All of us hospitalists and hospital-based docs deal with drug-resistant nosocomial infections... but I've never heard the numbers you're espousing. They're interesting if true... I'd appreciate a reference.
In my area MRSA is rampant out in the community... people walk in the door with MRSA abscesses and skin infections all the time... many of them are young people with no sick relatives who have never spent a day in a health-care facility.
But beware the cult of data, particularly as it relates to medicine.
There is a human tendency to focus on the numbers; the objective things that we can quantify and measure. Unfortunately, numbers in medicine are fuzzy... they MUST be interpreted within the context of individual patient normals, and existing illness.
Here's a great example from my own experience (Disclaimer: I am a physician who works in Emergency Services). Home blood-pressure monitoring devices are widespread now, such that many patients maintain these devices in their own homes. I sometimes see a half-dozen patients a day who present because they got a "high" number on their blood pressure machine. These people are asymptomatic, have no signs of end-organ damage, but are concerned enough about the number to come to the ER. I usually explain the phenomenon of cerebral BP autoregulation to them, and tell them that they're actually in greater danger if I aggressively lower their high blood pressure than if we gradually lower it with some medication changes. They often leave, still anxious despite the reassurance... they're worried about that number... that concrete, objective, hard piece of data to which we're all taught to lend so much weight.
This is the problem with absolute numbers... they have to be interpreted by a clinician in the context of the individual patient. Gathering the numbers is easy... it's interpreting them that's the difficult and rate-limiting step. Every student is taugh early in training to "treat the patient, not the number." It's a cliche, but it contains a kernel of hard truth; one must recognize the importance of individualized treatment and interpretation.
This system seems like it gathers lots of data... I just wonder what they're going to do to interpret it.
That hardly sounded arrogant... and there's probably a couple of reasons why people consider you intelligent.
First, you have expertise in an area they find inscrutable and arcane... some Alpha-geeks in this forum can probably make a computer stand up and dance, and even the average slashdotter probably has far more knowledge than the average user.
Second, geeks often fit a cultural image of an intelligent person... a sort of misfit, weird professor paradigm. Sad to say, but sometimes just looking the part gets you further than your knowledge base.
Back on the subject of choking, consider that working/performing under pressure is a learned skill... it DOES NOT come naturally... quite the opposite, in fact. Your normal reaction is 180 degrees from what you need. I'm talking about the biological human reaction of adrenaline-dump, turn-off-higher-thought, shunt-blood-to-major-muscle-groups, and fight/run-your-ass-off. Reverting to lower-animal behavior isn't exactly conducive to complex problem solving. The US military has studied this in soldiers and special operations folks. They ran guys through very realistic scenarios, complete with EKG telemetry and some other physiologic monitoring. They found that "stress inoculation" in the form of realistic training, combined with experience allowed some individuals to operate much more effectively, instead of reverting to animal-level behaviors. Bottom line: the more you do it, the better you'll get.
Relax... you're normal. That veteran's seasoning and calm is only gained by experience.
My young friend, you've the mentality of a common vandal. Just because you didn't pay for it, doesn't mean that it's OK, or that some other poor sod down the line didn't have to pay. It came out of the school district taxpayers' pockets (including your parents, most likely), and out of the computer manufacturer's bottom line (resulting in higher prices for everyone else).
You're not alone though... the same thing seems to happen any time you conceal the true costs of things from people. The further you insulate them from paying the bill, the more wasteful and cavalier they become.
Helping for free leaves them indebted to you instead of you to them. It's a great way to generate goodwill, as well as a nifty way to receive an unexpected favor later. I'd say it's better to have a positive accounts-receivable column, even if you never see a dime.
Taking money is opening up a can of worms. Blood is thicker than water... but the one thing that's thicker than blood is MONEY. People have this attitude (and sometimes rightly so) that as long as they're paying you, they have a leash on you... they then bother you/demand things from you, often out of proportion to the amount of money exchanged. That's a sticky situation to get into with family, friends, and coworkers. Do you want some kind of disgruntled attitude/tension between you and your friends? I don't.
Just by doing it for free, I've received all sorts of gifts in kind. Those gifts have included computer hardware, gift certificates, beer, lunch, etc, etc. I NEVER solicit such gifts, and I always make an effort to turn them down. That may sound odd, but I actually enjoy working on computers, and my day job already involves helping others (I'm an ER physcian, so I already see plenty of no-pay/self-pay/uninsured patients for free; doing the same to the occasional computer just doesn't bother me that much)
Then there's the simple act of doing something nice for people... sometimes that's its own reward.
I have a 380W Antec trupower loaded all the way to its maximum output. This is one PSU that can take a beating.
Dual Athlon MPs 4-drive RAID on a 3ware controller two TV cards, one sound card Gigabit NIC basic geforce4-mx video card Multiple 120mm fans
It's a home media server and it's using every bit of that 380-watt capacity. It has never diplayed one bit of weirdness.
I'll definitely buy another Trupower. Historically I've used those and the Enermax PSUs. I don't have any Enermax models loaded up quite that heavily, but that modestly-sized Antec has really earned its bones.
Too funny... though I think you're aiming too low. Desperation is rarely attractive to a woman, and trolling for drunks and barflies is likely to be unfulfilling.
I'd suggest holding out for some quality women instead of going for the low-hanging fruit... the fruit can be sweet, but the aftertaste can be permanent. Despite the commercials you see on TV, herpes still isn't curable, and taking valtrex every day for suppressive therapy is a drag, and expensive (not to mention what happens when your next hot date goes snooping in your medicine cabinet)
My point with most of these questions is that you, as an adult, have at least some chance of understanding the concepts involved, or at least sufficient mental ability to gain understanding through research and study. A child doesn't even have command enough of the language to know the vocabulary, let alone the intellectual depth to address the concepts behind the words. True, not many adults would be able to immediately dash off an essay addressing the listed questions, but you at least have the potential to understand... you might even be able to engage in a coherent, thoughtful discussion after reviewing some literature on the subject. It would require a truly extraordinary pre-teen to perform a similar intellectual feat.
I believe that a law similar to the age of consent laws in Holland would be more rational and fair
You might be suprised to find that many states in the United States have laws strikingly similar to Holland's. Some allow relationships to an early-teen age (and even marriage) with parental consent, though it varies by state. The degree of offense for an adult having a relationship with a minor child may range from "contributing to the delinquency of a minor" for a 16-17yo (a misdemeanor), to "sexual imposition" 13yo-15yo (often a felony), or even "statutory rape" for the less-than-13yo victim (bigger felony). Some states also vary the degree of offense based on the age of the perpetrator (a 19yo is not as culpable as a 40yo). As an applicable aside to your question, it's worth mentioning that chronological age is NOT always the controlling issue. There exists the concept of "emancipation" of minors, where they are given full legal rights despite their age. Some minors are considered "emancipated" legal adults when they've had a child, gotten married, or joined the military... that again varies by state, and circumstance.
I know of NO states that excuse adult sexual contact of ANY kind with an elementary-school-age child. Those children are largely pre-pubertal: they lack secondary sexual characteristics, they lack the physical desire for sex, and are too young to consent. Such behavior usually results in incarceration, and jail is not a good place to be a pedophile.
The laws and morals you allude to do not have a reasonable justification
So you say. I hope you've a better argument than that for the jury.
I've offered science, the expert opinion of most of the child development and psychological/psychiatric community, history, law, and logic. You've offered personal opinion, anecdote, and one discredited study. In short, you've offered garbage.
Away with you, troll... justify your pedophilia elsewhere.
You do realize that overturning social mores, decades of jurisprudence, and common sense requires some evidence? Anecdote doesn't cut it. The burden of proof is on you, my friend. I also reject the premise of this question:
What exactly is so complicated about safe non-abusive plain vanilla sex with a non-coersive, friendly and considerate partner
What is so complicated? There has probably been more written about love/sex/relationships than any other single topic in the history of mankind. I'm beginning to believe that you are a troll taking a devil's advocate position. Don't base your argument on some idealized best-case scenario... deal instead with reality.
We are still discussing adult-on-child sex, are we not? Nothing you've presented invalidates the informed consent argument, and you have yet to prove that adult-on-child sex is anything like what you've just described. "Non-coersive" (sic) implies a voluntary relationship... such volition is not possible with someone too young to understand the full ramifications of their assent. I don't know how many times I have to repeat that. Again, if you want to overturn decades of child development theory and legal rulings, you'll have to come up with something besides your opinion.
I am a professional, and one of the dictums in my field is not to base your practice on a single study. Even if that study is deemed "powerful," "shocking," or "authoritative," it's often wise to wait for the findings to be replicated before making a radical change in practice. This goes doubly for an issue where so much is at stake if the initial study is wrong, fraudulent, or unable to be replicated. The study you reference was widely debated at the time of its publication by the APA. It's a small study, a meta-analysis, and contained confounding familial variables that many dissenting authors felt clouded its conclusions. If you're using that study to justify pedophilia, I'm afraid that's not good enough.
I view the fact that some children recovered from their abuse without obvious damage as a testament to the resiliency of the human spirit. You, however, take those findings as a green light for predatory behavior. The argument that little apparent harm was done rings hollow. By this measure, we should allow intercourse with newborns, since they would never remember the experience and thus it couldn't negatively impact them... Would you support a surgeon having sex with his unconscious patients, as long as it was safe, plain vanilla, friendly, and considerate? (if they never understood what had happened to them, no harm could possibly be done, right?).
just give one good example, that's all
Very well... show me any pre-teen who can intelligently discuss the advantages/disadvantages of group sex versus monogomous sex. How about discussing the supervisor/coworker conflicts implicit in a workplace sexual relationship? Can a 13yo understand the subtle power shifts that take place as a result of a sexual relationship with the boss? How about adapting to partner(s) satisfaction considerations by gender? How about a 13yo who understands the appropriate application of foreplay? How about a 13yo who can take into account ethnic differences/preferences (inluding religious concerns about contraception and sodomy) among his lovers? How about one who can expound upon the challenges that come from the clash between homosexual and heterosexual mores with his bisexual lover? How about a single pre-teen who has a clue what to do when his lover breaks down crying in the middle of sex and won't tell him why. Show me a pre-teen with the patience, insight, and sensitivity to work with his partner through frigidity, dyspareuria, or the embarassment of not being able to achieve orgasm after hysterectomy.
I can't see any agreement forthcoming on this issue. Good day.
I believe we were talking about pedophiles... we were talking about sex with a minor; someone below the age of consent. I've based my argument on law, well-supported child-development theory, and my own experience as a professional in a related field.
I'm sorry, but I think your assertion that sex is mindless and simple, and that all this age-of-consent talk is nonsense is the thesis that needs supporting evidence, and you have presented none.
Sure, but why sex... of all things, sex is probably the safest one
No. A 40yo man letting a 5yo drive his car isn't even in the same ballpark as a 40yo man having intercourse with a 5-yo boy. In one, the kid gets to drive a car (though it's illegal). In the other, the 40yo man is exploiting the 5yo for his own twisted erotic enjoyment, something the 5yo cannot either fathom or initiate. (5yo is a pre-sexual age... you can guarantee the proposition for sex did NOT come from the 5yo). That's not sex... that's exploitation and abuse.
Part of my job is dealing with the victims of such abuse... and trust me, the long-term psychological consequences are large.
Later in your post, you referenced "contact" with some other like-age children; that is completely different. Provided it was early enough, what you were probably experiencing was curiosity and exploration in the absence of erotic intent. This is distinct from lust and sexual desire... pre-puberty, the latter are simply not part of a child's psyche. That is totally different from an adult engaging in sexual predation upon a pre-teen or early teen. Even if one of the above-mentioned children was old enough to have developed his own sexual desires, would it be right for him to use younger, pre-sexual children for his erotic enjoyment? Clearly, the answer is no... the younger children cannot understand, and this precludes their consent.
And with 13-year-olds the argument that they are mentally or emotionally incapable doesn't hold water at all
Again, no. There's good reason why our society does not accord children and early teens the same rights/powers as adults (property ownership, ability to enter into contracts, voting, working). This space precludes a full dissertation on this topic, but common sense will provide a like answer: Teens aren't exactly the world's wisest decision-makers. This is partially from a lack of knowlege/experience, but also because they quite literally lack the same level of mental/emotional development. Data shows that even some adults never enter the stage of formal operations, and even fewer adolescents have developed that far. Understanding sex goes far deeper than simply knowing the mechanics. As for emotional readiness, do you really think a pre-teen (whose only experience with boys is giggling about them over the phone with her girlfriends) is ready for a full-on sexual/emotional relationship with an adult? That's so far from appropriate that I don't even know where to start.
It's all a bunch of crap, you are just trying to force your vision of childhood innocence on kids
Not at all. I'm simply trying to offer some of the reasoning behind the legal framework behind the age of consent. It's not my theory...I can't claim credit for the developmental staging model; that's all Piaget. That said, sex is an adult activity with adult consequences. I'd personally rather see those decisions made by one with an adult level of cognition.
pretending that adults are somehow all-knowing
Never said that... though I do disagree somewhat with the general thrust of your post. All else being equal, adults usually DO know better than their young, inexperienced, and hormonally-poisoned adolescent charges. I hate to say that (and provoke the wrath of some of Slashdot's "Like, my parents are l0s3rz" crowd), but let's deal with reality. Adults are accorded greater rights and responsibilities because they're generally regarded as more mature and capable (intellectually and otherwise) than the average 13-year-old. One may find exceptions, of course... but the general premise holds, at least in the eyes of society, and consequently the law.
Because what you're leading up to is a discussion regarding the age of consent. In fact, some recent cases in the United States where 20-30yo teachers have seduced early-teen boys have thrown this discussion into high relief.
Early teen boys are more than physically equipped for sex... in fact, they think of little else. They are hormonally-charged and physically able, yet in one of nature's greatest ironies, they're sorely lacking the mental/emotional tools necessary to process that experience. Herein lies the issue with consent. A young man at that age may not (likely has not) developed far enough mentally to be truly capable of abstract thought, and often lacks the abilty to appreciate long-term consequence.
Such a young man would probably enthusiastically assent to sex with an attractive woman... without the slightest regard for what the long-term physical/economic/emotional/social consequences might be. He might not be able to deal appropriately (or deal at all) with the emotional dimension. Like it or not, sexual intercourse is a powerful emotional experience for women and men... and an experience that the average young adolescent is woefully unprepared to assimilate.
This is why the age of consent in many western cultures is mid-to-late teens, and why organizations like NAMBLA are so vile. Younger children quite literally cannot appreciate the full ramifications of their assent.
Informed consent must be exactly that... there can be no consent with an individual who lacks the mental capacity to make an informed decision
and I did something similar with a medical colleague 3 weeks ago.
His Dell laptop had become unusable... there were probably more gigabytes of viruses and trojans than there were system files. I helpfully sent him a DVD version of Mandrake 10.
It took me 10 minutes on the phone for him to have a fully-functioning system (and he only called because he needed to know what kind of video hardware his laptop was using). Keep in mind that this guy is totally non-technical; he's never used a *nix system, and knows absolutely ZERO command-line.
Linux has come a long way from the old days. His comment when using KDE? "hey, this is pretty much like windows!"
are virtually always part of the processing line when you're loading up your stuff.
When you're getting ready to be deployed, you show up to a hanger/building down on the flight line with all your stuff, and you go through a processing line, complete with various stations. ID station, SGLI station, equipment checks... there's even a station for wills. It's a requirement.
D don't doubt the Marine corps does something very similiar; it's been that way every single time I ever deployed.
you'd get situations like hospital ships being fair game in combat
It's fair to mention that the LOAC (Laws of Armed Combat) make such facilities fair game if they are being used to perform military action. That said, I haven't seen too many terrorists being shy about targeting hospitals regardless of use, or using them (and mosques, and schools) as fighting positions. When I served in the Afghanistan theatre, we even made troops leave their long-arms (and all ordinance heavier than side-arms) outside our hospital. Now our "hospital" was a tent, we were miles from anything, and there were no media types around to see it, but we still did it. It wouldn't have stopped the terrorists from rocketing our position, but we at least tried to play by the rules.
In the subject of the Red Cross, the LOAC explicitly prohibits perfidy, or treacherous actions, including misuse of the Red Cross or Red Crescent. The laws of warfare can probably stand alone without the support of the United States Patent and Trademark Office.
Heh... I did not use "copyright" in my post at all, and "patent" is defined here by any number of sources. I would refer you first to the sidebar, where the noun "patent" is defined as "an official document granting a right or privilege."
Trademark is defined as a "formally registered symbol."
I see no problem with anything I wrote, including my spelling.
Although your spelling is above average, your cofunsion
The Red Cross has a patent on that logo, and they aggressively defend it, even against other philanthropic, non-profit, and medical organizations.
I know of at least one case where a medical school had a red cross simply included as part of a graphic on a webpage... no reference to the charity, the international red cross, or anything of the sort... it was simply included as part of a larger graphic. They were forced to remove it under threat of legal action.
The red cross are definitely aggressive defenders of what they consider to be their exclusive symbol.
I was curious about this exact issue when the Terraserver first went online (I was working for the military at that time). When I tried to look up some military bases, I didn't have much success. I found that entire blocks of land around all the military bases I checked were missing.
I just checked, and those images are now there; that's new... but after looking at the dates on the pictures, I'd suggest to you that those images are old, and not current enough to be of serious value to a terrorist enemy.
Let's face it... Satellite photos are sexy, but terrorists are probably much more interested in the smaller, current details: How many jersey barricades are at the base gate? Do the guards have heavy enough weaponry to stop their vehicle if they take a run at it? Are they doing 100% ID check? How about contractors... can mail and pizza delivery drivers get on-base at will?
I can't see a lot of those 4 and 5 year-old satellite photos being that useful to your typical dumb-enough-to-drive-a-truck-bomb terrorists.
This REQUIRES the police to make an arrest whether the alledged victim wants it or not.
That probably depends on the jurisdiction, and I can't speak for all the states. However, I'm not aware of any state that doesn't require some sort of evidence of domestic violence before they can arrest the significant other (though this can be as simple as a red mark on the arm, a single sworn statement, or a single witness). Think about it: you've got to have something to justify the arrest... without probable cause to make an arrest, you're really on dangerous legal ground. The officers may separate the couple for the night, but they won't necessarily drag somebody off in cuffs every time.
With the number of SOs (usually women) who die from domestic violence every year, police officers are often encouraged to "make an arrest" in these situations... though they may be loathe to do so in the complete absence of evidence/witnesses (it would be difficult to justify, and could open the officer and his department up to liability for false arrest).
On the other hand, if you beat your woman black and blue, you can expect to go directly to jail, as well you should. I personally find this to be a vast improvement over the bad old days.
using domestic violence as an example... you're a few decades out of date.
It USED TO BE in the US that the woman had to press charges against the man in order for the police to make an arrest. I know this not only from a law enforcement background, but from personal experience.
One of my next-door neighbors growing up was a terrible alcoholic and wife-beater (he was also a physician. What a disgrace to the profession... but I digress). I can't remember how many times we called the police, because we could hear him beating her (things breaking, screaming, thuds, etc). The guy used to beat the living tar out of his wife... bruises, black eyes, cuts... I've seen better-looking barfight victims. She, however, would never press charges, and the guy got off every. single. time. We could have "minded our own business," but we felt an obligation to do something. I was but a lad, so I couldn't understand the dynamics involved... Needless to say, all their kids, save one, are now in prison.
It took decades, but a sea change eventually took place. These days, Domestic Violence is a crime not only against the individual, but against the state. This allows the police to make an arrest whether the victim wants it or not.
Sometimes the situation is bad enough, or the people co-dependent enough, that they literally need help to get out of their situation. I'm well aware of how that sounds... so spare me the vituperation for being patronizing. That said, I don't think the Iranian people would resent being free... and any way we could assist them in that effort is arguably the right thing to do.
Of course, it goes without saying that we'd probably be ahead to first exhaust less-violent means of assistance.
and my apologies for what may have come across as an overly critical post.
For the record, I echo your lament about the inadequacy of some of our testing. My kingdom for a better test for Pulmonary Embolus, for instance.
Computer systems may be better at picking pertinent data points out of the noise... but who trains the machine? A fallible human tells the system what data points to count and discard... the system is only as good as its programmer.
The point I was making (in a not completely elegant fashion), is that much of medicine is subjective, and very difficult to program. It comes in through all five senses, and in very subtle ways. The smartest you'll ever be is the day you graduate from medical school... you know more facts at that moment than you'll probably ever know again. Those facts are part of your data bank of signs, symptoms, nomenclature, pathophysiology...
Except experience counts in medicine, and it counts big. For example, it's a VERY poor resident or new physician who doesn't take seriously the suggestion of an experienced nurse. This may seem illogical. After all, you have many times the education of that nurse: you have three times as many years of training in a far more rigorous course of study, you have a far deeper knowledge of pathophysiology and pharmacology... in fact, that nurse can't even give an asprin without your order. Danger, Will Robinson...she's been doing this for 20+ years, and the subjective opinion of that old nurse who calls at 3AM and says "this guy doesn't look good, you'd probably better come and see him" should get you out of bed immediately. She is a less educated (on paper) system, but with a vast experential/subjective knowledge base to draw upon.
I don't know how you train a computer system to do that. I also don't know how you train a computer system to have five sense, and recognize the smell of Pseudomonas, Melena, or Uremia. I've had plenty of patients who looked good on paper, but just looking at them something in the back of my mind said "something's not right, you'd better take another look." That clinical gestalt has saved my bacon (and that of my patients) many times.
As for engineers inventing and doctors getting the credit, I'm not sure how that's really relevant. If it's a new pacemaker, the engineer may have invented it to fill a medical need, but somebody has to implant it... so I'd say it's a team effort. I have no problem sharing the credit...
Even all that aside, I don't generally take credit for "saves" or snatching somebody back from the brink. Frankly, I don't think I really have that much to do with who lives and who dies.
It was *way* better than the average American doctor at diagnosing illness and injury and recommending appropriate treatment... Tin foil hat time: We don't hear about this project anymore. Why not? The evil AMA (probably in league with those guys in the black helicopters) suppressed the technology. OK, I'm mostly joking
I'm glad to hear you're joking... because I'd have see some serious proof of that claim. Remember, you're talking about human lives here... and the lawyers will be watching, so you'd better be right.
Believe me, managed care companies have tried cookbooks. They have tried like crazy to make everything into a decision tree, such that less-extensively-trained personnel (read "cheaper") could diagnose and treat. Know what? I'll take a trained and experienced diagnostician every single time... and I say that not because I am one, but because I think the care is simply better. Want to do it better and cheaper than me? By all means, be my guest... but you're going to have to prove the "better and cheaper" claim with some serious data.
I also think you're underestimating the varied presentations of illnesses. Problem is, most people don't read the book on their illness before contracting it (ie. they present with atypical symptoms, or a less-than-classic history).
From my experience, half of them function as trained technicians. I feel that my engineering background has made me a better diagnostician than most doctors...... If the medical community would check their egos at the door...
You're joking, right? You're an engineer claiming to be better than most doctors, and they have the ego problem? This in the same breath where you erroneously state that we do pap smears to detect Ovarian Cancer? (Paps actually screen for Cervical Cancer).
You don't have bad ideas (prevention, screening, evidence-based medicine, etc)... but the implementation is always rougher than the conception.
Slashdot Mirror
All of us hospitalists and hospital-based docs deal with drug-resistant nosocomial infections... but I've never heard the numbers you're espousing. They're interesting if true... I'd appreciate a reference.
In my area MRSA is rampant out in the community... people walk in the door with MRSA abscesses and skin infections all the time... many of them are young people with no sick relatives who have never spent a day in a health-care facility.
But beware the cult of data, particularly as it relates to medicine.
There is a human tendency to focus on the numbers; the objective things that we can quantify and measure. Unfortunately, numbers in medicine are fuzzy... they MUST be interpreted within the context of individual patient normals, and existing illness.
Here's a great example from my own experience (Disclaimer: I am a physician who works in Emergency Services). Home blood-pressure monitoring devices are widespread now, such that many patients maintain these devices in their own homes. I sometimes see a half-dozen patients a day who present because they got a "high" number on their blood pressure machine. These people are asymptomatic, have no signs of end-organ damage, but are concerned enough about the number to come to the ER. I usually explain the phenomenon of cerebral BP autoregulation to them, and tell them that they're actually in greater danger if I aggressively lower their high blood pressure than if we gradually lower it with some medication changes. They often leave, still anxious despite the reassurance... they're worried about that number... that concrete, objective, hard piece of data to which we're all taught to lend so much weight.
This is the problem with absolute numbers... they have to be interpreted by a clinician in the context of the individual patient. Gathering the numbers is easy... it's interpreting them that's the difficult and rate-limiting step. Every student is taugh early in training to "treat the patient, not the number." It's a cliche, but it contains a kernel of hard truth; one must recognize the importance of individualized treatment and interpretation.
This system seems like it gathers lots of data... I just wonder what they're going to do to interpret it.
That hardly sounded arrogant... and there's probably a couple of reasons why people consider you intelligent.
First, you have expertise in an area they find inscrutable and arcane... some Alpha-geeks in this forum can probably make a computer stand up and dance, and even the average slashdotter probably has far more knowledge than the average user.
Second, geeks often fit a cultural image of an intelligent person... a sort of misfit, weird professor paradigm. Sad to say, but sometimes just looking the part gets you further than your knowledge base.
Back on the subject of choking, consider that working/performing under pressure is a learned skill... it DOES NOT come naturally... quite the opposite, in fact. Your normal reaction is 180 degrees from what you need. I'm talking about the biological human reaction of adrenaline-dump, turn-off-higher-thought, shunt-blood-to-major-muscle-groups, and fight/run-your-ass-off. Reverting to lower-animal behavior isn't exactly conducive to complex problem solving. The US military has studied this in soldiers and special operations folks. They ran guys through very realistic scenarios, complete with EKG telemetry and some other physiologic monitoring. They found that "stress inoculation" in the form of realistic training, combined with experience allowed some individuals to operate much more effectively, instead of reverting to animal-level behaviors. Bottom line: the more you do it, the better you'll get.
Relax... you're normal. That veteran's seasoning and calm is only gained by experience.
Good grief.
My young friend, you've the mentality of a common vandal. Just because you didn't pay for it, doesn't mean that it's OK, or that some other poor sod down the line didn't have to pay. It came out of the school district taxpayers' pockets (including your parents, most likely), and out of the computer manufacturer's bottom line (resulting in higher prices for everyone else).
You're not alone though... the same thing seems to happen any time you conceal the true costs of things from people. The further you insulate them from paying the bill, the more wasteful and cavalier they become.
I'm glad somebody said it.
Helping for free leaves them indebted to you instead of you to them. It's a great way to generate goodwill, as well as a nifty way to receive an unexpected favor later. I'd say it's better to have a positive accounts-receivable column, even if you never see a dime.
Taking money is opening up a can of worms. Blood is thicker than water... but the one thing that's thicker than blood is MONEY. People have this attitude (and sometimes rightly so) that as long as they're paying you, they have a leash on you... they then bother you/demand things from you, often out of proportion to the amount of money exchanged. That's a sticky situation to get into with family, friends, and coworkers. Do you want some kind of disgruntled attitude/tension between you and your friends? I don't.
Just by doing it for free, I've received all sorts of gifts in kind. Those gifts have included computer hardware, gift certificates, beer, lunch, etc, etc. I NEVER solicit such gifts, and I always make an effort to turn them down. That may sound odd, but I actually enjoy working on computers, and my day job already involves helping others (I'm an ER physcian, so I already see plenty of no-pay/self-pay/uninsured patients for free; doing the same to the occasional computer just doesn't bother me that much)
Then there's the simple act of doing something nice for people... sometimes that's its own reward.
I have a 380W Antec trupower loaded all the way to its maximum output. This is one PSU that can take a beating.
Dual Athlon MPs
4-drive RAID on a 3ware controller
two TV cards, one sound card
Gigabit NIC
basic geforce4-mx video card
Multiple 120mm fans
It's a home media server and it's using every bit of that 380-watt capacity. It has never diplayed one bit of weirdness.
I'll definitely buy another Trupower. Historically I've used those and the Enermax PSUs. I don't have any Enermax models loaded up quite that heavily, but that modestly-sized Antec has really earned its bones.
Too funny... though I think you're aiming too low. Desperation is rarely attractive to a woman, and trolling for drunks and barflies is likely to be unfulfilling.
I'd suggest holding out for some quality women instead of going for the low-hanging fruit... the fruit can be sweet, but the aftertaste can be permanent. Despite the commercials you see on TV, herpes still isn't curable, and taking valtrex every day for suppressive therapy is a drag, and expensive (not to mention what happens when your next hot date goes snooping in your medicine cabinet)
My point with most of these questions is that you, as an adult, have at least some chance of understanding the concepts involved, or at least sufficient mental ability to gain understanding through research and study. A child doesn't even have command enough of the language to know the vocabulary, let alone the intellectual depth to address the concepts behind the words. True, not many adults would be able to immediately dash off an essay addressing the listed questions, but you at least have the potential to understand... you might even be able to engage in a coherent, thoughtful discussion after reviewing some literature on the subject. It would require a truly extraordinary pre-teen to perform a similar intellectual feat.
I believe that a law similar to the age of consent laws in Holland would be more rational and fair
You might be suprised to find that many states in the United States have laws strikingly similar to Holland's. Some allow relationships to an early-teen age (and even marriage) with parental consent, though it varies by state. The degree of offense for an adult having a relationship with a minor child may range from "contributing to the delinquency of a minor" for a 16-17yo (a misdemeanor), to "sexual imposition" 13yo-15yo (often a felony), or even "statutory rape" for the less-than-13yo victim (bigger felony). Some states also vary the degree of offense based on the age of the perpetrator (a 19yo is not as culpable as a 40yo). As an applicable aside to your question, it's worth mentioning that chronological age is NOT always the controlling issue. There exists the concept of "emancipation" of minors, where they are given full legal rights despite their age. Some minors are considered "emancipated" legal adults when they've had a child, gotten married, or joined the military... that again varies by state, and circumstance.
I know of NO states that excuse adult sexual contact of ANY kind with an elementary-school-age child. Those children are largely pre-pubertal: they lack secondary sexual characteristics, they lack the physical desire for sex, and are too young to consent. Such behavior usually results in incarceration, and jail is not a good place to be a pedophile.
The laws and morals you allude to do not have a reasonable justification
So you say. I hope you've a better argument than that for the jury.
I've offered science, the expert opinion of most of the child development and psychological/psychiatric community, history, law, and logic. You've offered personal opinion, anecdote, and one discredited study. In short, you've offered garbage.
Away with you, troll... justify your pedophilia elsewhere.
You do realize that overturning social mores, decades of jurisprudence, and common sense requires some evidence? Anecdote doesn't cut it. The burden of proof is on you, my friend. I also reject the premise of this question:
What exactly is so complicated about safe non-abusive plain vanilla sex with a non-coersive, friendly and considerate partner
What is so complicated? There has probably been more written about love/sex/relationships than any other single topic in the history of mankind. I'm beginning to believe that you are a troll taking a devil's advocate position. Don't base your argument on some idealized best-case scenario... deal instead with reality.
We are still discussing adult-on-child sex, are we not? Nothing you've presented invalidates the informed consent argument, and you have yet to prove that adult-on-child sex is anything like what you've just described. "Non-coersive" (sic) implies a voluntary relationship... such volition is not possible with someone too young to understand the full ramifications of their assent. I don't know how many times I have to repeat that. Again, if you want to overturn decades of child development theory and legal rulings, you'll have to come up with something besides your opinion.
I am a professional, and one of the dictums in my field is not to base your practice on a single study. Even if that study is deemed "powerful," "shocking," or "authoritative," it's often wise to wait for the findings to be replicated before making a radical change in practice. This goes doubly for an issue where so much is at stake if the initial study is wrong, fraudulent, or unable to be replicated. The study you reference was widely debated at the time of its publication by the APA. It's a small study, a meta-analysis, and contained confounding familial variables that many dissenting authors felt clouded its conclusions. If you're using that study to justify pedophilia, I'm afraid that's not good enough.
I view the fact that some children recovered from their abuse without obvious damage as a testament to the resiliency of the human spirit. You, however, take those findings as a green light for predatory behavior. The argument that little apparent harm was done rings hollow. By this measure, we should allow intercourse with newborns, since they would never remember the experience and thus it couldn't negatively impact them... Would you support a surgeon having sex with his unconscious patients, as long as it was safe, plain vanilla, friendly, and considerate? (if they never understood what had happened to them, no harm could possibly be done, right?).
just give one good example, that's all
Very well... show me any pre-teen who can intelligently discuss the advantages/disadvantages of group sex versus monogomous sex. How about discussing the supervisor/coworker conflicts implicit in a workplace sexual relationship? Can a 13yo understand the subtle power shifts that take place as a result of a sexual relationship with the boss? How about adapting to partner(s) satisfaction considerations by gender? How about a 13yo who understands the appropriate application of foreplay? How about a 13yo who can take into account ethnic differences/preferences (inluding religious concerns about contraception and sodomy) among his lovers? How about one who can expound upon the challenges that come from the clash between homosexual and heterosexual mores with his bisexual lover? How about a single pre-teen who has a clue what to do when his lover breaks down crying in the middle of sex and won't tell him why. Show me a pre-teen with the patience, insight, and sensitivity to work with his partner through frigidity, dyspareuria, or the embarassment of not being able to achieve orgasm after hysterectomy.
I can't see any agreement forthcoming on this issue. Good day.
I believe we were talking about pedophiles... we were talking about sex with a minor; someone below the age of consent. I've based my argument on law, well-supported child-development theory, and my own experience as a professional in a related field.
I'm sorry, but I think your assertion that sex is mindless and simple, and that all this age-of-consent talk is nonsense is the thesis that needs supporting evidence, and you have presented none.
Sure, but why sex... of all things, sex is probably the safest one
No. A 40yo man letting a 5yo drive his car isn't even in the same ballpark as a 40yo man having intercourse with a 5-yo boy. In one, the kid gets to drive a car (though it's illegal). In the other, the 40yo man is exploiting the 5yo for his own twisted erotic enjoyment, something the 5yo cannot either fathom or initiate. (5yo is a pre-sexual age... you can guarantee the proposition for sex did NOT come from the 5yo). That's not sex... that's exploitation and abuse.
Part of my job is dealing with the victims of such abuse... and trust me, the long-term psychological consequences are large.
Later in your post, you referenced "contact" with some other like-age children; that is completely different. Provided it was early enough, what you were probably experiencing was curiosity and exploration in the absence of erotic intent. This is distinct from lust and sexual desire... pre-puberty, the latter are simply not part of a child's psyche. That is totally different from an adult engaging in sexual predation upon a pre-teen or early teen. Even if one of the above-mentioned children was old enough to have developed his own sexual desires, would it be right for him to use younger, pre-sexual children for his erotic enjoyment? Clearly, the answer is no... the younger children cannot understand, and this precludes their consent.
And with 13-year-olds the argument that they are mentally or emotionally incapable doesn't hold water at all
Again, no. There's good reason why our society does not accord children and early teens the same rights/powers as adults (property ownership, ability to enter into contracts, voting, working). This space precludes a full dissertation on this topic, but common sense will provide a like answer: Teens aren't exactly the world's wisest decision-makers. This is partially from a lack of knowlege/experience, but also because they quite literally lack the same level of mental/emotional development. Data shows that even some adults never enter the stage of formal operations, and even fewer adolescents have developed that far. Understanding sex goes far deeper than simply knowing the mechanics. As for emotional readiness, do you really think a pre-teen (whose only experience with boys is giggling about them over the phone with her girlfriends) is ready for a full-on sexual/emotional relationship with an adult? That's so far from appropriate that I don't even know where to start.
It's all a bunch of crap, you are just trying to force your vision of childhood innocence on kids
Not at all. I'm simply trying to offer some of the reasoning behind the legal framework behind the age of consent. It's not my theory...I can't claim credit for the developmental staging model; that's all Piaget. That said, sex is an adult activity with adult consequences. I'd personally rather see those decisions made by one with an adult level of cognition.
pretending that adults are somehow all-knowing
Never said that... though I do disagree somewhat with the general thrust of your post. All else being equal, adults usually DO know better than their young, inexperienced, and hormonally-poisoned adolescent charges. I hate to say that (and provoke the wrath of some of Slashdot's "Like, my parents are l0s3rz" crowd), but let's deal with reality. Adults are accorded greater rights and responsibilities because they're generally regarded as more mature and capable (intellectually and otherwise) than the average 13-year-old. One may find exceptions, of course... but the general premise holds, at least in the eyes of society, and consequently the law.
Because what you're leading up to is a discussion regarding the age of consent. In fact, some recent cases in the United States where 20-30yo teachers have seduced early-teen boys have thrown this discussion into high relief.
Early teen boys are more than physically equipped for sex... in fact, they think of little else. They are hormonally-charged and physically able, yet in one of nature's greatest ironies, they're sorely lacking the mental/emotional tools necessary to process that experience. Herein lies the issue with consent. A young man at that age may not (likely has not) developed far enough mentally to be truly capable of abstract thought, and often lacks the abilty to appreciate long-term consequence.
Such a young man would probably enthusiastically assent to sex with an attractive woman... without the slightest regard for what the long-term physical/economic/emotional/social consequences might be. He might not be able to deal appropriately (or deal at all) with the emotional dimension. Like it or not, sexual intercourse is a powerful emotional experience for women and men... and an experience that the average young adolescent is woefully unprepared to assimilate.
This is why the age of consent in many western cultures is mid-to-late teens, and why organizations like NAMBLA are so vile. Younger children quite literally cannot appreciate the full ramifications of their assent.
Informed consent must be exactly that... there can be no consent with an individual who lacks the mental capacity to make an informed decision
and I did something similar with a medical colleague 3 weeks ago.
His Dell laptop had become unusable... there were probably more gigabytes of viruses and trojans than there were system files. I helpfully sent him a DVD version of Mandrake 10.
It took me 10 minutes on the phone for him to have a fully-functioning system (and he only called because he needed to know what kind of video hardware his laptop was using). Keep in mind that this guy is totally non-technical; he's never used a *nix system, and knows absolutely ZERO command-line.
Linux has come a long way from the old days. His comment when using KDE? "hey, this is pretty much like windows!"
Cha-Ching.
are virtually always part of the processing line when you're loading up your stuff.
When you're getting ready to be deployed, you show up to a hanger/building down on the flight line with all your stuff, and you go through a processing line, complete with various stations. ID station, SGLI station, equipment checks... there's even a station for wills. It's a requirement.
D don't doubt the Marine corps does something very similiar; it's been that way every single time I ever deployed.
you'd get situations like hospital ships being fair game in combat
It's fair to mention that the LOAC (Laws of Armed Combat) make such facilities fair game if they are being used to perform military action. That said, I haven't seen too many terrorists being shy about targeting hospitals regardless of use, or using them (and mosques, and schools) as fighting positions. When I served in the Afghanistan theatre, we even made troops leave their long-arms (and all ordinance heavier than side-arms) outside our hospital. Now our "hospital" was a tent, we were miles from anything, and there were no media types around to see it, but we still did it. It wouldn't have stopped the terrorists from rocketing our position, but we at least tried to play by the rules.
In the subject of the Red Cross, the LOAC explicitly prohibits perfidy, or treacherous actions, including misuse of the Red Cross or Red Crescent. The laws of warfare can probably stand alone without the support of the United States Patent and Trademark Office.
Heh... I did not use "copyright" in my post at all, and "patent" is defined here by any number of sources. I would refer you first to the sidebar, where the noun "patent" is defined as "an official document granting a right or privilege."
Trademark is defined as a "formally registered symbol."
I see no problem with anything I wrote, including my spelling.
Although your spelling is above average, your cofunsion
YOUR spelling, on the other hand...
The Red Cross has a patent on that logo, and they aggressively defend it, even against other philanthropic, non-profit, and medical organizations.
I know of at least one case where a medical school had a red cross simply included as part of a graphic on a webpage... no reference to the charity, the international red cross, or anything of the sort... it was simply included as part of a larger graphic. They were forced to remove it under threat of legal action.
The red cross are definitely aggressive defenders of what they consider to be their exclusive symbol.
I was curious about this exact issue when the Terraserver first went online (I was working for the military at that time). When I tried to look up some military bases, I didn't have much success. I found that entire blocks of land around all the military bases I checked were missing.
I just checked, and those images are now there; that's new... but after looking at the dates on the pictures, I'd suggest to you that those images are old, and not current enough to be of serious value to a terrorist enemy.
Let's face it... Satellite photos are sexy, but terrorists are probably much more interested in the smaller, current details: How many jersey barricades are at the base gate? Do the guards have heavy enough weaponry to stop their vehicle if they take a run at it? Are they doing 100% ID check? How about contractors... can mail and pizza delivery drivers get on-base at will?
I can't see a lot of those 4 and 5 year-old satellite photos being that useful to your typical dumb-enough-to-drive-a-truck-bomb terrorists.
This REQUIRES the police to make an arrest whether the alledged victim wants it or not.
That probably depends on the jurisdiction, and I can't speak for all the states. However, I'm not aware of any state that doesn't require some sort of evidence of domestic violence before they can arrest the significant other (though this can be as simple as a red mark on the arm, a single sworn statement, or a single witness). Think about it: you've got to have something to justify the arrest... without probable cause to make an arrest, you're really on dangerous legal ground. The officers may separate the couple for the night, but they won't necessarily drag somebody off in cuffs every time.
With the number of SOs (usually women) who die from domestic violence every year, police officers are often encouraged to "make an arrest" in these situations... though they may be loathe to do so in the complete absence of evidence/witnesses (it would be difficult to justify, and could open the officer and his department up to liability for false arrest).
On the other hand, if you beat your woman black and blue, you can expect to go directly to jail, as well you should. I personally find this to be a vast improvement over the bad old days.
using domestic violence as an example... you're a few decades out of date.
It USED TO BE in the US that the woman had to press charges against the man in order for the police to make an arrest. I know this not only from a law enforcement background, but from personal experience.
One of my next-door neighbors growing up was a terrible alcoholic and wife-beater (he was also a physician. What a disgrace to the profession... but I digress). I can't remember how many times we called the police, because we could hear him beating her (things breaking, screaming, thuds, etc). The guy used to beat the living tar out of his wife... bruises, black eyes, cuts... I've seen better-looking barfight victims. She, however, would never press charges, and the guy got off every. single. time. We could have "minded our own business," but we felt an obligation to do something. I was but a lad, so I couldn't understand the dynamics involved... Needless to say, all their kids, save one, are now in prison.
It took decades, but a sea change eventually took place. These days, Domestic Violence is a crime not only against the individual, but against the state. This allows the police to make an arrest whether the victim wants it or not.
Sometimes the situation is bad enough, or the people co-dependent enough, that they literally need help to get out of their situation. I'm well aware of how that sounds... so spare me the vituperation for being patronizing. That said, I don't think the Iranian people would resent being free... and any way we could assist them in that effort is arguably the right thing to do.
Of course, it goes without saying that we'd probably be ahead to first exhaust less-violent means of assistance.
and my apologies for what may have come across as an overly critical post.
For the record, I echo your lament about the inadequacy of some of our testing. My kingdom for a better test for Pulmonary Embolus, for instance.
Computer systems may be better at picking pertinent data points out of the noise... but who trains the machine? A fallible human tells the system what data points to count and discard... the system is only as good as its programmer.
The point I was making (in a not completely elegant fashion), is that much of medicine is subjective, and very difficult to program. It comes in through all five senses, and in very subtle ways. The smartest you'll ever be is the day you graduate from medical school... you know more facts at that moment than you'll probably ever know again. Those facts are part of your data bank of signs, symptoms, nomenclature, pathophysiology...
Except experience counts in medicine, and it counts big. For example, it's a VERY poor resident or new physician who doesn't take seriously the suggestion of an experienced nurse. This may seem illogical. After all, you have many times the education of that nurse: you have three times as many years of training in a far more rigorous course of study, you have a far deeper knowledge of pathophysiology and pharmacology... in fact, that nurse can't even give an asprin without your order. Danger, Will Robinson...she's been doing this for 20+ years, and the subjective opinion of that old nurse who calls at 3AM and says "this guy doesn't look good, you'd probably better come and see him" should get you out of bed immediately. She is a less educated (on paper) system, but with a vast experential/subjective knowledge base to draw upon.
I don't know how you train a computer system to do that. I also don't know how you train a computer system to have five sense, and recognize the smell of Pseudomonas, Melena, or Uremia. I've had plenty of patients who looked good on paper, but just looking at them something in the back of my mind said "something's not right, you'd better take another look." That clinical gestalt has saved my bacon (and that of my patients) many times.
As for engineers inventing and doctors getting the credit, I'm not sure how that's really relevant. If it's a new pacemaker, the engineer may have invented it to fill a medical need, but somebody has to implant it... so I'd say it's a team effort. I have no problem sharing the credit...
Even all that aside, I don't generally take credit for "saves" or snatching somebody back from the brink. Frankly, I don't think I really have that much to do with who lives and who dies.
No apology needed... I should be the one apologizing for misreading your post.
does NOT work.
It was *way* better than the average American doctor at diagnosing illness and injury and recommending appropriate treatment...
Tin foil hat time: We don't hear about this project anymore. Why not? The evil AMA (probably in league with those guys in the black helicopters) suppressed the technology. OK, I'm mostly joking
I'm glad to hear you're joking... because I'd have see some serious proof of that claim. Remember, you're talking about human lives here... and the lawyers will be watching, so you'd better be right.
Believe me, managed care companies have tried cookbooks. They have tried like crazy to make everything into a decision tree, such that less-extensively-trained personnel (read "cheaper") could diagnose and treat. Know what? I'll take a trained and experienced diagnostician every single time... and I say that not because I am one, but because I think the care is simply better. Want to do it better and cheaper than me? By all means, be my guest... but you're going to have to prove the "better and cheaper" claim with some serious data.
I also think you're underestimating the varied presentations of illnesses. Problem is, most people don't read the book on their illness before contracting it (ie. they present with atypical symptoms, or a less-than-classic history).
From my experience, half of them function as trained technicians. I feel that my engineering background has made me a better diagnostician than most doctors...... If the medical community would check their egos at the door...
You're joking, right? You're an engineer claiming to be better than most doctors, and they have the ego problem? This in the same breath where you erroneously state that we do pap smears to detect Ovarian Cancer? (Paps actually screen for Cervical Cancer).
You don't have bad ideas (prevention, screening, evidence-based medicine, etc)... but the implementation is always rougher than the conception.
No offense intended.