You were right on track, but you stopped your narration about half way through.
The other half of the story is that while relationships have changed, the criteria that are used to judge the worthiness of a mate haven't, both male and female. Sure, even ugly people find a mate, but for the most part, women still prefer men who are (a) well off and (b) physically attractive. Other elements of compatibility are often secondary at best. And men have their preferences slightly reversed because they primarily prefer women who are (a) physically attractive and (b) reasonably compatible.
If you're a geek, you can certainly get a girl if your geekiness can land you a good job and an income that women appreciate (e.g. silicon valley entrepreneurs). Of course, you can also get geek chicks who perhaps like you for your quirks and intelligence, but those are often in the minority.
However, if you are a gamer who is either not gainfully employed or is otherwise boring/unable to provide sufficient attention (because you're addicted to a video games), your ability to attract a potential mate drops significantly. And what more, often the result is that you're also not taking sufficient care of yourself to be considered physically attractive to a potential mate, and that too reduces your likelihood of finding a partner (either men or women). I personally have friends who were gainfully employed and who have pretty much screwed up their lives and relationships because of video games (usually WoW). But this is not limited to video games: one can be just as addicted to television and have much the same problem, but the only difference is that you're more likely to find a partner who is willing to sit and watch TV with you than someone who just wants to sit at a computer and collect virtual treasures and trophies.
Now, coming to porn, a lot of men often have a distorted perception of what women should look like and do because let's face it, most women (at least in the US) look nothing like the teen porn stars and are more often than not unwilling to perform the activities that are the typically seen in a porno. What more, most of the men also waste their testosterone on watching porn than, say, engaging in real world sex or working out (which often leads to real world sex). And let's face it, porn is an easy way out: it is much easier to watch porn than to go out there and find a real woman to have sex with. And it's certainly easier to watch porn than fix your relationship (hint: do a google search on women complaining about how their husbands are not interested in them but only watch porn).
So, what's the end result? Gamers can't get partners, or get partners that are relatively low on the totem pole. And people addicted to porn have a flawed worldview of women and sex, and don't pursue women actively - that often results in unhappiness in (or sometimes, a complete lack of) real world relationships.
Contrast this with the population that's not actively engaged in either, or at least to a limited extent. Their lives are certainly likely to be more interesting, and their odds of landing a partner increases. For instance, one could be "addicted" to say, working out, traveling, or reading, and any of those things would offer you advantages that would beat playing WoW until late at night. Not being addicted to porn would motivate you to go seek real women, and use your testosterone in getting a partner.
I work out quite regularly, and the one thing that I do is "raise" my testosterone by limiting my sexual activities for a week or two at a time. It makes me slightly aggressive, but it also greatly improves my sex life and my workout regimen. And using my free time to do productive activities like entrepreneurship and investment, interesting and fun activities like rock climbing or surfing, and even (relatively) mundane activities like reading, building lego contraptions, or fixing up my house makes my life infinitely interesting than someone who is hooked to a video game. That is not to say I don't pl
And how realistic a financial model is that for them as a corporation? How many teenagers and people from developing nations can really afford to pay $10? And how far would they get if they start charging for membership?
No, what makes them special is the fact that they stated out being exclusive, and became all inclusive. The reality of capitalism is that they can only monetize through ad revenue. I'm sure if you have a viable alternative (and realistic) business model, they'd love to hear of it.
I think the point is some things are more important than others. e.g. mapreduce to build facebook is a net loss for humanity, but mapreduce to cure cancer is not.
And that's where I disagree. Facebook is also a net positive for humanity because it makes us more connected, and provides us with a social platform for people to interact and share content and collaborate socially.
Human beings are social creatures, and is it any wonder that a social media platform like Facebook is so popular? Anything that makes us more interconnected and drives to humanity being a "singular" community is a net positive, IMO.
Besides, curing cancer is great for the X% of people who suffer from cancer, while Facebook is great for pretty much anyone who wants to get online and interact socially. So what do you do once you've survived cancer? That's right, you can then hang out with your friends and family, which is what Facebook lets you do.;-)
My mother's parents had 4 kids, who had respectively 4, 2, 2, 1 offspring. I happen to be one of the 4. My father's parents had 4 kids, who had respectively 3, 4, 2, 0 offspring. Again I'm one of the 4. Among my siblings, 3, 2, 2, 0. My father's father's parents, 3, who had 2, 4, 1 respectively. The 1 had 1, who had 1, who had 0. Mother's mother's parents: 3, who had 4, 6, 2. The 2 had 0. The 6, I've lost count. Wife's side... 4 kids, with 1, 0, 3, 0 children respectively. Mother's family, 5, with 0, 3, 4, 2, 3.
The 0s aren't because they couldn't feed their children or because they died from disease. They're... severely retarted, couldn't (not fertile), gay, motorcycle accident, many just didn't want to. Didn't want to: um, favored career over family, compulsive sports, type-2 diabetes and preferred raising dogs, not interested in sex, et cetera. Many of the 2 weren't 4 because they couldn't afford it.
Seems to me evolution is alive and well, selecting against a variety of traits. Not sure what traits are being selected FOR.
I average about a third of that a day, between work and colleagues as well as friends and family. And if you include quick emails I send out (if it weren't for accountability, they would be text messages), I will probably be up to at least half that number.
Now, understandably, they are teenagers, so that number seems extremely reasonable. I'd have been surprised if it were averaging ~300-500 messages a day, but less than a hundred? Meh. I've sent that many on a busy day.
If you are unsearchable then you don't exist. Thus nothing to hand them.
I guess you missed the point of my post. Whether or not you are searchable or not should have no bearing whatsoever on them being able to demand access to your *private* social network.
I keep seeing this red herring on searchability that detracts from the problem -- it doesn't matter even if they know that I have a profile. It is none of their business and certainly not within their purview to ask for access to my profile. It's the principle of the thing that offends me.
Whether or not you are on a social network or if you are searchable is completely irrelevant to the argument.
Seriously? Just because you're antisocial and do not care about being on a social network because of your tinfoil hat does not mean the rest have to follow suit.
No matter what social network I'm on, it is reasonable to expect a semblance of privacy, especially if any information I share is for consumption only within my friends in that network.
While I'm unsearchable on Facebook, most of my friends on Facebook are from college and there's a certain degree of immaturity in our interaction. However, that is in no way representative of any of us in real life, and judging how we interact with our close friends from college is just silly.
So yes, you can have your tinfoil hat and not be a part of any social network. You can also hide yourself. But that defeats the purpose -- the idea is to interact and be *social* with others that you meet.
But that in no way should affect my expectation of privacy. What I share publicly is one thing, but forcing me to share what I share with a close circle of friends is plain wrong. And I will fight tooth and nail to keep my privacy.
Have you considered consolidating your accounts? I travel a lot for business, as well, and I basically have a slim alligator wallet (something like this) with just a couple of cards: my personal debit card, my corporate credit card, insurance card, and driver's license. I do carry a business card case with my badges and business cards in my suit jackets/bag. A few things that used to be in my wallet are now in my bag, including my frequent flyer and other loyalty/priority access cards, a wiping cloth for my glasses etc. It's amazing just carrying the barest minimum -- plus, it doesn't bulge against your pants, and makes your pants look more sleek.
I was going to moderate discussion, but I had to respond to your trollish comment.
Business cards i think are just obsolete, they served a purpose once but have been superseded by modern technology. Suits and ties never served any useful purpose whatsoever.
All cultures have social cues and dress codes, whether explicit or implicit. In other cultures (e.g. Europe), class is established through other means. However, in creating a "classless" society, people in US goes out of their way to understand the hierarchy of their fellows.
Whether or not you are willing to admit it, dress codes are a large part of such perception. They provide a number of cues, both social and economic. You may disagree with them or even think they are meaningless, but you cannot wish them away. So, they do serve a purpose -- one of establishing social status and conveying one's position, even if you think it's unnecessary.
Now, your statement on the comfort of suits and the like is particularly silly. It sounds like your suits are ill fitting, and not very well made. As someone who wears suits on a regular basis, I cannot tell you just how comfortable good clothes are. Good materials (wool, cotton with high thread count) and good fit (get the right size clothes, and take it to a tailor) can make a difference.
Back on topic re: business cards, I use both personal and professional business cards. It serves a very useful purpose, especially when traveling (which I do, a lot). It's a quick and easy networking tool, and no matter what the denizens of Slashdot think, the vast majority of the world still uses it pretty regularly.
Do not mock philosophy. It provides a framework for understanding how the human mind works and establishes the roots behind our social, political, and economic norms.
Simple things such as what constitutes human rights or morality are much more complex than you'd imagine (e.g. consider Michael J. Perry's view: Are human rights ineliminably religious, or is there a secular version of human rights that uphold our existence with the same amount of dignity and sanctity?). The answers to such questions play a role in a lot of things (e.g. the UN Charter of Human Rights, the Geneva Convention, creation and interpretation of laws etc).
And speaking of laws, what about justice? If it fairness, or is it deterrence, or both? Where does one draw the line? Where do ethics come in? Can you legislate ethics? Why, or why not? For instance, try reading John Rawl's Theory of Justice one of these days, and you will not look at law the same way ever again.
Most people who've studied philosophy (that I know of) are doing quite well, having gone on to work in law, anthropology, sociology, or even economics (e.g. Amartya Sen was awarded the Nobel memorial prize in economics for bringing a moral and ethical worldview to an otherwise transactional dominion). Having taken graduate classes in philosophy, I can guarantee you that philosophy requires good reading and writing comprehension, logical and analytical skills, and an ability for independent thought. In contrast, I am not exactly sure what skills being a "Jedi" knight from a fictional movie grant you.
But your definition of stupidity could very well be their version of intelligent, and what they consider relevant you may consider trite or even silly. Taken to an extreme, only experts can make decisions on the subjects that they have expertise in, but then a expert's view would likely be myopic and could very well miss the big picture. Of course, the counter argument is bringing in a "big picture" person to oversee the whole thing, but then, you're back to square one because it could be argued that politicians today are indeed generalists.
You're missing the point. To allow people to pirate because a small portion of them could potentially purchase down the road may be great for marketing, but is poor for revenue.
I am just unable to understand the intellectual lethargy that I find on Slashdot when it comes to piracy. You may disagree with how someone feels about piracy, but if it is their content, it is their prerogative.
It may not be *the* most important attribute, but it certainly is an important attribute.
How you look, what your skin color is, how you're dressed, how you're groomed, and what your demeanor is all factor into how people perceive you.
I certainly have more women hit on me when I work out at the gym regularly and sport a six pack and a tight tee. And I definitely get better service when I'm well groomed in a suit and tie, no matter where I go.
People underestimate the importance of looking good, or the subconscious perceptions that society makes (as a brown man, I've been mistaken for a valet when I was dressed in jeans and a hoodie).
So, yes, a skinny chick certainly has a better chance of being hit on than a fat (or even "normal" chick, whatever that may entail). On the other hand, I very much doubt if a skinny guy would get hit on as much as a buff guy. A lot of these things are biologically wired -- I realized the type of women I was attracted to when I was in middle school, and it's not changed much since them.
So, yes, let's be honest here. Being unfit is unattractive to most people -- whether you are chubby or anorexic. And people have preferences on the spectrum. Now, you may date outside your "preferred" segment out of desperation, love, or whatever, but that in no way changes your biological imperative to prefer a fit partner.
Personally, I wish they would ban fat people on shows and the runway (the recent trend towards 'curvy' models) -- it sends the wrong message that being unhealthy is acceptable, or even desired.
...and they've not included professions where most people I know get almost no sleep. I'm a management consultant, and between the travel, work, and client outings, we consider ourselves lucky if we get 5 hours of sleep on a week day. And compared to my i-banking friends, I'm practically a lazy ass. Ditto for a lot of people in consulting (management or IT), finance, and law (I did see lawyer and financial analyst there, but those numbers look like a joke).
I'm tired of seeing these stupid comments every time an article on statistics is brought up. Clearly, a bunch of scientists doing studies along these lines know less about statistics and research design than some random Slashdot poster. Gee. Get over yourself.
That is the most ridiculous excuse I've heard. Who says you have to cook it all individually?
You can cook breakfast and lunch in the morning, and cook dinners in the evening. Plus, if you've a single income household (re: OP), odds are, one of the parents is home.
It really isn't that hard. You even get microwaveable veggies, and grill the meat. Half hour to an hour at most. Add some spices and you're good to go.
Grab a drink of water or lemonade, and you've a pretty darn healthy meal. Hell, even if you only had a healthy breakfast and dinner, you're doing better than most.
Indeed. Let's be honest -- most of us have done immature and "jerk"-ish things as teenagers. To be honest, I was perhaps a bit of an ass in school and college.
Now, looking back, while that may certainly have been reprehensible, I would have been appalled if my actions were to push someone over the brink.
I feel bad for the kid who committed suicide, but it sounds like he had other problems, and this was just one of the factors (one of the proverbial straws, perhaps).
Reading some of the IMs, it sounds like Dharun wasn't really a homophobe -- if anything, he was just being a curious teenager, and perhaps a bit of an ass. But while you can debate the technicalities of privacy violations (which would be weird, because technically, it's also Dharun's room), tacking on the labels of hate crime and murder is just using the law to set a deterrent, and punishing someone to an extreme (unjustly so) to placate some groups and make an "example" of a poor kid's life. Hell, by that extension, Tyler's mother should be the one tacked as an accessory, because she certainly played a role in making her son feel unwanted.
Growing up, I studied in schools which were fairly strict (including uniforms), where you'd be punished if your shoe was not polished well. Looking back, that sense of discipline has served me well in everything I do.
I think parenting also plays a role, but it's more of a case of values: good parents imbibe their children with fundamental values around work ethics, integrity, honesty, the value of hard work, good education and ambition. To an extent, friends and family also play a role in how children perceive this.
Both my parents are extremely well educated, but my Mom decided to stay at home to take care of me when I was born, dropping her doctoral studies. In a way, that sense of parental responsibility speaks volumes and it is hard not to be raised with a similar sense of responsibility when your parents continuously demonstrate it.
Now, I am sure there is also an element of nature vs. nurture, but those seem few and far between.
I find that education today has become largely impersonal, and the vast majority of the teachers and the parents don't seem to have a personal, vested interest in individuals. They both look to the system, and the system as a whole is a joke.
I've heard that one of the reasons kids from Asian families do well in education is because culturally, the family and friends push education, and those values get absorbed. You see this to an extent with a lot of Jewish families, as well, where education and achievement is pushed. But you only mostly see it in immigrant and first generation families -- once they get acclimatized, those values slowly fade away.
Things like financial penalties are basically an attempt at getting parents involved and interested in a child's education, but that is clearly not working well enough. Unless people take a genuine interest in education all around (including family, friends, and lastly, the teachers), this problem is not going to be fixed.
FYI, it's grown from 4.6674T USD in 2000 to to 5.4588T USD in 2011. Sure, it fell for a while from the high of 5.2644T USD in 1995, but to state that their economy is not performing well only shows your stupidity.
Slashdot Mirror
You were right on track, but you stopped your narration about half way through.
The other half of the story is that while relationships have changed, the criteria that are used to judge the worthiness of a mate haven't, both male and female. Sure, even ugly people find a mate, but for the most part, women still prefer men who are (a) well off and (b) physically attractive. Other elements of compatibility are often secondary at best. And men have their preferences slightly reversed because they primarily prefer women who are (a) physically attractive and (b) reasonably compatible.
If you're a geek, you can certainly get a girl if your geekiness can land you a good job and an income that women appreciate (e.g. silicon valley entrepreneurs). Of course, you can also get geek chicks who perhaps like you for your quirks and intelligence, but those are often in the minority.
However, if you are a gamer who is either not gainfully employed or is otherwise boring/unable to provide sufficient attention (because you're addicted to a video games), your ability to attract a potential mate drops significantly. And what more, often the result is that you're also not taking sufficient care of yourself to be considered physically attractive to a potential mate, and that too reduces your likelihood of finding a partner (either men or women). I personally have friends who were gainfully employed and who have pretty much screwed up their lives and relationships because of video games (usually WoW). But this is not limited to video games: one can be just as addicted to television and have much the same problem, but the only difference is that you're more likely to find a partner who is willing to sit and watch TV with you than someone who just wants to sit at a computer and collect virtual treasures and trophies.
Now, coming to porn, a lot of men often have a distorted perception of what women should look like and do because let's face it, most women (at least in the US) look nothing like the teen porn stars and are more often than not unwilling to perform the activities that are the typically seen in a porno. What more, most of the men also waste their testosterone on watching porn than, say, engaging in real world sex or working out (which often leads to real world sex). And let's face it, porn is an easy way out: it is much easier to watch porn than to go out there and find a real woman to have sex with. And it's certainly easier to watch porn than fix your relationship (hint: do a google search on women complaining about how their husbands are not interested in them but only watch porn).
So, what's the end result? Gamers can't get partners, or get partners that are relatively low on the totem pole. And people addicted to porn have a flawed worldview of women and sex, and don't pursue women actively - that often results in unhappiness in (or sometimes, a complete lack of) real world relationships.
Contrast this with the population that's not actively engaged in either, or at least to a limited extent. Their lives are certainly likely to be more interesting, and their odds of landing a partner increases. For instance, one could be "addicted" to say, working out, traveling, or reading, and any of those things would offer you advantages that would beat playing WoW until late at night. Not being addicted to porn would motivate you to go seek real women, and use your testosterone in getting a partner.
I work out quite regularly, and the one thing that I do is "raise" my testosterone by limiting my sexual activities for a week or two at a time. It makes me slightly aggressive, but it also greatly improves my sex life and my workout regimen. And using my free time to do productive activities like entrepreneurship and investment, interesting and fun activities like rock climbing or surfing, and even (relatively) mundane activities like reading, building lego contraptions, or fixing up my house makes my life infinitely interesting than someone who is hooked to a video game. That is not to say I don't pl
And how realistic a financial model is that for them as a corporation? How many teenagers and people from developing nations can really afford to pay $10? And how far would they get if they start charging for membership?
No, what makes them special is the fact that they stated out being exclusive, and became all inclusive. The reality of capitalism is that they can only monetize through ad revenue. I'm sure if you have a viable alternative (and realistic) business model, they'd love to hear of it.
And that's where I disagree. Facebook is also a net positive for humanity because it makes us more connected, and provides us with a social platform for people to interact and share content and collaborate socially.
Human beings are social creatures, and is it any wonder that a social media platform like Facebook is so popular? Anything that makes us more interconnected and drives to humanity being a "singular" community is a net positive, IMO.
Besides, curing cancer is great for the X% of people who suffer from cancer, while Facebook is great for pretty much anyone who wants to get online and interact socially. So what do you do once you've survived cancer? That's right, you can then hang out with your friends and family, which is what Facebook lets you do. ;-)
I question the general assumption that felines are inherently deficient in the area of grammar and sentence structure.
Hmmm. Do you have kids yet?
I average about a third of that a day, between work and colleagues as well as friends and family. And if you include quick emails I send out (if it weren't for accountability, they would be text messages), I will probably be up to at least half that number.
Now, understandably, they are teenagers, so that number seems extremely reasonable. I'd have been surprised if it were averaging ~300-500 messages a day, but less than a hundred? Meh. I've sent that many on a busy day.
I guess you missed the point of my post. Whether or not you are searchable or not should have no bearing whatsoever on them being able to demand access to your *private* social network.
I keep seeing this red herring on searchability that detracts from the problem -- it doesn't matter even if they know that I have a profile. It is none of their business and certainly not within their purview to ask for access to my profile. It's the principle of the thing that offends me.
Whether or not you are on a social network or if you are searchable is completely irrelevant to the argument.
Seriously? Just because you're antisocial and do not care about being on a social network because of your tinfoil hat does not mean the rest have to follow suit.
No matter what social network I'm on, it is reasonable to expect a semblance of privacy, especially if any information I share is for consumption only within my friends in that network.
While I'm unsearchable on Facebook, most of my friends on Facebook are from college and there's a certain degree of immaturity in our interaction. However, that is in no way representative of any of us in real life, and judging how we interact with our close friends from college is just silly.
So yes, you can have your tinfoil hat and not be a part of any social network. You can also hide yourself. But that defeats the purpose -- the idea is to interact and be *social* with others that you meet.
But that in no way should affect my expectation of privacy. What I share publicly is one thing, but forcing me to share what I share with a close circle of friends is plain wrong. And I will fight tooth and nail to keep my privacy.
Have you considered consolidating your accounts? I travel a lot for business, as well, and I basically have a slim alligator wallet (something like this) with just a couple of cards: my personal debit card, my corporate credit card, insurance card, and driver's license. I do carry a business card case with my badges and business cards in my suit jackets/bag. A few things that used to be in my wallet are now in my bag, including my frequent flyer and other loyalty/priority access cards, a wiping cloth for my glasses etc. It's amazing just carrying the barest minimum -- plus, it doesn't bulge against your pants, and makes your pants look more sleek.
I was going to moderate discussion, but I had to respond to your trollish comment.
All cultures have social cues and dress codes, whether explicit or implicit. In other cultures (e.g. Europe), class is established through other means. However, in creating a "classless" society, people in US goes out of their way to understand the hierarchy of their fellows.
Whether or not you are willing to admit it, dress codes are a large part of such perception. They provide a number of cues, both social and economic. You may disagree with them or even think they are meaningless, but you cannot wish them away. So, they do serve a purpose -- one of establishing social status and conveying one's position, even if you think it's unnecessary.
Now, your statement on the comfort of suits and the like is particularly silly. It sounds like your suits are ill fitting, and not very well made. As someone who wears suits on a regular basis, I cannot tell you just how comfortable good clothes are. Good materials (wool, cotton with high thread count) and good fit (get the right size clothes, and take it to a tailor) can make a difference.
Back on topic re: business cards, I use both personal and professional business cards. It serves a very useful purpose, especially when traveling (which I do, a lot). It's a quick and easy networking tool, and no matter what the denizens of Slashdot think, the vast majority of the world still uses it pretty regularly.
Do not mock philosophy. It provides a framework for understanding how the human mind works and establishes the roots behind our social, political, and economic norms.
Simple things such as what constitutes human rights or morality are much more complex than you'd imagine (e.g. consider Michael J. Perry's view: Are human rights ineliminably religious, or is there a secular version of human rights that uphold our existence with the same amount of dignity and sanctity?). The answers to such questions play a role in a lot of things (e.g. the UN Charter of Human Rights, the Geneva Convention, creation and interpretation of laws etc).
And speaking of laws, what about justice? If it fairness, or is it deterrence, or both? Where does one draw the line? Where do ethics come in? Can you legislate ethics? Why, or why not? For instance, try reading John Rawl's Theory of Justice one of these days, and you will not look at law the same way ever again.
Most people who've studied philosophy (that I know of) are doing quite well, having gone on to work in law, anthropology, sociology, or even economics (e.g. Amartya Sen was awarded the Nobel memorial prize in economics for bringing a moral and ethical worldview to an otherwise transactional dominion). Having taken graduate classes in philosophy, I can guarantee you that philosophy requires good reading and writing comprehension, logical and analytical skills, and an ability for independent thought. In contrast, I am not exactly sure what skills being a "Jedi" knight from a fictional movie grant you.
But your definition of stupidity could very well be their version of intelligent, and what they consider relevant you may consider trite or even silly. Taken to an extreme, only experts can make decisions on the subjects that they have expertise in, but then a expert's view would likely be myopic and could very well miss the big picture. Of course, the counter argument is bringing in a "big picture" person to oversee the whole thing, but then, you're back to square one because it could be argued that politicians today are indeed generalists.
You're missing the point. To allow people to pirate because a small portion of them could potentially purchase down the road may be great for marketing, but is poor for revenue.
I am just unable to understand the intellectual lethargy that I find on Slashdot when it comes to piracy. You may disagree with how someone feels about piracy, but if it is their content, it is their prerogative.
It may not be *the* most important attribute, but it certainly is an important attribute.
How you look, what your skin color is, how you're dressed, how you're groomed, and what your demeanor is all factor into how people perceive you.
I certainly have more women hit on me when I work out at the gym regularly and sport a six pack and a tight tee. And I definitely get better service when I'm well groomed in a suit and tie, no matter where I go.
People underestimate the importance of looking good, or the subconscious perceptions that society makes (as a brown man, I've been mistaken for a valet when I was dressed in jeans and a hoodie).
So, yes, a skinny chick certainly has a better chance of being hit on than a fat (or even "normal" chick, whatever that may entail). On the other hand, I very much doubt if a skinny guy would get hit on as much as a buff guy. A lot of these things are biologically wired -- I realized the type of women I was attracted to when I was in middle school, and it's not changed much since them.
So, yes, let's be honest here. Being unfit is unattractive to most people -- whether you are chubby or anorexic. And people have preferences on the spectrum. Now, you may date outside your "preferred" segment out of desperation, love, or whatever, but that in no way changes your biological imperative to prefer a fit partner.
Personally, I wish they would ban fat people on shows and the runway (the recent trend towards 'curvy' models) -- it sends the wrong message that being unhealthy is acceptable, or even desired.
Well said, sir.
And oh, I forgot: soldiers and people in the US military. Those folks have pretty brutal schedules, too.
...and they've not included professions where most people I know get almost no sleep. I'm a management consultant, and between the travel, work, and client outings, we consider ourselves lucky if we get 5 hours of sleep on a week day. And compared to my i-banking friends, I'm practically a lazy ass. Ditto for a lot of people in consulting (management or IT), finance, and law (I did see lawyer and financial analyst there, but those numbers look like a joke).
I'm tired of seeing these stupid comments every time an article on statistics is brought up. Clearly, a bunch of scientists doing studies along these lines know less about statistics and research design than some random Slashdot poster. Gee. Get over yourself.
That is the most ridiculous excuse I've heard. Who says you have to cook it all individually?
You can cook breakfast and lunch in the morning, and cook dinners in the evening. Plus, if you've a single income household (re: OP), odds are, one of the parents is home.
It really isn't that hard. You even get microwaveable veggies, and grill the meat. Half hour to an hour at most. Add some spices and you're good to go.
Grab a drink of water or lemonade, and you've a pretty darn healthy meal. Hell, even if you only had a healthy breakfast and dinner, you're doing better than most.
I'd be out of a job. :-/
...and that deserves 10 years in prison? Seriously?
If you really think that's the case, you're not after justice, you're after blood and revenge.
Indeed. Let's be honest -- most of us have done immature and "jerk"-ish things as teenagers. To be honest, I was perhaps a bit of an ass in school and college.
Now, looking back, while that may certainly have been reprehensible, I would have been appalled if my actions were to push someone over the brink.
I feel bad for the kid who committed suicide, but it sounds like he had other problems, and this was just one of the factors (one of the proverbial straws, perhaps).
Reading some of the IMs, it sounds like Dharun wasn't really a homophobe -- if anything, he was just being a curious teenager, and perhaps a bit of an ass. But while you can debate the technicalities of privacy violations (which would be weird, because technically, it's also Dharun's room), tacking on the labels of hate crime and murder is just using the law to set a deterrent, and punishing someone to an extreme (unjustly so) to placate some groups and make an "example" of a poor kid's life. Hell, by that extension, Tyler's mother should be the one tacked as an accessory, because she certainly played a role in making her son feel unwanted.
I agree with the gist of what you are saying.
Growing up, I studied in schools which were fairly strict (including uniforms), where you'd be punished if your shoe was not polished well. Looking back, that sense of discipline has served me well in everything I do.
I think parenting also plays a role, but it's more of a case of values: good parents imbibe their children with fundamental values around work ethics, integrity, honesty, the value of hard work, good education and ambition. To an extent, friends and family also play a role in how children perceive this.
Both my parents are extremely well educated, but my Mom decided to stay at home to take care of me when I was born, dropping her doctoral studies. In a way, that sense of parental responsibility speaks volumes and it is hard not to be raised with a similar sense of responsibility when your parents continuously demonstrate it.
Now, I am sure there is also an element of nature vs. nurture, but those seem few and far between.
I find that education today has become largely impersonal, and the vast majority of the teachers and the parents don't seem to have a personal, vested interest in individuals. They both look to the system, and the system as a whole is a joke.
I've heard that one of the reasons kids from Asian families do well in education is because culturally, the family and friends push education, and those values get absorbed. You see this to an extent with a lot of Jewish families, as well, where education and achievement is pushed. But you only mostly see it in immigrant and first generation families -- once they get acclimatized, those values slowly fade away.
Things like financial penalties are basically an attempt at getting parents involved and interested in a child's education, but that is clearly not working well enough. Unless people take a genuine interest in education all around (including family, friends, and lastly, the teachers), this problem is not going to be fixed.
Slashdot, where people's knowledge of technology is only surpassed by their knowledge and understanding of of economics.
But here you go: major foreign holders of treasury securities. Holdings at the end of Dec 2011:
China: 1100.7B USD
Japan: 1042.4B USD
And oh, here's the data on the Japanese GDP since 1960.
FYI, it's grown from 4.6674T USD in 2000 to to 5.4588T USD in 2011. Sure, it fell for a while from the high of 5.2644T USD in 1995, but to state that their economy is not performing well only shows your stupidity.
...and Japan.