL case, it was a CIVIL case. He was being asked about behaviour that was consistent with the claim of sexual harassment. That is SPOT ON a correct question to ask in a CIVIL case.
He wasn't impeached for a BJ, he was impeached because a sitting President willfully lied under oath and derailed the legal system. Had he not been caught, he would have successfully circumvented the rights of the woman who claimed she was sexually harassed.
Why is this so hard for people to understand? It wasn't about the leude behavior -- it was about lying about relevant facts of a CIVIL case.
I can pay you $10 to develop a roll of 36 that will last 10 years and then require me to pay you another $10 to reprint them ten years from now, OR I can inkjet them here for about $1 and reprint them again in 2 years if necessary.
You can print 36 prints off your inkjet for $1?
Have you actually calculated the cost of printing out a full color 4x6 print (including ink)? I think you'll find it will cost you more than $1 for 36 -- closer to the $15+ mark.
That said, I agree with your point that one of the major advantages with digital is you only need to print out the pics you WANT. If you take in a roll of 36, you PAY for each picture. If out of 36 pics, you only want 5, you print and pay ONLY for the 5...
It may not be a "feature" I've intentionally used and it may not be the WORST, but it always gave me a chuckle WayBackWhen (tm) I'd turn on my PC without a keyboard plugged in:
Yeah, but what if it's the "state approved" translation that's horrible?
State what? State apporved what???
Did you even the article or this thread? Those translating need approval from the HOLDER of the copyright -- not the state. If it's "horrible", then I doubt the copyright holder will see much of a profit...
Slashdot Mirror
Pretty much, yes.
Sort of. Some 'verbal' cues I refer to as causing "invoked responses". Automatic in that sense. Someone says "Hi", I might naturally ignore this but I automatically say "hi" now -- almost without control. The non-verbals are sometimes still a problem. Check for yawns (are they bored), listen to tone (is it high, soft, loud), look at the face (is it a smile or grimice). Then I go off the checklist in my head and figure if they want to move the conversation in a different direction, are really interested, are impatient and need to go somewhere in a hurry.
Yes to all of the questions. Yes, I'm faking. It doesn't FEEL right to me. Yes I understand the value it has with friends and people I care about. I do the dance because it's not only important to THEM, but it's important that I relate to the people around me.
Yeahyeahyeah... I was at work kicking out a response on slashdot WHILE working on a ton of statistical reports in our client 'queue' WHILE tweaking some sql queries. It slipped by me. I'll lay my hands down to be smacked by a dictionary AFTER breakfast...
From an outside observer, not much. From the INSIDE, it's an un-natural mechanism we learn to allow us to relate to others. It's a weird 'dance' that is never natural -- and if you hang around us enough, you'll notice repeats in virtually the exact same way. If we don't do the 'dance', we can't get to the 'stuff' we want.
Example:
Person: "Hi Jhon! How are you?"
Me: "Been better... been worse, can't complain"
Person: "Why do you always answer that?"
Me: "Because you always ask the same question.".
Actually, I'm not as bad as others on the spectrum (socially, that is). I'm lucky. I CAN emote quite well in writing, and pick up all kinds of queues in writing that I don't from faces of vocal inflections. If you see me pause after you say something to me it's probably me 'transcribing' the 'spoken word' to a 'pad' in my head which I then read-back to myself.
I got my wife to fall for me through daily letters. Happily married 10 years + 2 kids (+ another on the way), thank you! But god bless her, I'm not an easy person to live with!
Granted, we're talking about a SPECTRUM disorder -- most of my problems are related to perception of 'natural queues'. Others on the spectrum can have a variety of problems in addition...
Just because someone modded YOU up, I thought I'd point out that CO2 isn't the ONLY type of pollution... Lookie here.
Hell, many CA statutes define the present to be past and future, singular to be plural and masculine to be feminine and neuter:Start your heads spinning now...
Sigh... You start by saying that The Constitution says EXACTLY WHAT IT SAYS, No More, No Less. Then you try to loosely apply a statement from the DOI which makes a claim that SHOULD THE GOVERNMENT BECOME DESTRUCTIVE of "these ends"... And you use that to justify Federally funded healthcare and the IRS??? WTF?
Can you not see that you are reading stuff in to the Constitution by your own definition? How could the US have survived without federally funded healthcare if it is constitutionally mandated as you say?
You cannot see your own hypocrisy? Lets look at this statement of yours:
Pudge responds exactly how it's implied and how it's been historically viewed (the precidence).
Now I ask YOU with your own words, slightly modified: WHERE IN THE CONSTITUTION DOES IT *EXPLICITLY* SAY HEALTHCARE IS A RIGHT?
What you've done here is an attempt to make a case that the "right" is implied and ignore your earlier statements that Constitution says EXACTLY WHAT IT SAYS, No More, No Less.
To me, you are starting to appear like a "will rationalize anything to fit my world view" kook.
Note to mikelieman: Just because YOU want something to work a certain way doesn't me that it DOES or that it SHOULD.
and
I am unsure what your justifications for your claims are -- but it doesn't jive with historic precedence. It sounds to me like you somehow think you are qualified to make such judgements on how our government works. From reading this thread, I can say with conviction that I think the DOJ is far more qualified than you to make such judgements, wouldn't you?
You're kidding right? Maybe being deliberately obtuse? THEFT certainly CAN register in CIVIL court. Just in case you walk through the world blindfolded, here's an example:
You steal my car. You get arrested and go to jail for a while (assuming a successful prosecution) or not. I then sue you in CIVIL court to re-coup damages (loss of my car, work wages, damages the car may have suffered, cost of a rental car, etc).
Another example:
You kill my son. You get arrested and go to jail (or not assuming a successful defence). I then sue you in CIVIL court to re-coup damage. Real life example: You are OJ Simpson.
CIVIL and CRIMINAL courts are not mutually exclusive. Since the civil court system can't wave their "magical make it never was" wand or punish the defendent as in CRIMINAL court, stuff like damaged goods, humilation and stress are awarded $$$ damages.
I would suggest you read up on what's required for a successful sexual harassment case. You may not LIKE how the legal system works in these cases -- but to deny HOW they work is just being blind to the facts.
Look it up. The Iraq Liberation Act. Passed by both houses and signed by Clinton in 98. One of the findings of the act:
While the ACTS are different, how they play out in CIVIL court certainly *ARE* comparable.
While your statement is "cute", it is hardly illuminating or useful.
Lied about the intelligence? Come on! He had the same intelligence EVERYONE had. Clinton himself thought he had WMD. Further, he signed a bill AUTHORIZING regime change in Iraq while he was in office!
Lied about Medicare costs? Is it a lie when numbers are just wrong? Or do you need any evidence to backup such claims? If it's a LIE, then lets impeach Kennedy and Kerry for The Big Dig fiasco. And every other federal government office holder with their name attached to anything.
You're blowing smoke.
Because it wasn't a CRIMINAL case, it was a CIVIL case. He was being asked about behaviour that was consistent with the claim of sexual harassment. That is SPOT ON a correct question to ask in a CIVIL case.
He wasn't impeached for a BJ, he was impeached because a sitting President willfully lied under oath and derailed the legal system. Had he not been caught, he would have successfully circumvented the rights of the woman who claimed she was sexually harassed.
Why is this so hard for people to understand? It wasn't about the leude behavior -- it was about lying about relevant facts of a CIVIL case.
Have you actually calculated the cost of printing out a full color 4x6 print (including ink)? I think you'll find it will cost you more than $1 for 36 -- closer to the $15+ mark.
That said, I agree with your point that one of the major advantages with digital is you only need to print out the pics you WANT. If you take in a roll of 36, you PAY for each picture. If out of 36 pics, you only want 5, you print and pay ONLY for the 5...
It may not be a "feature" I've intentionally used and it may not be the WORST, but it always gave me a chuckle WayBackWhen (tm) I'd turn on my PC without a keyboard plugged in:
Wonderful advice...
Did you even the article or this thread? Those translating need approval from the HOLDER of the copyright -- not the state. If it's "horrible", then I doubt the copyright holder will see much of a profit...
Actually, wasn't it 6 days? Then he took a siesta?
My thumbs are twitching!
I connected using a 110 baud acoustic coupler and my "monitor" was reams and reams of PAPER! And our "internet" was a down-town time-share! Ya pansy.
True Names by Vernor Vinge to me...
I THOUGHT it was Los Angeles -- but it's Louisana.
Found a link.
There are a number of things that might make the above case 2nd degree, not 1st. "I just wanted to scare her" would mean 2nd degree.
Finding the google searches in TOPIC case pretty much supports 1st degree premeditation.
Do you have a link or summery of that case? I live in LA and I'm unaware of it.