I'd noticed that:) As I recall, the only claim to fame this variant has is the exaggerated immune response from some young healthy people, making them more likely to die than are the traditional flu victims, given the same infection.
Per the symptom set, it passed through Los Angeles about a year ago, and no one noticed!
There was something that went around in 1979 of that sort -- you could watch it hopping from person to person as exposure occurred. Two or three days incubation, sick as hell for 24 hours (everything emptied out both ends), then it went away as suddenly as it came, with no aftersymptoms.
However, most short-term stomach/intestinal upsets are not flu. Per some hospital studies, about 90% of presented cases are actually food poisoning.
Staying out for a week or more may be the norm now, but when I was a kid no one ever missed more than 3 days of school for having the flu. Probably wasn't good policy (too many kids still infectious and back in school) but we just sucked it up and went to school if we could so much as crawl out of bed, even if we spent the next two weeks coughing our lungs out.
The article reminds me a lot of the early FUD against canine vaccines, because OMG they might not be what they're cracked up to be, or might even be harmful. So a lot of educated idiots stopped vaccinating dogs, and lo and behold we now have new epidemics of old diseases that used to be pretty much under control.
Per what I've heard, this is why young people can't get jobs in France anymore -- you can't be fired even if you don't bother to show up for work. This rewards the lazy and hurts those who pay wages, but hey, it's liberal mecca, so don't knock it!
Best dissertation on the subject I've seen yet. Hope you don't mind if it's spread far and wide.:)
Another point is that when you tell your kid it is right to stand up fairly for himself, and that you're behind him all the way, he develops trust in you as the parent and himself as a competent person.
But if your response to bullying is to take him out of harms way (eg. take him out of school), all he learns is that he's a loser (he must be, since you don't trust him to stand up for himself), and that's how others will now respond to him, too -- making matters worse, not better. And rather than being shown up for what they are, the bullies win by default, thus ENHANCING their social standing and sense of personal power -- again, making matters worse.
It boils down to people (of all ages) are better left to settle as many disputes among themselves as possible, rather than making everything into a federal case. It may be harder on a few in the short term, but it's better for them and most everyone else in the long term.
The basic problem in America is that we now have a whole generation of managers who have never actually BUILT a business. They know about bean counting, the bottom line, and showing next quarter's"growth" for the stock market, but not about what the customers actually want or long term downsides from short-term savings.
I'd hazard that the more managerial types are hired *into* a company (vs. trained and promoted vertically) the worse the problem gets, and eventually all this short-sightedness kills the company.
Well, yeah, that's probably the case -- I'd bet they looked at a handful of systems, then extrapolated based on the data they wanted to see. In other words, Made Shit Up.
But as I recall from the last time the BSA threw around some wacky numbers like that, they WERE counting unregistered shareware.
Was it Peru? Maybe, it's been ages ago... one of those west-coast-of-South-America countries, anyway. [goes off, looks him up] Nope, not long enough ago by any stretch. 1970s, more like. Oh well, not that critical.
At any rate, point being Obama was not the first "minority" head of state.
Tho it depends how you define that, too. Just persons of differing skin colour? how about different culture/religion? different historical ethnic group? in some countries those may have far more impact that mere colour does in today's U.S. (frex, Armenians in modern Turkey)
Don't think you're different just because you're not a conservative Republican;) From our side, it looks just the same. I don't have a problem with, say, Jimmy Carter being recognised this way -- I seldom agreed with him (and am not sure the end result of his efforts wasn't worse than the problem) but he went forth and did his damnedest for years on end, with no thought of gain from it (being long since out of office and out of the power loop). But Obama had to have been nominated before he'd actually DONE anything... so what was the award FOR, anyway?? Per the will cited above, the award is supposed to be for actual and lasting accomplishments, not for grand visions and short-term changes.
I made a similar study, using myself as the test population. I discovered that when I don't get my daily dose of chocolate, I become violent, and that 100% of those studied had this response!
Pro dog trainer here with 40 years experience. I an adamantly against using food rewards, primarily because it inverts the master/underling relationship (it also actively prevents the trainer from learning to accurately read the dog's responses).
As it works in nature, the *underling* offers a treat to the =master= ("see? I'm useful! don't kill me!"), who then may OPT to graciously "share" part of it with the underling. (We even see this in the human workplace, where the underlings' labour brings in a profit, which the owner then graciously shares with them as wages.)
But if the master gives the dog a food reward, a dog that really wants to please becomes confused ("Huh?? I thought YOU were the master, now you're saying *I* am? WTF??") and often will refuse to even take the "reward" (unless starved for several days first, and yes, some food-based trainers DO keep their dogs half-starved, to ensure that the food-reward will be accepted). Conversely a dog that already has dominance issues gets that notion validated ("Hah, they're giving ME stuff, that PROVES I'm the boss!")
Young children and dogs think and respond very similarly, to the point that I always tell folks that their new puppy is like getting a permanent 5-year-old child (act accordingly and all will be copasetic). Draw your own conclusions about what bribing kids does to their notion of who's the REAL authority in their lives.
In my observation, the kids whose parents make NO attempt to control their kids' behaviour wind up in better shape than those kids whose parents attempt to BRIBE their kids' behaviour.
The do-nothing parent at least doesn't actively warp the kid. The kid may not learn anything from his parents, but he will learn when other people whack him upside the head for being a mannerless little prick. He may even develop urges to more-mature behaviour on his own (to gain respect from peers, teachers, or whoever), thus may eventually grow up despite his parents' neglect.
But the ones that bribe their kids are actively destroying the parent/child relationship, and worse, they usually defend their kid against anyone else's attempts to civilize him. The kid learns to be a manipulative brat even if he has better urges, because in the world of bribes, manipulation is the only thing that works. And the typical bribing-parent won't allow anyone else to correct their kid's behaviour, either, so the kid has no chance to learn from other adults.
And no need for 9/10ths of this overgrown cancer of a gov't, either. And maybe it wouldn't be so busy hiding what it does if it didn't DO so much. Let gov't do basic infrastructure and let We The People manage the rest, we'd all be better off.
BTW $60 trillion divided by 300M people comes out to $200,000 for every man, woman, and child. Why aren't all those poor people rich? Oh, maybe because public welfare doesn't work? D'oh!!
"First of all, they moved the timeslot around. You had to be seeking out Firefly in order to watch it. You'll never attract new viewers this way."
This is what networks do when they WANT to deliberately kill a show, but need a valid-sounding excuse (like "not enough viewers") to pawn off its irate producer.
Gen.Hammond was my favourite Stargate character. The others went forth every week and saved (or demolished) the universe, but Hammond was the *glue*: The sort of commander every unit would like to serve under; the focus that everyone could always trust.
I remember an episode where the SG-1 unit began doubting their own behaviour solely because Hammond doubted -- their trust in him went that deep. It was an amazing bit of character definition, on both sides.
Slashdot Mirror
[peering at fine print]
Why does it also say "Hazardous Area" and "Kick Me"??
I actually heard this from people in Germany. But if you've got some different facts to present, do so, by all means.
I'd noticed that :) As I recall, the only claim to fame this variant has is the exaggerated immune response from some young healthy people, making them more likely to die than are the traditional flu victims, given the same infection.
Per the symptom set, it passed through Los Angeles about a year ago, and no one noticed!
There was something that went around in 1979 of that sort -- you could watch it hopping from person to person as exposure occurred. Two or three days incubation, sick as hell for 24 hours (everything emptied out both ends), then it went away as suddenly as it came, with no aftersymptoms.
However, most short-term stomach/intestinal upsets are not flu. Per some hospital studies, about 90% of presented cases are actually food poisoning.
Staying out for a week or more may be the norm now, but when I was a kid no one ever missed more than 3 days of school for having the flu. Probably wasn't good policy (too many kids still infectious and back in school) but we just sucked it up and went to school if we could so much as crawl out of bed, even if we spent the next two weeks coughing our lungs out.
The article reminds me a lot of the early FUD against canine vaccines, because OMG they might not be what they're cracked up to be, or might even be harmful. So a lot of educated idiots stopped vaccinating dogs, and lo and behold we now have new epidemics of old diseases that used to be pretty much under control.
Per what I've heard, this is why young people can't get jobs in France anymore -- you can't be fired even if you don't bother to show up for work. This rewards the lazy and hurts those who pay wages, but hey, it's liberal mecca, so don't knock it!
Ah. Good info regardless. But you're AC again today!
As I was reading slashdot posts,
I met a man who had no host.
He had no host again today.
I wish, I wish he'd sign his say!
(Eugh, my prosody node hurts.)
Best dissertation on the subject I've seen yet. Hope you don't mind if it's spread far and wide. :)
Another point is that when you tell your kid it is right to stand up fairly for himself, and that you're behind him all the way, he develops trust in you as the parent and himself as a competent person.
But if your response to bullying is to take him out of harms way (eg. take him out of school), all he learns is that he's a loser (he must be, since you don't trust him to stand up for himself), and that's how others will now respond to him, too -- making matters worse, not better. And rather than being shown up for what they are, the bullies win by default, thus ENHANCING their social standing and sense of personal power -- again, making matters worse.
It boils down to people (of all ages) are better left to settle as many disputes among themselves as possible, rather than making everything into a federal case. It may be harder on a few in the short term, but it's better for them and most everyone else in the long term.
An interesting response from an AC, copied here so more folks will see it:
=========
Yep, I know about shareholder value and agency theory, and yes it is indeed ridiculous. Many companies, particularly the newer ones like Google, already consider it obsolete, and more will as time goes, of course.
http://freekvermeulen.blogspot.com/2008/07/shareholder-value-orientation-now-where.html
http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-28502078_ITM
This one is my favorite article about this, particularly see the linked articles:
http://thenextwavefutures.wordpress.com/2009/03/17/the-end-of-shareholder-value/
======
The basic problem in America is that we now have a whole generation of managers who have never actually BUILT a business. They know about bean counting, the bottom line, and showing next quarter's"growth" for the stock market, but not about what the customers actually want or long term downsides from short-term savings.
I'd hazard that the more managerial types are hired *into* a company (vs. trained and promoted vertically) the worse the problem gets, and eventually all this short-sightedness kills the company.
Well, yeah, that's probably the case -- I'd bet they looked at a handful of systems, then extrapolated based on the data they wanted to see. In other words, Made Shit Up.
But as I recall from the last time the BSA threw around some wacky numbers like that, they WERE counting unregistered shareware.
Haven't RTFA yet, but occurs to me to wonder if they're counting unregistered *shareware*.
Was it Peru? Maybe, it's been ages ago... one of those west-coast-of-South-America countries, anyway. [goes off, looks him up] Nope, not long enough ago by any stretch. 1970s, more like. Oh well, not that critical.
At any rate, point being Obama was not the first "minority" head of state.
Tho it depends how you define that, too. Just persons of differing skin colour? how about different culture/religion? different historical ethnic group? in some countries those may have far more impact that mere colour does in today's U.S. (frex, Armenians in modern Turkey)
"How about for being the first minority figure to win the highest office of a country in a democratically run election?"
Not hardly. Who was the Japanese guy who was elected President of Ecuador something like 40 years ago??
Don't think you're different just because you're not a conservative Republican ;) From our side, it looks just the same. I don't have a problem with, say, Jimmy Carter being recognised this way -- I seldom agreed with him (and am not sure the end result of his efforts wasn't worse than the problem) but he went forth and did his damnedest for years on end, with no thought of gain from it (being long since out of office and out of the power loop). But Obama had to have been nominated before he'd actually DONE anything... so what was the award FOR, anyway?? Per the will cited above, the award is supposed to be for actual and lasting accomplishments, not for grand visions and short-term changes.
Throw down your weapons! And if you're real lucky and your enemies are dumb, they'll do likewise.
Right...
I made a similar study, using myself as the test population. I discovered that when I don't get my daily dose of chocolate, I become violent, and that 100% of those studied had this response!
Pro dog trainer here with 40 years experience. I an adamantly against using food rewards, primarily because it inverts the master/underling relationship (it also actively prevents the trainer from learning to accurately read the dog's responses).
As it works in nature, the *underling* offers a treat to the =master= ("see? I'm useful! don't kill me!"), who then may OPT to graciously "share" part of it with the underling. (We even see this in the human workplace, where the underlings' labour brings in a profit, which the owner then graciously shares with them as wages.)
But if the master gives the dog a food reward, a dog that really wants to please becomes confused ("Huh?? I thought YOU were the master, now you're saying *I* am? WTF??") and often will refuse to even take the "reward" (unless starved for several days first, and yes, some food-based trainers DO keep their dogs half-starved, to ensure that the food-reward will be accepted). Conversely a dog that already has dominance issues gets that notion validated ("Hah, they're giving ME stuff, that PROVES I'm the boss!")
Young children and dogs think and respond very similarly, to the point that I always tell folks that their new puppy is like getting a permanent 5-year-old child (act accordingly and all will be copasetic). Draw your own conclusions about what bribing kids does to their notion of who's the REAL authority in their lives.
In my observation, the kids whose parents make NO attempt to control their kids' behaviour wind up in better shape than those kids whose parents attempt to BRIBE their kids' behaviour.
The do-nothing parent at least doesn't actively warp the kid. The kid may not learn anything from his parents, but he will learn when other people whack him upside the head for being a mannerless little prick. He may even develop urges to more-mature behaviour on his own (to gain respect from peers, teachers, or whoever), thus may eventually grow up despite his parents' neglect.
But the ones that bribe their kids are actively destroying the parent/child relationship, and worse, they usually defend their kid against anyone else's attempts to civilize him. The kid learns to be a manipulative brat even if he has better urges, because in the world of bribes, manipulation is the only thing that works. And the typical bribing-parent won't allow anyone else to correct their kid's behaviour, either, so the kid has no chance to learn from other adults.
And no need for 9/10ths of this overgrown cancer of a gov't, either. And maybe it wouldn't be so busy hiding what it does if it didn't DO so much. Let gov't do basic infrastructure and let We The People manage the rest, we'd all be better off.
BTW $60 trillion divided by 300M people comes out to $200,000 for every man, woman, and child. Why aren't all those poor people rich? Oh, maybe because public welfare doesn't work? D'oh!!
..with with full orchestration and five part harmony!!
"First of all, they moved the timeslot around. You had to be seeking out Firefly in order to watch it. You'll never attract new viewers this way."
This is what networks do when they WANT to deliberately kill a show, but need a valid-sounding excuse (like "not enough viewers") to pawn off its irate producer.
Gen.Hammond was my favourite Stargate character. The others went forth every week and saved (or demolished) the universe, but Hammond was the *glue*: The sort of commander every unit would like to serve under; the focus that everyone could always trust.
I remember an episode where the SG-1 unit began doubting their own behaviour solely because Hammond doubted -- their trust in him went that deep. It was an amazing bit of character definition, on both sides.
Sadly, I do remember Dr. Smith... from the first run!
The really evil thing is, he was the most memorable character in the show!