Thanks. I obviously had some biases there, but it does feel good to have it called nearly unbiased, and to answer your question, yes it was written on the spot in the little box after I had read what he asked. It was however something I'd already given a lot of thought to so the ideas were already mostly formed.
I'm not attacking your right to bear arms. I was asking about why that right was given.
A few major reasons. First and foremost, the Constitution was thought to be a document to goveron the nation for, at most, a generation or so. After that it would be scrapped, and rewritten as more appropiate to the times, (although I would be hard pressed to find something I like better). The Founding Fathers were concerned that THEY not some future despot would become drunk with power and try to oppress the people. Remember that we were less than ten years from a fairly bloody conflict with our (and your) parent nation.
The theory was that the people should have the ability (not necessarily the right) to overthrow the government, should it become necessary. Indeed history shows us that in most cases despots have first disarmed the populace:
"Both oligarch and tyrant mistrust the people, and therefore deprive them of arms."
-Aristotle
The people of the various provinces are strictly forbidden to have in their possession any swords, short swords, bows, spears, firearms, or other types of arms. The possession of unnecessary implements makes difficult the collection of taxes and dues and tends to foment uprisings. -- Toyotomi Hideyoshi,
dictator of Japan, August 158
Every Communist must grasp the truth, 'Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.' -- Mao Tse-tung, 1938, inadvertently endorsing the Second Amendment.
The Founding Fathers had some very specific viewpoints about it as well.
Are we at last brought to such a humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defence? Where is the difference between having our arms in our own possession and under our own direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defence be the *real* object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands? -- Patrick Henry, speech of June 9 1788
"As to the species of exercise, I advise the gun. While this gives [only] moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise, and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun, therefore, be the constant companion to your walks."
-- Thomas Jefferson, writing to his teenaged nephew.
Men trained in arms from their infancy, and animated by the love of liberty, will afford neither a cheap or easy conquest.
-- From the Declaration of the Continental Congress, July 1775.
There was legitimate fear that the government would become corrupt, and NEED to be overthrown because the people would be unable to remove the corrupt from power.
From our Declaration of Independence:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
This is a small section of the document that many Americans actually feel is more important than the constitution. After all, there are several perfectly legitimate ways to organize a government. Furthermore, a constitution needs to change with the times.
Over the years how we have interpeted and taken this portion of the Declaration has changed. Now, we a
I think its a mistake for Novell to keep Netware around, they should just focus on developing for the linux kernel.
Most likely they are hedging their bet with the SCO thing. Sure SCO doesn't appear to have a case, TO US! But how often have we been flat out suprised by court decisions? Continuing to develop on both platforms does two things. It makes their business viable should SCO win. They can simply drop Linux and go back to NetWare, and two and more importantly, it makes it look to the stockholders that they are being prepared for the future should SCO win, thus 'enhancing shareholder value'.
As for the quality of each suffering, I doubt it. If they're smart, they'll develop the kernels seperatly, and make the system and application software useful for either. That way, should SCO loose, they can move over to a Linux kernel, and be able to use it as a drop in replacement, on the other hand, should SCO win, they can drop Linux, and all of the software people had could be used with a Netware variant. I'm not sure what that would take, but that's what I would aim for were I in their position.
Remember, if sharholders can prove by a perpodereance of the evidence that decisions you made as CEO or board, were less than optimal given the information you had, you can be sued. Playing both for a while seems like the safest bet. It means that the shareholders might not make as much as they could have, on the other hand, Novell has protected them by increasing the likelihood of the companie's continued existence no matter the outcome of the SCO thing.
You don't. Unless the telco's are going to shut down the offenders on their own (and do you think they will?) we'll basically start to get our calls from other countries.
I already do get most of my telemarketer calls from other countries.
The correct answer for annoying telemarketing, as well as annoying spam is not to go after the "Direct Marketing" firms. Instead go after those who hire them.
Don't go after the guy spamming you. He can hide, he can move around, he can spoof addresses, and make it difficult. Instead, nail the company that hired him. If they want to sell to you, they have to have a way to exchange mone for goods or services. There has to be a way to contact them, and therefore they by necessity can not hide.
Going after the spammer, or telemarketer makes you feel better, and is more immeadate, but making it financially risky for a company to use either will be a far more permanant solution, and will prevent at least U.S. companies from using either technique. Then it would be simply foreign companies that might telemarket or spam, but since international purchases are always a bit more complicated, it should permanantly knock spam and telemarketing back.
Face it's true. If you say that there could be mass voter fraud, no one will believe it, unless it's shown to them in a horribly embarassing way. Therefore, what needs to happen is this:
In some small voting district (preferably one of the smallest in the nation) that has electronic voting, some third party candidate, or even better a write in candidate needs to get AT LEAST twice the total world population voting for him. Someone would for sure get arrested for the unforgivable and henious crime, not of election fraud, but of making the powers that be look bad. At least done this way, the obvious defense would be that harm could already be done, this person just made sure it was known since no one would listen. Not that I think that would help much.
However if some lunatic fringe candidate were to get 900% or 1000% of the total possible vote, and all of that were to come from the same district or even pricinct, there would be some attention given to it.
We take our voting majority, and run SCO promptly into the ground - eating that $77 loss per person.
Others have pointed out some of the other problems with your plan, you also have to worry about minority shareholder lawsuits. If, as a majority shareholder (or group of majority shareholders) you do anything that does not directly enhance shareholder value, you can be sued for whatever the company 'would have made' How this is determined is unknown to me, however I suspect that it is fairly arbitrary. If someone actually comes foreward with a plan to drive the stock into the ground, it would make it obvious that the actions were planed and malicious, so there would likely be punitive actions if not criminal charges.
This is supposed to prevent the majority shareholders from taking the money and running. Obviously it doesn't work as recent corporate failures can attest, but whether or not it actually works, you would still have some serious risk.
This is actually why CEO's can command such high salaries. When a 'superstar' CEO is hired, the stock often goes up a great deal. A company who has the ability to pay a 'superstar' CEO enough to keep others from hiring him away, and doesn't can be sued if it can be shown (by perponderence of the evidence, NOT reasonable doubt) that their stock value would have been greater were that CEO hired, the company can be held liable for damages.
That said, I like the idea in principle. I would love to run SCO, Microsoft, and everyone (the parent companies, not the subsidaries) involved in the RIAA, MPAA or mass media completely into the ground. Eliminate the companies, and make it so that no other like them could ever rise.
Ouch... my sympathies. Had a tree fall through my roof (as in, new skylight) about 9 months ago and it sucked... a fire is far, far worse though. Hope everyone was safe and it didn't destroy anything irreplacable.
Thanks. It wasn't too bad. The kitchen was a total loss, but that's rather nice now. Fortunatly we got it out before it could spread beyond that.
Actually not to get too far off topic here, but the fire wasn't the worst part. Sure there was the shock, the loss, and the massive inconvinence, but the very worst part was dealing with the contractors when rebuilding. They did a shotty job. They took forever, overcharged, said they'd come right over and not show up for a week. If I had been making the decisions I would have fired them, but I wasn't making the decisions.
The insurence companies are just as bad. Ours told us we HAD to use that particular contractor or they wouldn't pay. I knew this to be false, but when your house burns you aren't thinking too clearly. We should have gotten a lawyer. At least I'm paying him to be on MY side, even if he has about the same ethics as the insurence company or contractor.
When I was looking at the codes, the prices, and whatnot a couple years ago the plenum cable was about 5x more expensive... turning a $100 roll of cable into a $500 one.
Well, that IS a bit pricy, Although I can't afford a serious home network either way. It is true you can get away with a lot, and not have problems, and I doubt the regular wire would truly cause a problem. Still once you've had it happen, you get FAR more paranoid than you were. Kind of a fire extinguisher or two in every room, a smoke detector in every room, walls made of shuttle heat shield tiles[1] etc.
there is no requirement for plenum cable in residences.
That's a fairly bold statment. After all, many codes are city and even neighborhood based in many areas. Sure, there is no NATIONAL requirment for it, but many municipalities might. The only way to know for sure would be to do an exaustive search which would take time, since much of that information is not available on the internet.
Having recently had a fire, I would recommend it. The drywall is actually a pretty good fireblock. Made from gypsum, it WILL burn, but not nearly as easily as wood. I know this because I was in the room at the time. The nearby wood was on fire, the drywall next to it was not, but the paint on it was.
Fire tends to get into walls and celings through perforations in the drywall, such as light fixtures, and various plug or outlet jacks, whether they be phone, power, cable or network.
If the cable were to catch fire in one of these, it could easily transfer the fire from where there is nothing else particularly flamable, to something quite a bit more flamable.
It might not be needed, but most people who have had a house fire would rather be a bit paranoid than go on the cheap, and risk another. House fires really, really suck.
Re:alternatives and cultural rant ahead...
on
Working with ADHD?
·
· Score: 1
Do you have any idea what you are talking about? Without meds, I couldn't be tested accuratly, HOWEVER various patterns could be discerned. Depedning upon various things, when various parts of the tests were taken seperatly, my IQ ranged from 180 to about 40. With the meds it settled around 140-150. I could take the same section of test several times and score all over the place.
The entire point is that WITH meds I COULD be tested. Without them I could not. That would seem to indicate a difference to most intelligent people
Re:alternatives and cultural rant ahead...
on
Working with ADHD?
·
· Score: 1
But it doesn't change the fact that you've acted like an ass this entire discussion. Good day
I would agree with that, but given the degree I've had to deal with complete assholes, regarding this particular subject, that is just about the only way I have left to react. If it was unwarrented in your case, I apologize. I have the ability to be completely rational about nearly anything else, but this I tend to be reactionary about. Go figure.
Re:alternatives and cultural rant ahead...
on
Working with ADHD?
·
· Score: 1
Agreed, but it isn't going to happen. No matter how much you stamp your feet and say it should be such, it isn't going to happen without mass violence, which would be unacceptable.
Violence isn't necessary, just politics and advocacy.
I really wish I could believe that. You must have had a better experience that I in school. It was not germane to the discussion so I did not discuss it here, but when you're too smart, and make the teachers look dumb they punish you too. That aspect has been discussed to death on slashdot (read nearly anything by Katz). In highschool, I had similar problems on the opposite end of the scale. The school system is broken. It can't be repaired, only dismantled and rebuilt. Unfortunatly, they are also the ones deciding what you learn and how you learn it. Want to be scared? Go to the nea website and read some the things they have to say. I watched an anti education system paranoia piece, and read the nea website the same day, and IMNSHO I found the paranoid didn't go quite far enough. In one piece by the president of the nea I read that the teaching of facts and skills weren't important. It was far more important to theach the right social, philisophical and political outlook.
I assume you took the meds. Did you then jump through the school ranks? Did you advance even one year ahead, or even fill your last year of HS with college level courses? If not, stop bragging.
Grade level jumping wasn't allowed at that time when I was medicated in sixth grade, my teacher tried to get me advanced a year, they wouldn't even review it. I DID fill the first half of my senior year in high school with AP courses, and took one my junior year. The second semester I said fuck it. I had tried to take government in summer school and graduate a semester early (the earliest allowed in my district), but I wasn't allowed as it was full of people who hadn't passed government, and they had priority, so my second semester I filled up on crap classes because government was the only one that mattered, and I just didn't care any more. If not for needing that last government credit however, I would have been out a few months early.
College however was a bit of a rude awakening. Not at first. The first couple of semesters were easier than high school, and I got lazy. When the upper division stuff hit, I got bit.
Sorry if I pissed you off. But social promotion is a load of BS. If a kid can't cut the grade, give them a different teacher, put them in a different school, or make them repeat it. If they still have problems, THEN you medicate.
I'll respond to this load of tripe in small words so you can understand them. Without medication, I tested at two grades below grade level. Two days after starting medication I tested at three above. I couldn't keep on task long enough to BE tested accuratly. In sixth grade I tested out above most college graduates with meds.
I find it deeply offensive, that someone such as yourself would demand that I spend several extra years in the hell that is the public indoctrination system just because I was not 'mature' enough to handle the moronic setup they have. If I held out any hope that it could be changed I would advocate for such change, but it NEVER will change. No amount of advocacy, politics or any other peaceful solutions will fix it.
I will freely admit however that it is possible that I would have done better in a different environment. My parents DID try to put me in private school, but it was too expensive. They tried a different teacher, but were told that it wouldn't happen, and they tried for a different public school, they were likewise told that that was forbidden (I'm told that this has changed now).
I want to hear from you what ADD / ADHD is, without you falling back on medical arcana that describe the biology behind the condition without describing the condition.
Which is precisely why I never took any of my meds to the school nurse to dole-out. Its none of their goddamned business to begin with & there was no way I was going to sell or give my meds to anyone. You're not required by law (who gives a shit about school rules?) to take your meds to them. My suggestion to everyone is simply don't.
That may depend upon the state. I was told that it was a law. It may have been a lie. I did have to have it at school however. It wore off too soon, and I had problems the last half of the day. They were also worried about possible theft. I was told that a number of kids had been beaten and robbed to get the stuff, but in retrospect, that sounds more like scare tactics than truth.
Re:alternatives and cultural rant ahead...
on
Working with ADHD?
·
· Score: 1
No offense to teachers, but they're often morons.
More often than not in my expierence. I work at a University in Tech support. The education majors are the ones who most often make me wish for computing licenses.
Kids with ADHD, kids with learning disabilities, and kids who advance faster (why isn't THAT called a medical condition?) all do best when given a different environment than "normal" kids. If education wised up to this, and adapted as necessary, we wouldn't have the problems we do.
Agreed, but it isn't going to happen. No matter how much you stamp your feet and say it should be such, it isn't going to happen without mass violence, which would be unacceptable.
Still, in Second Grade you're not doing anything stressful enough to merit correction. If you can't cut it, they should take you out of school or put you back in first grade (and before that, a different teacher).
Well, you were doing so good at not pissing me off, and now you have to go say something like this. Without the meds, I could have repeated the first grade several times without being able to handle things. With the meds, I would have easily been able to handle fourth or fifth. As I said before, if you don't know what it's like maybe you ought to keep your mouth shut and learn from someone who DOES know what it is like.
You have ADHD? Great. Good for you. But that doesn't make you special or handicapped. You are different, and that's it. To treat you otherwise is a disservice to you and a disservice to me.
I'm not asking for special tratment. I don't believe in special treatment. I do however get rather pissed off when some dumbass flippantly says "Lean to concentrate, it isn't that hard." It IS hard without the help. Hard enough that when it has been required of me without the meds, I became suicidal. I couldn't do it.
I sincerely wish I could curse every asshole who just doesn't understand it with ADD for a while, and just see what they thought then. I suspect their perspective would change.
Now, all that bias aside--what, exactly, is ADHD like subjectively that merits it as a conditon?
What is it that doesn't make it a condition? There are differences on cat scans, there are dramatic responses to medications, where there aren't in most others. I really hate people who say "It's so simple you should just..." If you don't have conrete experence in something, it is impossible for you to understand. Your comments and flippiant attitude are not helpful, they are harmful, and I reserve the right to loathe you and wish you ill.
Re:alternatives and cultural rant ahead...
on
Working with ADHD?
·
· Score: 1
See my many other posts on this topic for my full opinion (in short, medication absoltuely fine and good for people who really do NEED it--like you--you say the same thing). I guess from your post you are right--I can't even begin to imagine killing myself NOW, and in 2nd grade--I don't think I even knew that I could kill myself back then.. I can't even begin to understand what could be so stressful about 2nd grade? If you don't mind my asking (and feel totally free to not answer) did you have a bad homelife?
I don't mind responding at all, I had a good home life. My parents never beat me, I had pretty good freedom and dicipline, and was taught pretty well right and wrong. It was the stress of the attempt to use something other than medication. I couldn't do it. Once I left that class, and got into a situaton where the teacher didn't care if I wiggled, or talked out of turn or anything else, all of the symptoms lessened, and the massive stress went away.
My parents were bullied into doing what she and the school shrink wanted. They were told that it was OBVIOUSLY their fault, and that I would be taken away from them if I didn't improve (I imagine that they stress this gave them increased the stress on me). The things I was put through were so stressful to me that I would have done anything to end it. My parents tried to get me into private school, but money was tight then, and private school wasn't an option.
I likely overreact when people talk about behaivorial therapy, but my experience with it was so horrendus, that I do not have the ability not to react in anything resembling a calm manner.
By the time I hit sixth grade, I had a teacher that was a former nurse, recognized what was going on immeadately. The medication turned me around completely, and school was a breeze from then on (of course I learned NOT to study, which came back and bit me when I started taking graduate level classes in college).
The problem with Ritalin is that it tends to remove a person's sense of right and wrong
Bullshit. Good parenting does that.
ALL of the kids who were involved in these mass school shootings were on Ritalin or similar substances. Obviously, it doesn't usually affect a person to that degree, but the effect is there nonetheless.
Reference please? At least most of them did however have serious problems both at home and at school, seeing as at least one murdered his parents too.
Note that I'm not talking about any individual case (I'm sure there _are_ valid uses of Ritalin), just that, for the most part, it is being misperscribed because society wants children to "sit still and listen" when they (especially boys), have the need to roam and explore. People who do not go along with the status quo are labelled as having a disorder, when actually they are the ones who keep society living and vibrant.
I would to a small degree except with you "for the most part" statment, although the way things are going that might not be false for too long.
You did hit on something interesting here however, most grade school teachers are female. We are taught by the ultra left liberal commie bastards[1] that there are no differences between men and women. These teachers often can't abide how little boys think and work. They want them to act like little girls, and that does cause a lot of problem. I saw a study once (I wish I had a reference) that showed that boys raised with only a female influence were more likely to have the 'macho' attitudes that many have been trying to eliminate from society. I tend to think a male role model teachs boys how to deal with agressive instincts properly.
The trouble is also when the problems are severe. Emotional control is very difficult. It is possible to clamp down on an emptional outburst, but without meds, it is very difficult. I sometimes wonder who wrote the Vulcans on Star Trek. They are supposed to have eliminated emotion because Vulcan emotions are so hard to control. If I let myself get angry, I loose it entirely. I have to clamp it down or face serious life altering consequences. The medication makes this a lot easier.
I said in response to someone else who asked if ADD existed 100 years ago, that it did, but wasn't noticed. People were either lazy or dreamers, and while some went on to accomplish great things others became the town drunk.
It would be nice if society changed so that I didn't need medication to get by, but if I don't want to go live in a cabin in Montana, I need the medication. It makes me more compatible with society, and I don't think society is likely to change so radically for me.
[1] If you can't figure it out, I lean toward the right on my politics.
Re:ADHD a thing of the 90s?
on
Working with ADHD?
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
First, I want to complement you on a being somewhat sensitive on the subject. You have legitimate questions, and you phrased them farily well, and unlike a lot of people on slashdot didn't just get flippant about it.
1. Did ADHD exist 100 years ago? Did people care 100 years ago?
Yes, most likely. A lot were called lazy or dreamers. Some managed to do great things, others ended up the town drunk.
2. What percentage of people are diagnosed with ADHD?
I don't know exactly, but more than actually have it. It is very real, but most likely overdiagnosed. It also however correlates highly with various problems such as stressful birth, and chemical abuse by the mother, which may be on the rise. As an aside, even when a woman stops drugs or drinking when she finds out she is pregnant, the damage is often already done, particular with such things as fetal alcohol syndrome.
3. Is there different levels of ADHD? Different advancements? Different Types?
Yes, which leads me to believe that at least some are completely different disorders, with different causes. Remember psychology isn't particularly old. When formal medicine was as old as psychology is now, humors were thought to be important. As a field it is still in it's infancy. In a thousand years, people will look back at what we now believe about psychology and wonder how we could have possibly thought that.
4. Would you say ADHD is over-diagnosed? In other words, I've met a number of people considered ADHD that I would consider perfectly normal.
See question 2, but you also learn coping skills. These skills work for a limited time (such as around friends, but can cause difficulty on people you are around more often. It's pretty easy to keep up a facade for a few hours, even without medication, but all the time is hard. Keep in mind too that they may have been medicated.
5. Is ADHD chemical or psychological? Both? Is there a difference?
6. Don't take this wrong, but I admit I've never met ADHD from what I would consider good parents (i.e., teach their children how to work hard and focus long); so the question, how related is ADHD to broken homes, absent parenting, stifled creativity, abuse, general over-disciplen, or the so called spoiled brat situation?
I'll take these two things together. There are people who have a verifiable chemical imbalence in the brain. This chemical imbalance produces symptoms of ADD. There are also spoiled brats. Some of these spoiled brats have symptoms of ADD. Since psychology studies behaivor and then determines a diagnosis, it can be difficult to tell them apart. It is roughly equivilant to listening to a description of heart pain and making a diagnosis of a particular heart condition. Unfortunatly, that's about the best that can be done right now. As I've said before, psychology is a field of scinece it is only around 100 years old.
7. I have heard before ADHD is related to stress and/or a lack of exercise on the part of the mother during pregnancy. Has either of these been in a study? Confirmed?
There have been a lot of studies done, and ADD correlates with stress on the mother, lack of exercise, too much exercise, drug use, alcohol use, and a whole lot of other things. The data is rather contradictory, and none of the correlations are particularly strong, but they are present.
There are also correlations to the diet of the mother during pregnancy, the child's diet, various diseases at a young age, as well as several other thing I can't remember and don't feel like looking up.
I tend to feel that ADD and most other psychological disorders are actually several diverse problems that merely present similarly. Until technology advances further than it has, it is hard to know. Certian types of severe indigestion feel exactly like a heart attack for example.
I'm not a rabid anti-psycholgist. My psyciatrist saved my life. I'm forever grateful to him and his profession, but I also recognize that it is a young science, and they are flailing around in the dark a lot. Still, I think they help more than they hurt.
Re:How to deal with ADHD, please read.
on
Working with ADHD?
·
· Score: 1
How have you coped with diabetes, and how have you found it affect your work performance? Do you object to having diabetes?
First stop labeling yourself as a victim, and learn to understand how your body works. So you easily get ill or the shakes, then you just need to eat right.
Overall, insulin is not the solution, you will ALWAYS have diabetes if you hide behind injections, labels, and make yourself a victim, the only cure for diabetes is accepting the fact that you get sick easily, or that you are not eating correctly, and deciding to change your thinking process.
Come on. If one part of the body can fail to work correctly so can another. Yes ADD is horribly misdiagnosed. I can tell you that it does exist. I've tried the diets. They didn't work and they made me sick. I tried the 'therapy' to modify your way of thinking. At nine-years old, I attempted suicide.
I am irrecovably convinced that anyone with the above attitude is guilty of a crime against humanity, as someone might believe the tripe they are shoveling, and that they should be punished accordingly. I was tortured for over a year because a bitch of a teacher I had believed as you do. I had ulcers, threw up several times daily, couldn't sleep because of the nightmares, broke down and cried several times daily, had absolutely no emotional control, could concentrate less than before, it was the most horrible time of my life.
People like YOU nearly caused me to end my life. I spend a year with sleep depravation, and horrible stomache pains because of the stress inflicted by the inhumane attitude you have. You and your ilk make me sick.
Reread that again. There is a key phrase there....to a degree that is maladaptive and inconsistent with developmental level:
In chidren these are kids that have a significantly worse time with the listed problems than other kids of the same age. This is the kid that can not sit as still, no matter the punishment, that can't pay attention as (at least to something boring), no matter the effort put in.
If you reread that carefully, it isn't someone who just does those things, but does those things to a point that it is a problem, where it isn't for someone else at their development level.
Re:alternatives and cultural rant ahead...
on
Working with ADHD?
·
· Score: 1
F*CKING SIT DOWN AND CONCENTRATE. I had a bitch of a teacher try this 'technique' on me in second grade. I tried to kill myself. If you don't know what it's like, shut the fuck up and go the fuck away.
While I was undergoing this 'therapy' I would wake up screaming 3-4 times a night, I began wetting the bed again, I had a number of suicide attempts, I had ulcers, severe depression, and a significantly harder time concentrating.
Once that crap stopped, my grades improved, the nightmares stopped, I stopped trying to kill myself, the ulcers went away, and my life generally improved. As a rule of thumb, if a nine-year old is attempting suicide, something is wrong.
In someone with ADD, the brain does not produce many of the chemicals required for proper function. The addition of similar chemicals, or stimulants that help produce those chemicals helps.
If you restrict prescription meds, people with ADD WILL self medicate either with illegal (and unregulated) drugs, or with legal over the counter drugs such as caffine. Many people with undiagnosed ADD will OD on caffine daily, just to be able to interact reasonably with society. Caffine does work, you just have to take enough of it that some of the other side effects outweigh any benefit.
No one ever said stuff was supposed to be easy.
Many people who have never expierenced ADD think the answer is so simple. Once I was medicated (at twelve), I went from D's to A's, and everything actually was completely simple. I breezed through school, never studied, never did more than the assignments, and was often able to make the teachers look foolish just from the provided material.
You may get irritated when someone gets a little help, but I get irritated when someone who obvously hasn't had the severe problems bitches and moans knowing for sure that they are right because they KNOW from one aquaitance who was probably misdiagnosed.
This is actually the terrible problem with ADHD. Parents see children with ADD medicated, and going from the worst student in the class to the best. They feel slighted that little Johnny isn't doing so well, so they take little Johnny down and demand drugs. Little Johnny doesn't need it, but he is given them anyway.
Somewhere else someone said that 1 in 8 cases are misdiagnosed. In children I would say at least 50%, because a lot of parents can't deal with their kid not being as capable as another, so something must be wrong.
This unfortunatly, makes life difficult for those of us who DO actually need it.
I was placed on Ritilan at a young age, and it helped a great deal. I went from sitting most of the day daydreaming, and taking all of my homework home, and getting straight D's to getting my work all done in school, still goofing off most of the day and getting straight A's.
I stopped it a few years later becasue they make it such a hassle to get and take care of in school. I had to go into the councilor's office, get her attention and get my pills. If the regular person wasn't there, I had to explain to someone else what was going on. Several times I was accused of faking and just being an addict.
Later in my life I had further trouble, but Ritilan wasn't really an option. I was placed on Imipramine. It didn't work as well, but at least gave me the ability to control my emotions a bit better. It had some side effects with giving me really wierd blood readings, and I had to stand up very slowly or pass out. If I ever had to move somewhere quickly, I usually just hit the floor. Later I was placed on Cylert. It wasn't quite as effective as Ritilan, but was marginally cheaper, and I didn't have drug insurence. It also didn't give me the ups and downs of Ritilan.
A few years ago, the company who made Cylert reported that there had been several cases of "Acute Hepatic failure" in individuals also taking cylert. There were something like fifteen or so cases out of about 500,000 individuals on the drug, and there was no other information about possible causes, other combinations of drugs being taken, or other diseases that might have caused it. I'm sure that the patent expiration of cylert, and the simultanious release of this information were just coincedental.
I stayed on cylert for a while, but had to have regular blood tests to check the health of my liver. It was fine. Later when I got a job that gave drug benefits, I went to Concerta.
Concerta is just Ritilan, but it's in a special capsule that has small holes in it. It releases drug in a controled manner. It works much like the sustained release Ritilan, but much better, as the sustained release isn't chemical it's mechanical.
If you don't have drug benefits, Concerta is extremely expensive, and of course patened.
Before I was placed on medication, they tried Behaivor modification therapy on me, and my expierence with that has irrevocably convinced me that anyone attempting it or advocating it is guilty of a crime against humanity and should be punished accordingly. I was in second grade, and due to the stress and depression of their 'help' I attempted suicide. Nine year olds should not be so depressed and stressed that they attempt suicide. Once the crap was stopped, things got better. My headaches stopped, my nightmares stopped, my ulcers went away, and I felt much better.
As far as the 'natural' alternatives, I don't put much stock in them. Most haven't had serious study, and tend to sell on the grounds of having the word 'natural' tacked on the front. No one has ever sufficiently explained to me what something has to be to be called natural, as I've seen it on things actually found in nature, things refined from things found in nature, things synthesized, but identical to things refined from things found in nature, things created by genetically engineered organisms, etc. The attitude seems to be that anything natural can't hurt you, but some of the most deadly toxins are found in nature, so I really just can't have that attitude.
I do have an uncle who swears by his 'natural' treatment, but even when I'm not medicated, he strikes me as someone with poor attenton span and emotional control. When he took Ritilan he was sitll a pain, but was more tolerable. He however claims that the 'natural' (I have no idea what it is) stuff helps him better. I tend to doubt it.
Ritilan for me is the best treatment I've run across, talk to your doctor and pharmacist (often a pharmacist will know more about effects of the drugs than the doctor), also check with some of the various we
And yet, with all the documentation I recieved, nothing mentions this device. It seems that would be the place to put it if they weren't trying to keep it secret.
I heard about it, from television news, I heard about it to the point I was sick of hearing about it. I am one who strives to avoid television news, and I still heard far more about the blasted things than I wanted to. Explain to me just how this is keeping it secret.
It's not in the documentation because it isn't user servicable. Have you noticed how light auto manuals have become? Compare those to the old ones that occasionally described minor repairs. Some barely describe the minimal maintainence, and don't describe some things that many people would prefer to do themselves.
Spark plugs are easy to change, but they are no longer considered user servicable, so the infomation is disappearing from manuals. The attitude is that if you can't (or aren't likely to) mess with it, you don't need to know about it. Contrast this with the prevailing attitude among users of most things [1], which is that if I might have to think to use it, I don't want to know about it.
And that's your justification for a system that has _almost_ no benefitial uses? Your justification for a system that is being kept quiet?
First, I am telling you that a few years ago, so much noise was made about these damned things that I was ready to puke. It got almost as annoying as the OJ trial. If you missed it, I'm sorry, but I don't by any means find hour after hour of programming with people screaming for these things, and auto makers not wanting to put them in citing cost as keeping something secret. It's like saying they were keeping the OJ trial secret. I couldn't turn on the TV without hearing about it. That is by my definition NOT secret.
Now the first part of your statment was opinion, not fact. If you need a refresher course on the difference, see someone else. I tend to find both uses (provided only the last few seconds are used after a collision) beneficial, and as these devices are currently constructed, I find _almost_ no non-beneficial uses.
[1] If you don't believe that this is the prevailing attitude, the ban on cruel and unusual punishment needs to be lifted in such a case, and you need to be sentenced to working six months in tech support. I guarantee your attitude will change.
For one thing, this device that is spying on your actions has been kept secret.
WRONG. I can remember just a few years ago, the public was clamoring for these things. It seems there were some serious injuries due to airbag deployment in fairly minor collisions. The air bags were causeing more injuries than would have happened without them under certain cirumstances.
The devices were designed and placed in the cars becuse of several lawsuits against the auto industry due to air bag related injuries. The idea was to cause the air bag to inflate more slowly in more minor collisions, where it wouldn't need to reach full inflation quite as quickly.
As I recall, the data was kept so that insurence companies and car manufacturers could correlate the collision data with injury data, and fine tune the things.
Like them or not, they weren't kept secret. They were all over the news for almost a year.
I recently bought a GMC vehicle... Is there a device keeping track of every move I've ever made? I sure don't know about one, but that doesn't mean it's not there.
If you have an air bag, than it is likely. They are pretty much a part of the air bag deployment system, however you need to turn down the paranoia a notch. They keep track of the last 5 or so seconds, and that's about it. The data is only stored (as I understand it) when the airbag deploys. All they are for is to refine air bag systems. Someone has found a potential abuse for them, but they aren't there to invade privacy, they aren't recording everything you do, and they sure weren't kept secret.
I tend to think that they really can't be used to do much more than corroborate the data they can already get from the crash. In this case, they reported an exact speed (the wreckage and skidmarks would give a good estimate), and corroborated the experts. Someone trying to apply them where the data wasn't reliable would be easily picked apart by any competent lawyer, so that isn't a big deal either.
No matter what you create, the potential for abuse is there. Accurate face recognition could be used to track criminals, track political dissidents, track people for advertising, as a biometric for logging in, or to look through a video or picture collection for particular individuals (imagine databasing your family photos or home videos or pr0n in this way).
There is nothing that has been invented that hasn't been abused. We need to keep the abuse out, but the technology can be good.
Coulda, Woulda, Shoulda. Lets work on improving our space program instead of sulking over things we COULD have done better.
I have trouble beleving such a statment could ever be modded up. Did you hear anything at all about the information that was released regarding what they COULD have done? There were specific recomendations for changes to allow them to detect such things should there be problems again.
As I recall, they involved a rapid checklist for getting another shuttle in to orbit more quickly than usual. Rationing of food, water and oxygen on board the damaged shuttle, and visual observation of the shuttle EVERY flight using high power spy sattelites. Sattelites that can read newspaper headlines. They will KNOW if there is damage, and they will have plans for more possibilities.
The other very important this seems to makr is a major change in the way NASA is doing things. The last time, they tried to pass blame to Thiokol(sp?). Thiokol had recordings, and reports to NASA telling them several times of trouble with the O rings, and specifcally telling them not to launch the day they launched Challenger.
This time, NASA not only fessed up, but actually came foreward and said that they did several things wrong, and had they not been playing CYA, they would have been able to save them. This is actually big.
The whole point is that NASA has said that they could have saved them, therefore they are taking specific steps to be able to run rescue missions in the future. They could have just as easily have said that there is no way to run a rescue mission, and tried some ineffective, very visible 'safety feature' to make the burecrats look good.
This is far far more than "Coulda, Woulda, Shoulda".
Slashdot Mirror
Thanks. I obviously had some biases there, but it does feel good to have it called nearly unbiased, and to answer your question, yes it was written on the spot in the little box after I had read what he asked. It was however something I'd already given a lot of thought to so the ideas were already mostly formed.
A few major reasons. First and foremost, the Constitution was thought to be a document to goveron the nation for, at most, a generation or so. After that it would be scrapped, and rewritten as more appropiate to the times, (although I would be hard pressed to find something I like better). The Founding Fathers were concerned that THEY not some future despot would become drunk with power and try to oppress the people. Remember that we were less than ten years from a fairly bloody conflict with our (and your) parent nation.
The theory was that the people should have the ability (not necessarily the right) to overthrow the government, should it become necessary. Indeed history shows us that in most cases despots have first disarmed the populace:
The Founding Fathers had some very specific viewpoints about it as well.
There was legitimate fear that the government would become corrupt, and NEED to be overthrown because the people would be unable to remove the corrupt from power.
From our Declaration of Independence:
This is a small section of the document that many Americans actually feel is more important than the constitution. After all, there are several perfectly legitimate ways to organize a government. Furthermore, a constitution needs to change with the times.
Over the years how we have interpeted and taken this portion of the Declaration has changed. Now, we a
I think its a mistake for Novell to keep Netware around, they should just focus on developing for the linux kernel.
Most likely they are hedging their bet with the SCO thing. Sure SCO doesn't appear to have a case, TO US! But how often have we been flat out suprised by court decisions? Continuing to develop on both platforms does two things. It makes their business viable should SCO win. They can simply drop Linux and go back to NetWare, and two and more importantly, it makes it look to the stockholders that they are being prepared for the future should SCO win, thus 'enhancing shareholder value'.
As for the quality of each suffering, I doubt it. If they're smart, they'll develop the kernels seperatly, and make the system and application software useful for either. That way, should SCO loose, they can move over to a Linux kernel, and be able to use it as a drop in replacement, on the other hand, should SCO win, they can drop Linux, and all of the software people had could be used with a Netware variant. I'm not sure what that would take, but that's what I would aim for were I in their position.
Remember, if sharholders can prove by a perpodereance of the evidence that decisions you made as CEO or board, were less than optimal given the information you had, you can be sued. Playing both for a while seems like the safest bet. It means that the shareholders might not make as much as they could have, on the other hand, Novell has protected them by increasing the likelihood of the companie's continued existence no matter the outcome of the SCO thing.
You don't. Unless the telco's are going to shut down the offenders on their own (and do you think they will?) we'll basically start to get our calls from other countries.
I already do get most of my telemarketer calls from other countries.
The correct answer for annoying telemarketing, as well as annoying spam is not to go after the "Direct Marketing" firms. Instead go after those who hire them.
Don't go after the guy spamming you. He can hide, he can move around, he can spoof addresses, and make it difficult. Instead, nail the company that hired him. If they want to sell to you, they have to have a way to exchange mone for goods or services. There has to be a way to contact them, and therefore they by necessity can not hide.
Going after the spammer, or telemarketer makes you feel better, and is more immeadate, but making it financially risky for a company to use either will be a far more permanant solution, and will prevent at least U.S. companies from using either technique. Then it would be simply foreign companies that might telemarket or spam, but since international purchases are always a bit more complicated, it should permanantly knock spam and telemarketing back.
Face it's true. If you say that there could be mass voter fraud, no one will believe it, unless it's shown to them in a horribly embarassing way. Therefore, what needs to happen is this:
In some small voting district (preferably one of the smallest in the nation) that has electronic voting, some third party candidate, or even better a write in candidate needs to get AT LEAST twice the total world population voting for him. Someone would for sure get arrested for the unforgivable and henious crime, not of election fraud, but of making the powers that be look bad. At least done this way, the obvious defense would be that harm could already be done, this person just made sure it was known since no one would listen. Not that I think that would help much.
However if some lunatic fringe candidate were to get 900% or 1000% of the total possible vote, and all of that were to come from the same district or even pricinct, there would be some attention given to it.
We take our voting majority, and run SCO promptly into the ground - eating that $77 loss per person.
Others have pointed out some of the other problems with your plan, you also have to worry about minority shareholder lawsuits. If, as a majority shareholder (or group of majority shareholders) you do anything that does not directly enhance shareholder value, you can be sued for whatever the company 'would have made' How this is determined is unknown to me, however I suspect that it is fairly arbitrary. If someone actually comes foreward with a plan to drive the stock into the ground, it would make it obvious that the actions were planed and malicious, so there would likely be punitive actions if not criminal charges.
This is supposed to prevent the majority shareholders from taking the money and running. Obviously it doesn't work as recent corporate failures can attest, but whether or not it actually works, you would still have some serious risk.
This is actually why CEO's can command such high salaries. When a 'superstar' CEO is hired, the stock often goes up a great deal. A company who has the ability to pay a 'superstar' CEO enough to keep others from hiring him away, and doesn't can be sued if it can be shown (by perponderence of the evidence, NOT reasonable doubt) that their stock value would have been greater were that CEO hired, the company can be held liable for damages.
That said, I like the idea in principle. I would love to run SCO, Microsoft, and everyone (the parent companies, not the subsidaries) involved in the RIAA, MPAA or mass media completely into the ground. Eliminate the companies, and make it so that no other like them could ever rise.
BTW INAL.
Ouch... my sympathies. Had a tree fall through my roof (as in, new skylight) about 9 months ago and it sucked... a fire is far, far worse though. Hope everyone was safe and it didn't destroy anything irreplacable.
Thanks. It wasn't too bad. The kitchen was a total loss, but that's rather nice now. Fortunatly we got it out before it could spread beyond that.
Actually not to get too far off topic here, but the fire wasn't the worst part. Sure there was the shock, the loss, and the massive inconvinence, but the very worst part was dealing with the contractors when rebuilding. They did a shotty job. They took forever, overcharged, said they'd come right over and not show up for a week. If I had been making the decisions I would have fired them, but I wasn't making the decisions.
The insurence companies are just as bad. Ours told us we HAD to use that particular contractor or they wouldn't pay. I knew this to be false, but when your house burns you aren't thinking too clearly. We should have gotten a lawyer. At least I'm paying him to be on MY side, even if he has about the same ethics as the insurence company or contractor.
When I was looking at the codes, the prices, and whatnot a couple years ago the plenum cable was about 5x more expensive... turning a $100 roll of cable into a $500 one.
Well, that IS a bit pricy, Although I can't afford a serious home network either way. It is true you can get away with a lot, and not have problems, and I doubt the regular wire would truly cause a problem. Still once you've had it happen, you get FAR more paranoid than you were. Kind of a fire extinguisher or two in every room, a smoke detector in every room, walls made of shuttle heat shield tiles[1] etc.
[1] O.K. maybe not.
there is no requirement for plenum cable in residences.
That's a fairly bold statment. After all, many codes are city and even neighborhood based in many areas. Sure, there is no NATIONAL requirment for it, but many municipalities might. The only way to know for sure would be to do an exaustive search which would take time, since much of that information is not available on the internet.
Having recently had a fire, I would recommend it. The drywall is actually a pretty good fireblock. Made from gypsum, it WILL burn, but not nearly as easily as wood. I know this because I was in the room at the time. The nearby wood was on fire, the drywall next to it was not, but the paint on it was.
Fire tends to get into walls and celings through perforations in the drywall, such as light fixtures, and various plug or outlet jacks, whether they be phone, power, cable or network.
If the cable were to catch fire in one of these, it could easily transfer the fire from where there is nothing else particularly flamable, to something quite a bit more flamable.
It might not be needed, but most people who have had a house fire would rather be a bit paranoid than go on the cheap, and risk another. House fires really, really suck.
Do you have any idea what you are talking about? Without meds, I couldn't be tested accuratly, HOWEVER various patterns could be discerned. Depedning upon various things, when various parts of the tests were taken seperatly, my IQ ranged from 180 to about 40. With the meds it settled around 140-150. I could take the same section of test several times and score all over the place.
The entire point is that WITH meds I COULD be tested. Without them I could not. That would seem to indicate a difference to most intelligent people
But it doesn't change the fact that you've acted like an ass this entire discussion. Good day
I would agree with that, but given the degree I've had to deal with complete assholes, regarding this particular subject, that is just about the only way I have left to react. If it was unwarrented in your case, I apologize. I have the ability to be completely rational about nearly anything else, but this I tend to be reactionary about. Go figure.
Violence isn't necessary, just politics and advocacy.
I really wish I could believe that. You must have had a better experience that I in school. It was not germane to the discussion so I did not discuss it here, but when you're too smart, and make the teachers look dumb they punish you too. That aspect has been discussed to death on slashdot (read nearly anything by Katz). In highschool, I had similar problems on the opposite end of the scale. The school system is broken. It can't be repaired, only dismantled and rebuilt. Unfortunatly, they are also the ones deciding what you learn and how you learn it. Want to be scared? Go to the nea website and read some the things they have to say. I watched an anti education system paranoia piece, and read the nea website the same day, and IMNSHO I found the paranoid didn't go quite far enough. In one piece by the president of the nea I read that the teaching of facts and skills weren't important. It was far more important to theach the right social, philisophical and political outlook.
I assume you took the meds. Did you then jump through the school ranks? Did you advance even one year ahead, or even fill your last year of HS with college level courses? If not, stop bragging.
Grade level jumping wasn't allowed at that time when I was medicated in sixth grade, my teacher tried to get me advanced a year, they wouldn't even review it. I DID fill the first half of my senior year in high school with AP courses, and took one my junior year. The second semester I said fuck it. I had tried to take government in summer school and graduate a semester early (the earliest allowed in my district), but I wasn't allowed as it was full of people who hadn't passed government, and they had priority, so my second semester I filled up on crap classes because government was the only one that mattered, and I just didn't care any more. If not for needing that last government credit however, I would have been out a few months early.
College however was a bit of a rude awakening. Not at first. The first couple of semesters were easier than high school, and I got lazy. When the upper division stuff hit, I got bit.
Sorry if I pissed you off. But social promotion is a load of BS. If a kid can't cut the grade, give them a different teacher, put them in a different school, or make them repeat it. If they still have problems, THEN you medicate.
I'll respond to this load of tripe in small words so you can understand them. Without medication, I tested at two grades below grade level. Two days after starting medication I tested at three above. I couldn't keep on task long enough to BE tested accuratly. In sixth grade I tested out above most college graduates with meds.
I find it deeply offensive, that someone such as yourself would demand that I spend several extra years in the hell that is the public indoctrination system just because I was not 'mature' enough to handle the moronic setup they have. If I held out any hope that it could be changed I would advocate for such change, but it NEVER will change. No amount of advocacy, politics or any other peaceful solutions will fix it.
I will freely admit however that it is possible that I would have done better in a different environment. My parents DID try to put me in private school, but it was too expensive. They tried a different teacher, but were told that it wouldn't happen, and they tried for a different public school, they were likewise told that that was forbidden (I'm told that this has changed now).
I want to hear from you what ADD / ADHD is, without you falling back on medical arcana that describe the biology behind the condition without describing the condition.
Which is precisely why I never took any of my meds to the school nurse to dole-out. Its none of their goddamned business to begin with & there was no way I was going to sell or give my meds to anyone. You're not required by law (who gives a shit about school rules?) to take your meds to them. My suggestion to everyone is simply don't.
That may depend upon the state. I was told that it was a law. It may have been a lie. I did have to have it at school however. It wore off too soon, and I had problems the last half of the day. They were also worried about possible theft. I was told that a number of kids had been beaten and robbed to get the stuff, but in retrospect, that sounds more like scare tactics than truth.
No offense to teachers, but they're often morons.
More often than not in my expierence. I work at a University in Tech support. The education majors are the ones who most often make me wish for computing licenses.
Kids with ADHD, kids with learning disabilities, and kids who advance faster (why isn't THAT called a medical condition?) all do best when given a different environment than "normal" kids. If education wised up to this, and adapted as necessary, we wouldn't have the problems we do.
Agreed, but it isn't going to happen. No matter how much you stamp your feet and say it should be such, it isn't going to happen without mass violence, which would be unacceptable.
Still, in Second Grade you're not doing anything stressful enough to merit correction. If you can't cut it, they should take you out of school or put you back in first grade (and before that, a different teacher).
Well, you were doing so good at not pissing me off, and now you have to go say something like this. Without the meds, I could have repeated the first grade several times without being able to handle things. With the meds, I would have easily been able to handle fourth or fifth. As I said before, if you don't know what it's like maybe you ought to keep your mouth shut and learn from someone who DOES know what it is like.
You have ADHD? Great. Good for you. But that doesn't make you special or handicapped. You are different, and that's it. To treat you otherwise is a disservice to you and a disservice to me.
I'm not asking for special tratment. I don't believe in special treatment. I do however get rather pissed off when some dumbass flippantly says "Lean to concentrate, it isn't that hard." It IS hard without the help. Hard enough that when it has been required of me without the meds, I became suicidal. I couldn't do it.
I sincerely wish I could curse every asshole who just doesn't understand it with ADD for a while, and just see what they thought then. I suspect their perspective would change.
Now, all that bias aside--what, exactly, is ADHD like subjectively that merits it as a conditon?
What is it that doesn't make it a condition? There are differences on cat scans, there are dramatic responses to medications, where there aren't in most others. I really hate people who say "It's so simple you should just..." If you don't have conrete experence in something, it is impossible for you to understand. Your comments and flippiant attitude are not helpful, they are harmful, and I reserve the right to loathe you and wish you ill.
See my many other posts on this topic for my full opinion (in short, medication absoltuely fine and good for people who really do NEED it--like you--you say the same thing). I guess from your post you are right--I can't even begin to imagine killing myself NOW, and in 2nd grade--I don't think I even knew that I could kill myself back then.. I can't even begin to understand what could be so stressful about 2nd grade? If you don't mind my asking (and feel totally free to not answer) did you have a bad homelife?
I don't mind responding at all, I had a good home life. My parents never beat me, I had pretty good freedom and dicipline, and was taught pretty well right and wrong. It was the stress of the attempt to use something other than medication. I couldn't do it. Once I left that class, and got into a situaton where the teacher didn't care if I wiggled, or talked out of turn or anything else, all of the symptoms lessened, and the massive stress went away.
My parents were bullied into doing what she and the school shrink wanted. They were told that it was OBVIOUSLY their fault, and that I would be taken away from them if I didn't improve (I imagine that they stress this gave them increased the stress on me). The things I was put through were so stressful to me that I would have done anything to end it. My parents tried to get me into private school, but money was tight then, and private school wasn't an option.
I likely overreact when people talk about behaivorial therapy, but my experience with it was so horrendus, that I do not have the ability not to react in anything resembling a calm manner.
By the time I hit sixth grade, I had a teacher that was a former nurse, recognized what was going on immeadately. The medication turned me around completely, and school was a breeze from then on (of course I learned NOT to study, which came back and bit me when I started taking graduate level classes in college).
You emphasised the wrong part...
Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah
Are you sure?
Sen. Fritz Hollings D-South Carolina
The problem with Ritalin is that it tends to remove a person's sense of right and wrong
Bullshit. Good parenting does that.
ALL of the kids who were involved in these mass school shootings were on Ritalin or similar substances. Obviously, it doesn't usually affect a person to that degree, but the effect is there nonetheless.
Reference please? At least most of them did however have serious problems both at home and at school, seeing as at least one murdered his parents too.
Note that I'm not talking about any individual case (I'm sure there _are_ valid uses of Ritalin), just that, for the most part, it is being misperscribed because society wants children to "sit still and listen" when they (especially boys), have the need to roam and explore. People who do not go along with the status quo are labelled as having a disorder, when actually they are the ones who keep society living and vibrant.
I would to a small degree except with you "for the most part" statment, although the way things are going that might not be false for too long.
You did hit on something interesting here however, most grade school teachers are female. We are taught by the ultra left liberal commie bastards[1] that there are no differences between men and women. These teachers often can't abide how little boys think and work. They want them to act like little girls, and that does cause a lot of problem. I saw a study once (I wish I had a reference) that showed that boys raised with only a female influence were more likely to have the 'macho' attitudes that many have been trying to eliminate from society. I tend to think a male role model teachs boys how to deal with agressive instincts properly.
The trouble is also when the problems are severe. Emotional control is very difficult. It is possible to clamp down on an emptional outburst, but without meds, it is very difficult. I sometimes wonder who wrote the Vulcans on Star Trek. They are supposed to have eliminated emotion because Vulcan emotions are so hard to control. If I let myself get angry, I loose it entirely. I have to clamp it down or face serious life altering consequences. The medication makes this a lot easier.
I said in response to someone else who asked if ADD existed 100 years ago, that it did, but wasn't noticed. People were either lazy or dreamers, and while some went on to accomplish great things others became the town drunk.
It would be nice if society changed so that I didn't need medication to get by, but if I don't want to go live in a cabin in Montana, I need the medication. It makes me more compatible with society, and I don't think society is likely to change so radically for me.
[1] If you can't figure it out, I lean toward the right on my politics.
First, I want to complement you on a being somewhat sensitive on the subject. You have legitimate questions, and you phrased them farily well, and unlike a lot of people on slashdot didn't just get flippant about it.
1. Did ADHD exist 100 years ago? Did people care 100 years ago?
Yes, most likely. A lot were called lazy or dreamers. Some managed to do great things, others ended up the town drunk.
2. What percentage of people are diagnosed with ADHD?
I don't know exactly, but more than actually have it. It is very real, but most likely overdiagnosed. It also however correlates highly with various problems such as stressful birth, and chemical abuse by the mother, which may be on the rise. As an aside, even when a woman stops drugs or drinking when she finds out she is pregnant, the damage is often already done, particular with such things as fetal alcohol syndrome.
3. Is there different levels of ADHD? Different advancements? Different Types?
Yes, which leads me to believe that at least some are completely different disorders, with different causes. Remember psychology isn't particularly old. When formal medicine was as old as psychology is now, humors were thought to be important. As a field it is still in it's infancy. In a thousand years, people will look back at what we now believe about psychology and wonder how we could have possibly thought that.
4. Would you say ADHD is over-diagnosed? In other words, I've met a number of people considered ADHD that I would consider perfectly normal.
See question 2, but you also learn coping skills. These skills work for a limited time (such as around friends, but can cause difficulty on people you are around more often. It's pretty easy to keep up a facade for a few hours, even without medication, but all the time is hard. Keep in mind too that they may have been medicated.
5. Is ADHD chemical or psychological? Both? Is there a difference?
6. Don't take this wrong, but I admit I've never met ADHD from what I would consider good parents (i.e., teach their children how to work hard and focus long); so the question, how related is ADHD to broken homes, absent parenting, stifled creativity, abuse, general over-disciplen, or the so called spoiled brat situation?
I'll take these two things together. There are people who have a verifiable chemical imbalence in the brain. This chemical imbalance produces symptoms of ADD. There are also spoiled brats. Some of these spoiled brats have symptoms of ADD. Since psychology studies behaivor and then determines a diagnosis, it can be difficult to tell them apart. It is roughly equivilant to listening to a description of heart pain and making a diagnosis of a particular heart condition. Unfortunatly, that's about the best that can be done right now. As I've said before, psychology is a field of scinece it is only around 100 years old.
7. I have heard before ADHD is related to stress and/or a lack of exercise on the part of the mother during pregnancy. Has either of these been in a study? Confirmed?
There have been a lot of studies done, and ADD correlates with stress on the mother, lack of exercise, too much exercise, drug use, alcohol use, and a whole lot of other things. The data is rather contradictory, and none of the correlations are particularly strong, but they are present.
There are also correlations to the diet of the mother during pregnancy, the child's diet, various diseases at a young age, as well as several other thing I can't remember and don't feel like looking up.
I tend to feel that ADD and most other psychological disorders are actually several diverse problems that merely present similarly. Until technology advances further than it has, it is hard to know. Certian types of severe indigestion feel exactly like a heart attack for example.
I'm not a rabid anti-psycholgist. My psyciatrist saved my life. I'm forever grateful to him and his profession, but I also recognize that it is a young science, and they are flailing around in the dark a lot. Still, I think they help more than they hurt.
How have you coped with diabetes, and how have you found it affect your work performance? Do you object to having diabetes?
First stop labeling yourself as a victim, and learn to understand how your body works. So you easily get ill or the shakes, then you just need to eat right.
Overall, insulin is not the solution, you will ALWAYS have diabetes if you hide behind injections, labels, and make yourself a victim, the only cure for diabetes is accepting the fact that you get sick easily, or that you are not eating correctly, and deciding to change your thinking process.
Come on. If one part of the body can fail to work correctly so can another. Yes ADD is horribly misdiagnosed. I can tell you that it does exist. I've tried the diets. They didn't work and they made me sick. I tried the 'therapy' to modify your way of thinking. At nine-years old, I attempted suicide.
I am irrecovably convinced that anyone with the above attitude is guilty of a crime against humanity, as someone might believe the tripe they are shoveling, and that they should be punished accordingly. I was tortured for over a year because a bitch of a teacher I had believed as you do. I had ulcers, threw up several times daily, couldn't sleep because of the nightmares, broke down and cried several times daily, had absolutely no emotional control, could concentrate less than before, it was the most horrible time of my life.
People like YOU nearly caused me to end my life. I spend a year with sleep depravation, and horrible stomache pains because of the stress inflicted by the inhumane attitude you have. You and your ilk make me sick.
All I can say is Bullshit. This crap is regularly debunked, of course, conspiracy theorists NEED to believe in conspiracies.
I did the diet thing. It didn't help. The drugs did. Go away.
Reread that again. There is a key phrase there. ...to a degree that is maladaptive and inconsistent with developmental level:
In chidren these are kids that have a significantly worse time with the listed problems than other kids of the same age. This is the kid that can not sit as still, no matter the punishment, that can't pay attention as (at least to something boring), no matter the effort put in.
If you reread that carefully, it isn't someone who just does those things, but does those things to a point that it is a problem, where it isn't for someone else at their development level.
F*CKING SIT DOWN AND CONCENTRATE.
I had a bitch of a teacher try this 'technique' on me in second grade. I tried to kill myself. If you don't know what it's like, shut the fuck up and go the fuck away.
While I was undergoing this 'therapy' I would wake up screaming 3-4 times a night, I began wetting the bed again, I had a number of suicide attempts, I had ulcers, severe depression, and a significantly harder time concentrating.
Once that crap stopped, my grades improved, the nightmares stopped, I stopped trying to kill myself, the ulcers went away, and my life generally improved. As a rule of thumb, if a nine-year old is attempting suicide, something is wrong.
In someone with ADD, the brain does not produce many of the chemicals required for proper function. The addition of similar chemicals, or stimulants that help produce those chemicals helps.
If you restrict prescription meds, people with ADD WILL self medicate either with illegal (and unregulated) drugs, or with legal over the counter drugs such as caffine. Many people with undiagnosed ADD will OD on caffine daily, just to be able to interact reasonably with society. Caffine does work, you just have to take enough of it that some of the other side effects outweigh any benefit.
No one ever said stuff was supposed to be easy.
Many people who have never expierenced ADD think the answer is so simple. Once I was medicated (at twelve), I went from D's to A's, and everything actually was completely simple. I breezed through school, never studied, never did more than the assignments, and was often able to make the teachers look foolish just from the provided material.
You may get irritated when someone gets a little help, but I get irritated when someone who obvously hasn't had the severe problems bitches and moans knowing for sure that they are right because they KNOW from one aquaitance who was probably misdiagnosed.
This is actually the terrible problem with ADHD. Parents see children with ADD medicated, and going from the worst student in the class to the best. They feel slighted that little Johnny isn't doing so well, so they take little Johnny down and demand drugs. Little Johnny doesn't need it, but he is given them anyway.
Somewhere else someone said that 1 in 8 cases are misdiagnosed. In children I would say at least 50%, because a lot of parents can't deal with their kid not being as capable as another, so something must be wrong.
This unfortunatly, makes life difficult for those of us who DO actually need it.
I was placed on Ritilan at a young age, and it helped a great deal. I went from sitting most of the day daydreaming, and taking all of my homework home, and getting straight D's to getting my work all done in school, still goofing off most of the day and getting straight A's.
I stopped it a few years later becasue they make it such a hassle to get and take care of in school. I had to go into the councilor's office, get her attention and get my pills. If the regular person wasn't there, I had to explain to someone else what was going on. Several times I was accused of faking and just being an addict.
Later in my life I had further trouble, but Ritilan wasn't really an option. I was placed on Imipramine. It didn't work as well, but at least gave me the ability to control my emotions a bit better. It had some side effects with giving me really wierd blood readings, and I had to stand up very slowly or pass out. If I ever had to move somewhere quickly, I usually just hit the floor. Later I was placed on Cylert. It wasn't quite as effective as Ritilan, but was marginally cheaper, and I didn't have drug insurence. It also didn't give me the ups and downs of Ritilan.
A few years ago, the company who made Cylert reported that there had been several cases of "Acute Hepatic failure" in individuals also taking cylert. There were something like fifteen or so cases out of about 500,000 individuals on the drug, and there was no other information about possible causes, other combinations of drugs being taken, or other diseases that might have caused it. I'm sure that the patent expiration of cylert, and the simultanious release of this information were just coincedental.
I stayed on cylert for a while, but had to have regular blood tests to check the health of my liver. It was fine. Later when I got a job that gave drug benefits, I went to Concerta.
Concerta is just Ritilan, but it's in a special capsule that has small holes in it. It releases drug in a controled manner. It works much like the sustained release Ritilan, but much better, as the sustained release isn't chemical it's mechanical.
If you don't have drug benefits, Concerta is extremely expensive, and of course patened.
Before I was placed on medication, they tried Behaivor modification therapy on me, and my expierence with that has irrevocably convinced me that anyone attempting it or advocating it is guilty of a crime against humanity and should be punished accordingly. I was in second grade, and due to the stress and depression of their 'help' I attempted suicide. Nine year olds should not be so depressed and stressed that they attempt suicide. Once the crap was stopped, things got better. My headaches stopped, my nightmares stopped, my ulcers went away, and I felt much better.
As far as the 'natural' alternatives, I don't put much stock in them. Most haven't had serious study, and tend to sell on the grounds of having the word 'natural' tacked on the front. No one has ever sufficiently explained to me what something has to be to be called natural, as I've seen it on things actually found in nature, things refined from things found in nature, things synthesized, but identical to things refined from things found in nature, things created by genetically engineered organisms, etc. The attitude seems to be that anything natural can't hurt you, but some of the most deadly toxins are found in nature, so I really just can't have that attitude.
I do have an uncle who swears by his 'natural' treatment, but even when I'm not medicated, he strikes me as someone with poor attenton span and emotional control. When he took Ritilan he was sitll a pain, but was more tolerable. He however claims that the 'natural' (I have no idea what it is) stuff helps him better. I tend to doubt it.
Ritilan for me is the best treatment I've run across, talk to your doctor and pharmacist (often a pharmacist will know more about effects of the drugs than the doctor), also check with some of the various we
And yet, with all the documentation I recieved, nothing mentions this device. It seems that would be the place to put it if they weren't trying to keep it secret.
I heard about it, from television news, I heard about it to the point I was sick of hearing about it. I am one who strives to avoid television news, and I still heard far more about the blasted things than I wanted to. Explain to me just how this is keeping it secret.
It's not in the documentation because it isn't user servicable. Have you noticed how light auto manuals have become? Compare those to the old ones that occasionally described minor repairs. Some barely describe the minimal maintainence, and don't describe some things that many people would prefer to do themselves.
Spark plugs are easy to change, but they are no longer considered user servicable, so the infomation is disappearing from manuals. The attitude is that if you can't (or aren't likely to) mess with it, you don't need to know about it. Contrast this with the prevailing attitude among users of most things [1], which is that if I might have to think to use it, I don't want to know about it.
And that's your justification for a system that has _almost_ no benefitial uses? Your justification for a system that is being kept quiet?
First, I am telling you that a few years ago, so much noise was made about these damned things that I was ready to puke. It got almost as annoying as the OJ trial. If you missed it, I'm sorry, but I don't by any means find hour after hour of programming with people screaming for these things, and auto makers not wanting to put them in citing cost as keeping something secret. It's like saying they were keeping the OJ trial secret. I couldn't turn on the TV without hearing about it. That is by my definition NOT secret.
Now the first part of your statment was opinion, not fact. If you need a refresher course on the difference, see someone else. I tend to find both uses (provided only the last few seconds are used after a collision) beneficial, and as these devices are currently constructed, I find _almost_ no non-beneficial uses.
[1] If you don't believe that this is the prevailing attitude, the ban on cruel and unusual punishment needs to be lifted in such a case, and you need to be sentenced to working six months in tech support. I guarantee your attitude will change.
For one thing, this device that is spying on your actions has been kept secret.
WRONG. I can remember just a few years ago, the public was clamoring for these things. It seems there were some serious injuries due to airbag deployment in fairly minor collisions. The air bags were causeing more injuries than would have happened without them under certain cirumstances.
The devices were designed and placed in the cars becuse of several lawsuits against the auto industry due to air bag related injuries. The idea was to cause the air bag to inflate more slowly in more minor collisions, where it wouldn't need to reach full inflation quite as quickly.
As I recall, the data was kept so that insurence companies and car manufacturers could correlate the collision data with injury data, and fine tune the things.
Like them or not, they weren't kept secret. They were all over the news for almost a year.
I recently bought a GMC vehicle... Is there a device keeping track of every move I've ever made? I sure don't know about one, but that doesn't mean it's not there.
If you have an air bag, than it is likely. They are pretty much a part of the air bag deployment system, however you need to turn down the paranoia a notch. They keep track of the last 5 or so seconds, and that's about it. The data is only stored (as I understand it) when the airbag deploys. All they are for is to refine air bag systems. Someone has found a potential abuse for them, but they aren't there to invade privacy, they aren't recording everything you do, and they sure weren't kept secret.
I tend to think that they really can't be used to do much more than corroborate the data they can already get from the crash. In this case, they reported an exact speed (the wreckage and skidmarks would give a good estimate), and corroborated the experts. Someone trying to apply them where the data wasn't reliable would be easily picked apart by any competent lawyer, so that isn't a big deal either.
No matter what you create, the potential for abuse is there. Accurate face recognition could be used to track criminals, track political dissidents, track people for advertising, as a biometric for logging in, or to look through a video or picture collection for particular individuals (imagine databasing your family photos or home videos or pr0n in this way).
There is nothing that has been invented that hasn't been abused. We need to keep the abuse out, but the technology can be good.
Coulda, Woulda, Shoulda. Lets work on improving our space program instead of sulking over things we COULD have done better.
I have trouble beleving such a statment could ever be modded up. Did you hear anything at all about the information that was released regarding what they COULD have done? There were specific recomendations for changes to allow them to detect such things should there be problems again.
As I recall, they involved a rapid checklist for getting another shuttle in to orbit more quickly than usual. Rationing of food, water and oxygen on board the damaged shuttle, and visual observation of the shuttle EVERY flight using high power spy sattelites. Sattelites that can read newspaper headlines. They will KNOW if there is damage, and they will have plans for more possibilities.
The other very important this seems to makr is a major change in the way NASA is doing things. The last time, they tried to pass blame to Thiokol(sp?). Thiokol had recordings, and reports to NASA telling them several times of trouble with the O rings, and specifcally telling them not to launch the day they launched Challenger.
This time, NASA not only fessed up, but actually came foreward and said that they did several things wrong, and had they not been playing CYA, they would have been able to save them. This is actually big.
The whole point is that NASA has said that they could have saved them, therefore they are taking specific steps to be able to run rescue missions in the future. They could have just as easily have said that there is no way to run a rescue mission, and tried some ineffective, very visible 'safety feature' to make the burecrats look good.
This is far far more than "Coulda, Woulda, Shoulda".