Awareness of the ways that language shapes your thoughts can help you exert more control over your life and take greater responsibility for what happens to you.
Taking account of the effect of language and syntax may have an augmentive effect, but if even our genetics can't completely determine our proclivities to smoke, drink, and eat, how can we suggest that language has such a profound effect upon our health over biology? The language is certainly intriguing, but we should look at this as a surface phenomenon when other factors, social, biological, or otherwise, have already been shown to have significant effects on our health. I suggest It is self-acualisation, rather than mere language usage, that allows one to exert control over one's life.
What would "I lost my job because I work for an asshole?" qualify as?
That would also be external. However, if you consider that a large part of perception is really projection, this statement may reveal more about the person that lost their job than their boss.
Germany is heavily dependant on its European neighbours to import what.de is exporting. Lets revisit this in 5 years after the Eurozone has been enfeebled through austerity measures and attrition. I'd be surprised if such a strong correlation between language and syntax will be drawn in the near future.
The multitasking, the notifications, and the fact it mounts as a USB storage device are all superior on webOS and the HP Touchpad vs. the ipad. If only someone at HP could sift the gold from the dross; they already have a capable mobile OS that could put them on a competitive advantage over Nokia, RIM, and Motorola. GUI is everything for these tablets, and android still is not as polished on the touchpad like webOS is. Hopefully open sourcing it will allow a fork that is helmed by someone that actually respects what webOS has done right.
To say what you are saying is to spread potentially fatal misinformation. Please provide your citation and we'll know who to blame. This is cut from the same cloth as the anti-vaccinators.
For those willing to look past this poster's crypto-fundamentalist agenda, the Centre for Disease Control states on page 2 of the Fact Sheet for Medical Personnel: Male Latex Condoms and Sexually Transmitted Diseases,
Sexually transmitted diseases, including HIV
Latex condoms, when used consistently and correctly, are highly effective in preventing transmission of HIV, the virus that causes AIDS. In addition, correct and consistent use of latex condoms can reduce the risk of other sexually transmitted diseases (STDs), including discharge and genital ulcer diseases.
Chiropractic has saved countless millions of lives without drugs and surgery. On the contrary, it's the Big Pharma controlled Medical system that are the frauds.
- Has an MD ever cured a subluxation? No.
Why would they cure a subluxion? The General Chiropractic Council, the UK's chiropractic regulatory agency run by chiropractors, states that subluxions have nothing to do with disease:
The fact is, tho, that you can't 100% tax either one of them, so the study of this hypothesis is simply an exercise designed to show the futility of raising taxes on "the rich."
You're actually missing the point of the original example, which is summarized in the same Jeffrey Sachs Huffington Post article:
The real point is obvious. The money received by the richest households is vast, and higher taxes on the rich will make a major contribution to closing the deficit. Nobody says that the rich should carry the entire tax burden or that spending cuts shouldn't play a role. The waste in military spending alone is so large that we can and should save at least 2 percent of GDP per year from the defense budget alone.
America's richest households have enjoyed quite a ride in recent decades as they've accumulated a mountain of wealth unprecedented in human history, at a time when much of the rest of society has been suffering. The average income tax rate paid by the top 1% has declined from 34.5% in 1980 to just 23.27% in 2008. During this period, the share of total income accruing to the richest 1% has soared from 8.5% in 1980 to 20% in 2008. The share of total AGI accruing to the top 10% of taxpayers has similarly risen from 32% in 1980 to 46% of income in 2008.
according to the Wall Street Journal, taxing the rich at a 100% rate would still only raise $938B, while our deficit is $1,650B.
With great bravado, the Journal claims that even the income of the top 10% of the taxpayers wouldn't close the deficit. The top 10% reported $3,856 billion in AGI, equal to 46% of total reported income in the United States, almost 27 percent of GDP. On that, they paid $721 billion in personal federal income taxes, or an average of 18.7% of income. If the remaining 81% of income were paid in federal income taxes, the increment in tax revenues would be more than $3,100 billion, or roughly 21% of GDP. The budget deficit would obviously be closed many times over.
Wanna fix this? The best way is to grow the economy. Taxing the rich won't do it - according to the Wall Street Journal, taxing the rich at a 100% rate would still only raise $938B, while our deficit is $1,650B. Not enough..
Can you provide your source for this? The United States has more millionairesthan any other country on the world.
Nah. This is 'common knowledge' in law, law enforcement, the courts, and other legal and various areas of sociology and psychology. Whether you think I need sources is moot
argumentum ad populum. You give specific numbers (40%, 30%) but you cannot cite a specific source?
The arrogance to think they can legislate against 10,000 years of mutualism between human and domesticated animal is astounding. If this prohibition were somehow to pass and was somehow enforceable in any way, It will only serve to further disconnect people from nature and from animals, and lead to increased ignorance about animal welfare: out of sight, out of mind. What will they do with Aquarium of the Bay or San Francisco Zoo?
DC = "Doctor of Chiropractic", a Doctor.
If you think you'd be better off going to a BigPharma shill like an "MD", cross your fingers and get ready for the prescriptions.
It's interesting that DCs are the only "Doctors" that feel they need to marginalize other medical doctors. I do not hear from an internist that the surgeon is bought off by "BigCutlery", nor do i see the optometrist spit when he refers to the optician's chart.
I think it's irresponsible for any medical practitioner to dissuade pursuing a second opinion in such an intimidating, dismissive manner. It is perfectly fine to hold this opinion personally; However, for the practice of patient care, a doctor needs to leave these personal prejudices outside of the waiting room. To come out swinging against evidence-based medicine (e.g. "MD" doctors) when you hold such a position of authority over your own patients is malpractice.
keeping
it close to your body where it absorbs in through the skin has been
suspected as the cause for skin and nervous system issues over the past ~20
years.
So why doesn't everyone have kidney and bladder cancer? those organs are in continual, unending contact with urea. or do you believe that skin is the only porous human body tissue?
It's no coincidence that when some
chiropractors work on infants (I refuse those under ~3, allowing their
spines time to set), they notice that diaper rash is almost a guarantee of
spinal and nerve issues. Without thinking, the parents are filling their
precious child's system full of urea and other toxins.
Actually,parts of the skeletal structure are still in development well into puberty (e.g. cranial sutures). By recommending spinal manipulating >3yrs, you're recommending potentially maiming a person that you think has a completely "set" spine. this is not based on any science nor reasonable health practitioner's recommendation; in fact, you'd have trouble finding any medical doctor (not chiropractor) to state that diaper rash is a nervous issue. to treat diaper rash, look for horses, not zebras. and keep 3yr olds out of the chiropractor's office!
Slashdot Mirror
Awareness of the ways that language shapes your thoughts can help you exert more control over your life and take greater responsibility for what happens to you.
Taking account of the effect of language and syntax may have an augmentive effect, but if even our genetics can't completely determine our proclivities to smoke, drink, and eat, how can we suggest that language has such a profound effect upon our health over biology? The language is certainly intriguing, but we should look at this as a surface phenomenon when other factors, social, biological, or otherwise, have already been shown to have significant effects on our health. I suggest It is self-acualisation, rather than mere language usage, that allows one to exert control over one's life.
What would "I lost my job because I work for an asshole?" qualify as?
That would also be external. However, if you consider that a large part of perception is really projection, this statement may reveal more about the person that lost their job than their boss.
Germany is heavily dependant on its European neighbours to import what .de is exporting. Lets revisit this in 5 years after the Eurozone has been enfeebled through austerity measures and attrition. I'd be surprised if such a strong correlation between language and syntax will be drawn in the near future.
That there aren't many women who are smart? That's just plain bizarre.
I read the article and figured this was written to encourage even more girls to be interested in science.
It's interesting how much perception is really projection.
whoosh!!
only when they want to be.
The multitasking, the notifications, and the fact it mounts as a USB storage device are all superior on webOS and the HP Touchpad vs. the ipad. If only someone at HP could sift the gold from the dross; they already have a capable mobile OS that could put them on a competitive advantage over Nokia, RIM, and Motorola. GUI is everything for these tablets, and android still is not as polished on the touchpad like webOS is. Hopefully open sourcing it will allow a fork that is helmed by someone that actually respects what webOS has done right.
auto 'scuttle' function could be cheap; it's not like the drone is made out of the black box material.
he's using a Zagg. the keyboard is integrated into the hard ipad case.
offering the phone's passcode is testimonial. this would fall under 5th amendment protections for the individual.
don't forget the sidebar "Classic Wines of Estonia"
Dude, it's doctor bob. you must be new here.
Condoms ARE NOT TO PREVENT THE SPREAD OF STDs.
Citation please?
To say what you are saying is to spread potentially fatal misinformation. Please provide your citation and we'll know who to blame. This is cut from the same cloth as the anti-vaccinators.
For those willing to look past this poster's crypto-fundamentalist agenda, the Centre for Disease Control states on page 2 of the Fact Sheet for Medical Personnel: Male Latex Condoms and Sexually Transmitted Diseases,
Sexually transmitted diseases, including HIV Latex condoms, when used consistently and correctly, are highly effective in preventing transmission of HIV, the virus that causes AIDS. In addition, correct and consistent use of latex condoms can reduce the risk of other sexually transmitted diseases (STDs), including discharge and genital ulcer diseases.
100% of the population has at least a phase 2 subluxation.
But I have this rock that protects me from subluxations.
That's bordering on slander.
Chiropractic has saved countless millions of lives without drugs and surgery. On the contrary, it's the Big Pharma controlled Medical system that are the frauds.
- Has an MD ever cured a subluxation? No.
Why would they cure a subluxion? The General Chiropractic Council, the UK's chiropractic regulatory agency run by chiropractors, states that subluxions have nothing to do with disease:
"The chiropractic vertebral subluxation complex is an historical concept but it remains a theoretical model. It is not supported by any clinical research evidence that would allow claims to be made that it is the cause of disease."
By law, in the UK you cannot make any of the claims you have posted above.
Forget about slander, lets talk about libel, legal liability and false advertising.
The fact is, tho, that you can't 100% tax either one of them, so the study of this hypothesis is simply an exercise designed to show the futility of raising taxes on "the rich."
You're actually missing the point of the original example, which is summarized in the same Jeffrey Sachs Huffington Post article:
The real point is obvious. The money received by the richest households is vast, and higher taxes on the rich will make a major contribution to closing the deficit. Nobody says that the rich should carry the entire tax burden or that spending cuts shouldn't play a role. The waste in military spending alone is so large that we can and should save at least 2 percent of GDP per year from the defense budget alone.
America's richest households have enjoyed quite a ride in recent decades as they've accumulated a mountain of wealth unprecedented in human history, at a time when much of the rest of society has been suffering. The average income tax rate paid by the top 1% has declined from 34.5% in 1980 to just 23.27% in 2008. During this period, the share of total income accruing to the richest 1% has soared from 8.5% in 1980 to 20% in 2008. The share of total AGI accruing to the top 10% of taxpayers has similarly risen from 32% in 1980 to 46% of income in 2008.
Sony has had a resolute and unyielding drive to limit their products ever since they bought Columbia Records in '87 and Columbia Pictures in '89.
I wish that were the case: if Sony really had limited their products, we would have been spared Mariah Carey in the 90s.
according to the Wall Street Journal, taxing the rich at a 100% rate would still only raise $938B, while our deficit is $1,650B.
With great bravado, the Journal claims that even the income of the top 10% of the taxpayers wouldn't close the deficit. The top 10% reported $3,856 billion in AGI, equal to 46% of total reported income in the United States, almost 27 percent of GDP. On that, they paid $721 billion in personal federal income taxes, or an average of 18.7% of income. If the remaining 81% of income were paid in federal income taxes, the increment in tax revenues would be more than $3,100 billion, or roughly 21% of GDP. The budget deficit would obviously be closed many times over.
source
thanks
Wanna fix this? The best way is to grow the economy. Taxing the rich won't do it - according to the Wall Street Journal, taxing the rich at a 100% rate would still only raise $938B, while our deficit is $1,650B. Not enough..
Can you provide your source for this? The United States has more millionairesthan any other country on the world.
The ability to spread news to millions of people NEEDS to have more than just a single password.
how many passwords do you have to protect yourself from the "reply all" e-mail button?
Nah. This is 'common knowledge' in law, law enforcement, the courts, and other legal and various areas of sociology and psychology. Whether you think I need sources is moot
argumentum ad populum. You give specific numbers (40%, 30%) but you cannot cite a specific source?
The arrogance to think they can legislate against 10,000 years of mutualism between human and domesticated animal is astounding. If this prohibition were somehow to pass and was somehow enforceable in any way, It will only serve to further disconnect people from nature and from animals, and lead to increased ignorance about animal welfare: out of sight, out of mind. What will they do with Aquarium of the Bay or San Francisco Zoo?
DC = "Doctor of Chiropractic", a Doctor. If you think you'd be better off going to a BigPharma shill like an "MD", cross your fingers and get ready for the prescriptions.
It's interesting that DCs are the only "Doctors" that feel they need to marginalize other medical doctors. I do not hear from an internist that the surgeon is bought off by "BigCutlery", nor do i see the optometrist spit when he refers to the optician's chart.
I think it's irresponsible for any medical practitioner to dissuade pursuing a second opinion in such an intimidating, dismissive manner. It is perfectly fine to hold this opinion personally; However, for the practice of patient care, a doctor needs to leave these personal prejudices outside of the waiting room. To come out swinging against evidence-based medicine (e.g. "MD" doctors) when you hold such a position of authority over your own patients is malpractice.
keeping it close to your body where it absorbs in through the skin has been suspected as the cause for skin and nervous system issues over the past ~20 years.
So why doesn't everyone have kidney and bladder cancer? those organs are in continual, unending contact with urea. or do you believe that skin is the only porous human body tissue?
It's no coincidence that when some chiropractors work on infants (I refuse those under ~3, allowing their spines time to set), they notice that diaper rash is almost a guarantee of spinal and nerve issues. Without thinking, the parents are filling their precious child's system full of urea and other toxins.
Actually,parts of the skeletal structure are still in development well into puberty (e.g. cranial sutures). By recommending spinal manipulating >3yrs, you're recommending potentially maiming a person that you think has a completely "set" spine. this is not based on any science nor reasonable health practitioner's recommendation; in fact, you'd have trouble finding any medical doctor (not chiropractor) to state that diaper rash is a nervous issue. to treat diaper rash, look for horses, not zebras. and keep 3yr olds out of the chiropractor's office!