(OK, I didn't run for office, but that's for the best.)
You should branch out a little, and accept that entertainment is a valid part of our lives. Why should I be passive about it if I am not passive in all the rest?
Before you pseudo-intellectually pontificate more, why don't you at least get your spelling and punctuation under control. And you credulously fail to understand that "stand up for what you believe in" in tongue-in-cheek when it comes to TV. You're making those of us who watch a little TV look pretty darn literate. And who are Josh and Sally, anyway?:)
No, you are perhaps thinking of methamphetamine. (Ritalin is methylphenidate, and the other major drug dextroamphetamine, BTW.) "Speed" is street term and I would be pretty surprised to hear a doctor use it or prescribe it.
There is no "high" when these drugs are used properly, in tiny doses; to be effectively abused they must be taken in high doses or crushed and smoked, injected, or snorted. It is thus a gross distortion to deliberately blend clinical and street uses and nicknames.
Any potential stimulant or addictive effect of the drugs is an undesired side effect, and must be taken into account. A new drug called Atomoxetine is under review that is similar in effectively to methylphenidate, but is not a stimulant. Its parallel effectiveness underscores than the stimulant aspect of current drugs is not responsible for the therapeutic effects; it will also not be a controlled subatnce.
I studied these drugs in school and out, don't bother telling me that I don't understand. Drugs are not the solution to all our problems, but neither is careless propaganda and prejudice.
So it's not just me -- Friday is just not a night I think of to watch TV, and I was annoyed to have to remember Farscape, to watch or to tape. SciFi argues in its FAQ, in a circular way, that there was nothing wrong with a Friday 10pm slot because Stargate led into it and other factors, but to me that meant (1) Farscape's audience would always be smaller and (2) other people who did not watch either show would not be introduced to Farscape unless they went looking for it -- they wouldn't stumble across it flipping the obsolete figurative dial.
No, sci-fi, except maybe Star Trek, is not considered mainstream.
Oh wait... Three's Company is coming on... gotta run.
It's a shame to see this attitude repeated against drugs.
Ritalin has been an extremely helpful drug for thousands of people. And, as someone who has taken it, I can tell you it's not a damn thing like speed, or even coffee. There are way to abuse it, but that's not the clinical approach.
Ritalin does not make anyone smarter except to help them moderate their attention span. It is not used as a stimulant -- if you're ever met a kid with ADHD the last thing that would occur to you is to stimulate them, but paradoxically the drug calms them down.
Anyway, do read your own sources -- they are for the most part about the hazard of misdiagnosing a problem as ADHD when it is something else. This is a far cry from saying ADHD is a sham, and also does not say what you claim, that "Very very few people who are diagnosed with ADHD have any medical condition that justifies medication." If the real problem is epilepsy, believe me that needs treatment, too. Also, ADHD is a medical condition. If it is overdiagnosed, and perhaps it is, it still does exist, according to a hundreds more sources than the naysayers.
Yeah, I'm pretty tired of the drug bigotry. I was a psychobiology major and worked in a psych hospital for 4 years, and am consequently quite unable to judge someone by whether they are "on drugs" -- rather, what kind of person are they, and how hard are they trying? Some of the criticism is condescendingly "well meaning" but is hurtful all the same because of the stigma, and it impedes people from getting the help they need. I think some of it is due to overshoot of the anti-alcoholism anti-smoking movements into a simplistic "drugs are bad" and "drugs show weakness." But that's another topic.
Briefly, on drugs, and as the parent of a perky 6 y.o. I'm keeping an eye on, I should mention I just heard of a next-gen drug for ADHD, more sophisticated than the stimulants used up to now. Ask about it (it would be nice if I remembered the name, wouldn't it?). There has been a lot of press about overuse of Ritalin, which is just the brand name of one of several drugs, but there is also a lot of hype, and there will always be some doctors pressed by time or parents who write a prescription rather than sit down with the child to figure out what's going on. The child may need both. (While I'm "on drugs," I should add there is a more advanced formulation of Ritalin called Concerta which allows precise once-a-day dosing, and avoids the embarrassment of having to go to the school nurse.) A related problem is the lack of studies of drugs in children. (Speaking of studies, there was a good recent article in the NYT Magazine on a relatively novel ADHD study -- sorry it's not free any more.:)
From what you write, in my unexpert opinion, it sounds like your child is a mild case. Serious ADHD children are something altogether different, and I used to work in a psychiatric hospital. My son is having conduct problems -- acting before thinking -- and has attention span issues, either flighty or hyperfocused, both of which are classic symptoms. Still, and as someone with no philosophical reservations about medication, I believe he is subclinical and am taking a wait-and-see approach, despite the two calls I've gotten from school so far.:) (My wife checked also with a psychiatrist who does a lot of work with children and she concurred, so I'm not just being stubborn.)
He too is extremely bright, and some do think there is some correlation, though ADHD is no proof of smarts... I have a theory it is more prevalent in the tech community, also, for social and intellectual reasons I could explore but someone here might get touchy.:)
I also have to acknowledge that dealing my son whom I love dearly has been an exasperating experience. I am tired of yelling at him and feel guilty for yelling at him, it's not my style but on some things like wandering into the street there is not room for negotiation. However much I know there is a biological issue, it is very difficult to not react emotionally to things like the child not listening; the medical is interpreted as behavioral, or even plain insulting. The parents may well go through more pain than does the child.
The question is not whether the problem is serious, but what's in his/her best interest, and even with medication the child has to learn certain self-discipline and organizational skills no matter what. The medicine is neither a crutch nor a magic bullet, and it cures nothing; rather it restores some balance so the kid can take it from there. Untreated ADHD can lead to secondary problems like a sort of learning disability and of course cause social adjustment problems as well. Often the problems go away with age, and in fact there is very little available in the popular press about ADHD/ADD in grown-ups. (Oh, a lot of people don't know about the ADD variant, which lacks the stereotyped hyperactivity -- some people may grow out of ADHD into ADD.)
Finally, my pragmatic view is that while you should not allow the callous comments of uninformed or unprincipled people to affect you, don't tell anyone who does not need to know. Once a label has been attached it can be hard to pry off, and of course kids will seize on anything to ridicule each other. Believe me on this one!
Privately, deal with the issue without qualms, and when necessary explain to a stubborn teacher or school administrator that this is a medical problem, not a fault in your childrearing or character weakness in your child. On the other hand, in some places school officials are too quick to medicalize a problem because it appears to provide an easy way out; there are anecdotes of them insisting a child be medicated. Above all make sure you talk to your child and explain what's going on and why she may have to try a little harder than other kids but is no less a person.
I look back on what I've written and realize I could write a lot more! Read as much as you feel necessary from professional sources, and let me or any of us know if I can help out. A good place to look for reading material is Amazon because of the reader feedback. There are also, of course, entire organizations, Web sites, and discussion groups dedicated to ADHD. The lattermost may be good for commiseration among tired parents -- don't forget your needs along the way.
To end on the upbeat note, ADHD is HIGHLY treatable, and much progress is being made. It was not that many years ago that everything from autism to ADHD was blamed on bad parenting. Here is a short page I put together re ADD, emphasizing the humor in it.
The new new cult! Shave your head, say "frell" three times, and send $5 to...
Seriously, we will only be taken seriously if we come up with a better handle than "Scapers" -- which sounds like something halfway between scapies and scalpers. Seriously.:)
Even Trekkies or, for those with savoir-faire, Trekkers, was better.
I am very impressed by the Farscape insurgency. You didn't see this when they took "Three's Company" off the air. Stand up for what you believe in, even if it is only frelling television.
The reason you can't find anything except dry statistics on the gun control debate from neutral sources is that the statistics aren't self-interpreting and can't address the things we really want to know, policy choices like how can we reduce the number of innocent people who get hurt. Opinion on or projection of the likely result of various steps is a necessary element. Ideally we'd have some laboratory with cloned United States (or some other country) under different experimental conditions, and watch what happened.
I try to start with the possibly startling premise that everyone favors gun control of some sort, it's just a question of where to draw the line. Starting at the pro-gun end of the spectrum, most would take guns away from prisoners. Or people about to commit a crime. Or the insane. Or children. Or the intoxicated. Or people in the presence of the President. As for types of "arms" -- another form of gun control -- it is important to consider whether to permit exploding bullets? Silencers? Grenade launchers? Machine guns? Tank guns? Whatever. The point is that almost everyone will draw the line, and once they have all hope of a crystal clear rule is gone.
The pro-gun people insist that law-abiding people are safer with easier gun ownership; they also cite a sort of psychological value in gun ownership. The anti-gun people say the opposite. Fine, prove it either way. You can't, because there is a speculative step that boils down to judgment, assuming you have the facts straight, difficult enough in itself.
Frustratingly, probably the single biggest problem by both sides is the witting or unwitting misuse of statistics, which precludes an intelligent philosophical debate. Much of the discussion is thus wasted.
For example, comparisons to other countries are very risky, as are comparisons in any statistical problem where the groups compared vary in multiple ways. Countries with liberal gun ownership laws include Switzerland and the U.S. Countries with strict gun control laws include Japan and the U.K. and (the cities) DC and Chicago. Why are the numbers so different? Well, what else is going on, including the violent crime rate, the usefulness of guns to criminals, the types of punishment for illegal gun use, the cultural attitude towards violence?
You have to look at the statistics in the correct context, and choosing one is sometimes tough. The number of gun deaths, or the % of all murders? What about the number of accidental deaths? The number of successful self-defense cases (pro-gun people sometimes forget the cases where the owner's gun is used against them; this is a frequent hazard for police officers)? The number of people who survive woundings with, say, guns v. knives? And so on.
Often people invoke the Constitution with Biblical fervor, but anyone who's studied con law can tell you it's rarely that simple. Besides, the Constitution was written by men, not God, and if it's wrong we should fix it. So saying "Second Amendment" is not a debate ender, and overlooks that the courts make mistakes, and states are not bound by the Second Amendment anyway. The proper analysis of the Second Amendment itself is a bit of puzzle, esp. with that militia preamble. Ask anyone who says the Second Amendment speaks for itself to explain that militia thing and the rest of the Constitution, in the context of real-world situations, and it becomes apparent that the literal reading may mislead and judges actually earn their pay. Also ask what stops the states from enacting the same sorts of rules -- many have (I don't know the gun clauses of all 50 state constitutions, but I bet someone has extracted them).
There are only a few groups I reject out of hand -- the "me first" group that doesn't care what happens to the rest of society; and the extremists either way. Some of their arguments are just goofy, like the idea that outlawing certain weapons will make no difference because of the black market. That argues against not just gun control, but every single criminal law! What they really mean, I suppose, is that taking guns from law-abiding people will make problems worse, and perhaps they're right. Proof?
I don't see why we can't come to a reasonable accomodation with most people, but the aforementioned groups will never be happy. I think it's terrific the poster has even asked. We have the power to adjust the balance, but how? Like most people, I am concerned over the level of violence in the U.S. What to do about it, well, that's a topic for conversation once we all agree on the propriety and relevance of gun control.
I think of de jure v. de facto in terms of the desegregation cases. I think you might be thinking enumerated v. unenumerated powers. The Framers did not envision a federal government so wealthy that it would be returning money to the states (this was a long time before the income tax), but I think would acknowledge that Congress could set conditions on the spending, which is an enumerated power. The standardized interstates -- originally promoted on the ground of national security! -- are I think are one of the federal government's better achievements.
Such conditions must have some nexus with the spending item -- this p[oint is weakly defined IIRC. "Forcing" states to enact laws -- it's not really forcing when the states can forgo the funds, as I think Vermont did for a while to resist the national age 21 drinking -- was central in NY v. U.S., which you can read if you really want to kill some brain cells (good luck figuring out which Justice voted for what, this is one of the worst I ever saw). Here is an informal discussion (and don't forget to sign up for SC Fastasy League contest, I did) -- Congress could at least say that speeding damages road (esp. true for trucks). Anyway, what I meant was I have no idea how they could function without setting conditions. I understand your point, but note that to roll back Congress to the handful of enumerated powers would be a radical change indeed. (Yes, I know, a lot of people would like to do just that...) I'm arguing vocabulary.
You might like this article on the "new federalism." Change is in the air, and has been for a while.
Fair use -- For a hint, watch the current copyright case (Eldred?) for some explication of what the heck the Copyright Clause does mean. I am certain the Court will not disturb the extension of the copyright period (it is quite long, but not irrationally long as a matter of law, esp. considering other countries have similar terms), but I think there are very good questions to ask about the retroactive aspect of it, which is nothing but a gift to the rights holders. The Court is pretty darn conservative, but I'd not be surprised at a 5-4 or 6-3 reversal on the latter point, at least that's my Fantasy League bet. So fear not, Mickey may be ours next year. Er, to the extent permitted by trademark.:)... thanks for forcing me to look this stuff up, it keeps me awake...
I don't REALLY want a government run by judges, a Congress that's actually accesible and responsive to the public would be much nicer. I'm just grumpy.
Yes, and me too. Grumpy is good, grumpy gets things done.
Thank you also! Sometimes a surface reading is highly misleading, or a misinterpretation easy to make. I'll look for more on this. (I guess I, too, could read the patent, but that's too much like work.)
In the spirit of Slashdot I do have to say you are an fscking moron of questionable parentage -- but you understand it's nothing personal.:)
I'm afraid you're not right on the law. You can argue the law should be different, but that doesn't change what the law is.
The availability of a DMCA exemption for DIY cracking is ambiguous, and I'm taking the word of sources who know better than I do. As I noted, one part vaguely says fair use is unchanged and the other specifically says cracking is not permitted except for narrow exceptions, none of which sounds like fair use. Just being OK under one provision doesn't allow overlooking the others, and courts prefer the specific over the general. This sort of internal contradiction happens often enough -- statutes are drafted at the last minute in a blizzard of lobbying -- and needs to be fixed; I think it will be, in favor of fair use, and the LoC survey is intended as a safety valve. A random thought experiment: Imagine book publishers "copyprotected" the pages of its books with one of those patterns that shows up on photocopying (like the "VOID" on vertain legal docs) -- would that "violate" fair use? No, though it would interfere with it. Some think of fair use as an exemption from copyright prosecution, others view it as a right (to the limited extent of the First A.'s relevance, it definitely is).
As for the Spending Clause, I don't understand your distinction -- the law was clearly "de jure" as the term is used -- and I'm sure that would still be good law today. The federal gov't could advance many reasons; it would be a very strong case unless you first roll the law back to the 19th century. Alternatively, you'd be arguing that the fed could place no conditions on the expenditure of highway funds -- even to require they be spent on highways. (That's the reduced-to-the-absurd argument, or if you like Latin reductio ad absurdum.) Congress can withhold the money on any rational ground short of actually mandating a constitutional violation.. A speed limit does not violate constitutional rights, unless maybe they dropped it to 5 MPH. No, I don't know the ideal speed limit.
A wrinkle, I see here that President Nixon and Congress wrote the provision in back in the 1973 oil crisis -- why is this always attributed to Carter?
Setting the actual limit is I agree best left to the states; but that debate is political, not constitutional.
I can understand your political frustration, but it's too soon to trade it for kritarchy (there's a useful word). I've worked for a number of appellate federal judges, and trust me they are merely human. (Some not so human... someone commented, "Oh Judge X loves babies!" and I quipped, "What? As a snack?" Judge X (not his real name) is a brilliant judge, but I wouldn't trust him alone with my baby, or my laws. Then, there were the judges who were not at all brilliant. I mean 2+2=5 not smart.:) Anyway -- it is best that few questions really do bring the constitution, and judicial philosophizing, into play. It is better to invalidate a law and send it back to the legislature to mull over a bit more.
I don't think it's the advertsing that does it at the journals fortunate enough to be fairly well-off financially (NYT, WSJ). In any reputable journal the ad and news depts. do not talk to each other.
The cause of problems IMHO tend to be old-fashioned ones like laziness, pride, and incompetence, not the exotic like corruption.
It helps a lot to have access to multiple sources of news, including int'l, and to take it all with a bit of caution. I love the NYT but have a little list in my head of areas where they are less than perfect. The Wen Ho Lee case may be one of the most tragic, and that was largely driven by one reporter who the editors may have hesitated to challenge.
Now if only more of our journalists had such unforgiving editors.
Yes, they would kill them all.:)
I like the old expression that an editor is someone who separates the wheat from the chaff, and prints the chaff. (And I'm someone who has done more editing than writing.)
Glad to hear you have such a constructive relationship. Remind your editor, however, that when you are famous you will crush him/her like a grape. Keeps them on their toes.;-)
Some try harder that others, some succeed better than others. Little things like having real editors who look at stories before they go out the door can make a big difference, even if the oversight is light.
I know I select who to trust by their track record, and then only trust them to the degree warranted. I try, anyway; I get hoodwinked now and then like everyone else.
Actually, I got modded down for suggesting the squib showed bias. Up came later. The first modder must have been biased.;-)
The opinion, more than bias, comes through to me clearly, enough so that I started laughing. Mostly in "embracing *some* aspect of the technological revolution!" tranlsates as "Finally the Luddites get a glimmer of a clue!" (Otherwise why emphasize "some" of end with an exclamation point.)
The rest is more subtle, but it's there. I'm curious what "various industry types" means; it suggests some flippancy about the (recording?) industry, and it's the submitter not the industry types who uses the deprecatory term "Big Record Label." Having read it, don't you think you could exactly state the writer personal opinion? This differs from merely setting out the merits and demerits of a new scheme.
I don't have the slightest problem with this because it's right there on the surface (to my ear) and I don't really suspect the writer of concealing or misrepresenting information. (Even stating facts, one can spin a story by not stating other facts -- half-truths -- of exaggerating our certainty in certain facts.) The tone of the story is someone's who's really pleased with this turn of events after much dismal news.
There, how's that for an overwought explanation? What can i say, I enjoy reading between the lines, and I'm just thinking out loud. And I may be totally worng about the submitter's intentions, but I doubt it.
Oh yeah, as for "from the slow-march-of-a-clue dept" I assume that's an editorial enhancement. But now that I look at it -- I routinely ignore these quips -- it certainly sounds like the editor saw the story similarly to me.
Ah, the magic price point. I've been thinking about this.
Under capitalism, the "optimum" price is what the market will bear, barring unprofitability. There may be multiple such prices -- raising the price will increase margin but decrease volume, and so on. Certain prices get people unusually excited, like 99. The market is more than just you, it's the aggregate of every potential customer.
Anyway... I'm pretty sure the a la carte price will have to be higher, partly because the disk is custom-made -- probably little labor, but a whole lot more than a mass-production run of 500,000 -- partly because you're cherry-picking but must help offset all the music that was produced but did not sell, plus overhead (significant), plus promotion (OK, I guess that's overhead), etc. In the beginning there will be start-up costs, plus the higher costs of low volume. Bleeding-edge products usually come at a price premium to early adopters. What I'm saying is that the actual costs of the service may be higher than they appear, though of course there will be significant cost savings, too, which may not be realized immediately.
But ultimately, it's... the price the market will bear.
I wonder what that price is? How about a flat rate to fill a disk however you choose? Americans in particular don't like being nickel-and-dimed. How about different prices for different classes of music, like platinum, gold, silver, and, ah, bronze (oldies)? What about a subscription basis - a disk a month, and if you're not sure what you want they can recommend compilations tied thematically?
Interesting puzzle, isn't it? And one I'll bet you, for all this copy-protection and DMCA hooey, the labels are talking about it right now behind closed doors. I think a lot of regular customers would like this, having all the fun of designing an album, then getting it delivered to your door. No computer, no hassles. Sure, maybe an extra $5.:)
Yep. That's babble, all right. (I'm sure I'm not the first with that comment.) So far these free online translation services have been worth every penny. You should see what they do with idiom.
What do I know, perhaps the Japanese actually talk this way? I only studied boring European languages (3 of them if English counts). Perhaps they think English-speakers have weird syntax.
Send them an English inquiry... they probably have someone who speaks better English than most all of us do Japanese. Actually, they probably have people who speak English better than we do, too.:)
(1) actually you're wrong, manslaughter also requires intent, if not to hurt someone, then to commit reckless acts; (2) I don't have the time to explain the rest of criminal law to you, take a class (it is clear you have not); (3) there's not a whit of difference between PDF and text for what DMCA is concerned about is circumvention.
Not that I disagree with the submitter's bias, and he/she is very up-front about it.:) Interesting contrast to the mainstream press which usually tries to appear impartial.
Switzerland failed to ask itself hard questions after WWII. So did Japan. So did the US.
I made the point here somewhere that it's not a competition; we could all be bad. We should just own up to it; among other things it lessens the chance of a repeat. I'm not blind to questioning U.S. decisions, but that doesn't immunize Swiss profiteering and rejection of refugees certain to die.
I do think the German example is remarkable -- though we did ram much of it down their throats at the start. Japan is an interesting contrast. Also, having lived there I am skeptical Germany has stamped out the allure of Nazis. It would take quite something to bring it out, but what a prospect.
IMHO, Chomsky is... not someone I would trust him on the facts, there are many alternative sources.
As for the cuckoo clock, that's more southern Germany in der Schwarzwald (black forest).
Yeah, I know, but that ruins the joke! It's actually from The Third Man.
So what does that leave us with as the signature achievement? Those irritating folding knives? Muesli? DDT?
How much does your company pay? Why didn't this survey ask? You could poll 99 office workers and one IT peon to produce the impression that only 1% of workers have any signicant problem with spam.:)
Slashdot Mirror
I do all of the above.
:)
(OK, I didn't run for office, but that's for the best.)
You should branch out a little, and accept that entertainment is a valid part of our lives. Why should I be passive about it if I am not passive in all the rest?
Before you pseudo-intellectually pontificate more, why don't you at least get your spelling and punctuation under control. And you credulously fail to understand that "stand up for what you believe in" in tongue-in-cheek when it comes to TV. You're making those of us who watch a little TV look pretty darn literate. And who are Josh and Sally, anyway?
No, you are perhaps thinking of methamphetamine. (Ritalin is methylphenidate, and the other major drug dextroamphetamine, BTW.) "Speed" is street term and I would be pretty surprised to hear a doctor use it or prescribe it.
There is no "high" when these drugs are used properly, in tiny doses; to be effectively abused they must be taken in high doses or crushed and smoked, injected, or snorted. It is thus a gross distortion to deliberately blend clinical and street uses and nicknames.
Any potential stimulant or addictive effect of the drugs is an undesired side effect, and must be taken into account. A new drug called Atomoxetine is under review that is similar in effectively to methylphenidate, but is not a stimulant. Its parallel effectiveness underscores than the stimulant aspect of current drugs is not responsible for the therapeutic effects; it will also not be a controlled subatnce.
I studied these drugs in school and out, don't bother telling me that I don't understand. Drugs are not the solution to all our problems, but neither is careless propaganda and prejudice.
Eat dren. :) Thx, I was just too emotional to check, Rygel.
So it's not just me -- Friday is just not a night I think of to watch TV, and I was annoyed to have to remember Farscape, to watch or to tape. SciFi argues in its FAQ, in a circular way, that there was nothing wrong with a Friday 10pm slot because Stargate led into it and other factors, but to me that meant (1) Farscape's audience would always be smaller and (2) other people who did not watch either show would not be introduced to Farscape unless they went looking for it -- they wouldn't stumble across it flipping the obsolete figurative dial.
... Three's Company is coming on ... gotta run.
No, sci-fi, except maybe Star Trek, is not considered mainstream.
Oh wait
It's a shame to see this attitude repeated against drugs.
Ritalin has been an extremely helpful drug for thousands of people. And, as someone who has taken it, I can tell you it's not a damn thing like speed, or even coffee. There are way to abuse it, but that's not the clinical approach.
Ritalin does not make anyone smarter except to help them moderate their attention span. It is not used as a stimulant -- if you're ever met a kid with ADHD the last thing that would occur to you is to stimulate them, but paradoxically the drug calms them down.
Anyway, do read your own sources -- they are for the most part about the hazard of misdiagnosing a problem as ADHD when it is something else. This is a far cry from saying ADHD is a sham, and also does not say what you claim, that "Very very few people who are diagnosed with ADHD have any medical condition that justifies medication." If the real problem is epilepsy, believe me that needs treatment, too. Also, ADHD is a medical condition. If it is overdiagnosed, and perhaps it is, it still does exist, according to a hundreds more sources than the naysayers.
Yeah, I'm pretty tired of the drug bigotry. I was a psychobiology major and worked in a psych hospital for 4 years, and am consequently quite unable to judge someone by whether they are "on drugs" -- rather, what kind of person are they, and how hard are they trying? Some of the criticism is condescendingly "well meaning" but is hurtful all the same because of the stigma, and it impedes people from getting the help they need. I think some of it is due to overshoot of the anti-alcoholism anti-smoking movements into a simplistic "drugs are bad" and "drugs show weakness." But that's another topic.
:)
:) (My wife checked also with a psychiatrist who does a lot of work with children and she concurred, so I'm not just being stubborn.)
:)
Briefly, on drugs, and as the parent of a perky 6 y.o. I'm keeping an eye on, I should mention I just heard of a next-gen drug for ADHD, more sophisticated than the stimulants used up to now. Ask about it (it would be nice if I remembered the name, wouldn't it?). There has been a lot of press about overuse of Ritalin, which is just the brand name of one of several drugs, but there is also a lot of hype, and there will always be some doctors pressed by time or parents who write a prescription rather than sit down with the child to figure out what's going on. The child may need both. (While I'm "on drugs," I should add there is a more advanced formulation of Ritalin called Concerta which allows precise once-a-day dosing, and avoids the embarrassment of having to go to the school nurse.) A related problem is the lack of studies of drugs in children. (Speaking of studies, there was a good recent article in the NYT Magazine on a relatively novel ADHD study -- sorry it's not free any more.
From what you write, in my unexpert opinion, it sounds like your child is a mild case. Serious ADHD children are something altogether different, and I used to work in a psychiatric hospital. My son is having conduct problems -- acting before thinking -- and has attention span issues, either flighty or hyperfocused, both of which are classic symptoms. Still, and as someone with no philosophical reservations about medication, I believe he is subclinical and am taking a wait-and-see approach, despite the two calls I've gotten from school so far.
He too is extremely bright, and some do think there is some correlation, though ADHD is no proof of smarts... I have a theory it is more prevalent in the tech community, also, for social and intellectual reasons I could explore but someone here might get touchy.
I also have to acknowledge that dealing my son whom I love dearly has been an exasperating experience. I am tired of yelling at him and feel guilty for yelling at him, it's not my style but on some things like wandering into the street there is not room for negotiation. However much I know there is a biological issue, it is very difficult to not react emotionally to things like the child not listening; the medical is interpreted as behavioral, or even plain insulting. The parents may well go through more pain than does the child.
The question is not whether the problem is serious, but what's in his/her best interest, and even with medication the child has to learn certain self-discipline and organizational skills no matter what. The medicine is neither a crutch nor a magic bullet, and it cures nothing; rather it restores some balance so the kid can take it from there. Untreated ADHD can lead to secondary problems like a sort of learning disability and of course cause social adjustment problems as well. Often the problems go away with age, and in fact there is very little available in the popular press about ADHD/ADD in grown-ups. (Oh, a lot of people don't know about the ADD variant, which lacks the stereotyped hyperactivity -- some people may grow out of ADHD into ADD.)
Finally, my pragmatic view is that while you should not allow the callous comments of uninformed or unprincipled people to affect you, don't tell anyone who does not need to know. Once a label has been attached it can be hard to pry off, and of course kids will seize on anything to ridicule each other. Believe me on this one!
Privately, deal with the issue without qualms, and when necessary explain to a stubborn teacher or school administrator that this is a medical problem, not a fault in your childrearing or character weakness in your child. On the other hand, in some places school officials are too quick to medicalize a problem because it appears to provide an easy way out; there are anecdotes of them insisting a child be medicated. Above all make sure you talk to your child and explain what's going on and why she may have to try a little harder than other kids but is no less a person.
I look back on what I've written and realize I could write a lot more! Read as much as you feel necessary from professional sources, and let me or any of us know if I can help out. A good place to look for reading material is Amazon because of the reader feedback. There are also, of course, entire organizations, Web sites, and discussion groups dedicated to ADHD. The lattermost may be good for commiseration among tired parents -- don't forget your needs along the way.
To end on the upbeat note, ADHD is HIGHLY treatable, and much progress is being made. It was not that many years ago that everything from autism to ADHD was blamed on bad parenting. Here is a short page I put together re ADD, emphasizing the humor in it.
The new new cult! Shave your head, say "frell" three times, and send $5 to...
:)
Seriously, we will only be taken seriously if we come up with a better handle than "Scapers" -- which sounds like something halfway between scapies and scalpers. Seriously.
Even Trekkies or, for those with savoir-faire, Trekkers, was better.
I am very impressed by the Farscape insurgency. You didn't see this when they took "Three's Company" off the air. Stand up for what you believe in, even if it is only frelling television.
Humans (which I am one)
You KNOW you're hanging out at the wrong forum when someone has to preface their comment with THAT.
The reason you can't find anything except dry statistics on the gun control debate from neutral sources is that the statistics aren't self-interpreting and can't address the things we really want to know, policy choices like how can we reduce the number of innocent people who get hurt. Opinion on or projection of the likely result of various steps is a necessary element. Ideally we'd have some laboratory with cloned United States (or some other country) under different experimental conditions, and watch what happened.
I try to start with the possibly startling premise that everyone favors gun control of some sort, it's just a question of where to draw the line. Starting at the pro-gun end of the spectrum, most would take guns away from prisoners. Or people about to commit a crime. Or the insane. Or children. Or the intoxicated. Or people in the presence of the President. As for types of "arms" -- another form of gun control -- it is important to consider whether to permit exploding bullets? Silencers? Grenade launchers? Machine guns? Tank guns? Whatever. The point is that almost everyone will draw the line, and once they have all hope of a crystal clear rule is gone.
The pro-gun people insist that law-abiding people are safer with easier gun ownership; they also cite a sort of psychological value in gun ownership. The anti-gun people say the opposite. Fine, prove it either way. You can't, because there is a speculative step that boils down to judgment, assuming you have the facts straight, difficult enough in itself.
Frustratingly, probably the single biggest problem by both sides is the witting or unwitting misuse of statistics, which precludes an intelligent philosophical debate. Much of the discussion is thus wasted.
For example, comparisons to other countries are very risky, as are comparisons in any statistical problem where the groups compared vary in multiple ways. Countries with liberal gun ownership laws include Switzerland and the U.S. Countries with strict gun control laws include Japan and the U.K. and (the cities) DC and Chicago. Why are the numbers so different? Well, what else is going on, including the violent crime rate, the usefulness of guns to criminals, the types of punishment for illegal gun use, the cultural attitude towards violence?
You have to look at the statistics in the correct context, and choosing one is sometimes tough. The number of gun deaths, or the % of all murders? What about the number of accidental deaths? The number of successful self-defense cases (pro-gun people sometimes forget the cases where the owner's gun is used against them; this is a frequent hazard for police officers)? The number of people who survive woundings with, say, guns v. knives? And so on.
Often people invoke the Constitution with Biblical fervor, but anyone who's studied con law can tell you it's rarely that simple. Besides, the Constitution was written by men, not God, and if it's wrong we should fix it. So saying "Second Amendment" is not a debate ender, and overlooks that the courts make mistakes, and states are not bound by the Second Amendment anyway. The proper analysis of the Second Amendment itself is a bit of puzzle, esp. with that militia preamble. Ask anyone who says the Second Amendment speaks for itself to explain that militia thing and the rest of the Constitution, in the context of real-world situations, and it becomes apparent that the literal reading may mislead and judges actually earn their pay. Also ask what stops the states from enacting the same sorts of rules -- many have (I don't know the gun clauses of all 50 state constitutions, but I bet someone has extracted them).
There are only a few groups I reject out of hand -- the "me first" group that doesn't care what happens to the rest of society; and the extremists either way. Some of their arguments are just goofy, like the idea that outlawing certain weapons will make no difference because of the black market. That argues against not just gun control, but every single criminal law! What they really mean, I suppose, is that taking guns from law-abiding people will make problems worse, and perhaps they're right. Proof?
I don't see why we can't come to a reasonable accomodation with most people, but the aforementioned groups will never be happy. I think it's terrific the poster has even asked. We have the power to adjust the balance, but how? Like most people, I am concerned over the level of violence in the U.S. What to do about it, well, that's a topic for conversation once we all agree on the propriety and relevance of gun control.
I think of de jure v. de facto in terms of the desegregation cases. I think you might be thinking enumerated v. unenumerated powers. The Framers did not envision a federal government so wealthy that it would be returning money to the states (this was a long time before the income tax), but I think would acknowledge that Congress could set conditions on the spending, which is an enumerated power. The standardized interstates -- originally promoted on the ground of national security! -- are I think are one of the federal government's better achievements.
...) I'm arguing vocabulary.
:) ... thanks for forcing me to look this stuff up, it keeps me awake ...
Such conditions must have some nexus with the spending item -- this p[oint is weakly defined IIRC. "Forcing" states to enact laws -- it's not really forcing when the states can forgo the funds, as I think Vermont did for a while to resist the national age 21 drinking -- was central in NY v. U.S., which you can read if you really want to kill some brain cells (good luck figuring out which Justice voted for what, this is one of the worst I ever saw). Here is an informal discussion (and don't forget to sign up for SC Fastasy League contest, I did) -- Congress could at least say that speeding damages road (esp. true for trucks). Anyway, what I meant was I have no idea how they could function without setting conditions. I understand your point, but note that to roll back Congress to the handful of enumerated powers would be a radical change indeed. (Yes, I know, a lot of people would like to do just that
You might like this article on the "new federalism." Change is in the air, and has been for a while.
Fair use -- For a hint, watch the current copyright case (Eldred?) for some explication of what the heck the Copyright Clause does mean. I am certain the Court will not disturb the extension of the copyright period (it is quite long, but not irrationally long as a matter of law, esp. considering other countries have similar terms), but I think there are very good questions to ask about the retroactive aspect of it, which is nothing but a gift to the rights holders. The Court is pretty darn conservative, but I'd not be surprised at a 5-4 or 6-3 reversal on the latter point, at least that's my Fantasy League bet. So fear not, Mickey may be ours next year. Er, to the extent permitted by trademark.
I don't REALLY want a government run by judges, a Congress that's actually accesible and responsive to the public would be much nicer. I'm just grumpy.
Yes, and me too. Grumpy is good, grumpy gets things done.
Thank you also! Sometimes a surface reading is highly misleading, or a misinterpretation easy to make. I'll look for more on this. (I guess I, too, could read the patent, but that's too much like work.)
:)
In the spirit of Slashdot I do have to say you are an fscking moron of questionable parentage -- but you understand it's nothing personal.
I'm afraid you're not right on the law. You can argue the law should be different, but that doesn't change what the law is.
... someone commented, "Oh Judge X loves babies!" and I quipped, "What? As a snack?" Judge X (not his real name) is a brilliant judge, but I wouldn't trust him alone with my baby, or my laws. Then, there were the judges who were not at all brilliant. I mean 2+2=5 not smart. :) Anyway -- it is best that few questions really do bring the constitution, and judicial philosophizing, into play. It is better to invalidate a law and send it back to the legislature to mull over a bit more.
The availability of a DMCA exemption for DIY cracking is ambiguous, and I'm taking the word of sources who know better than I do. As I noted, one part vaguely says fair use is unchanged and the other specifically says cracking is not permitted except for narrow exceptions, none of which sounds like fair use. Just being OK under one provision doesn't allow overlooking the others, and courts prefer the specific over the general. This sort of internal contradiction happens often enough -- statutes are drafted at the last minute in a blizzard of lobbying -- and needs to be fixed; I think it will be, in favor of fair use, and the LoC survey is intended as a safety valve. A random thought experiment: Imagine book publishers "copyprotected" the pages of its books with one of those patterns that shows up on photocopying (like the "VOID" on vertain legal docs) -- would that "violate" fair use? No, though it would interfere with it. Some think of fair use as an exemption from copyright prosecution, others view it as a right (to the limited extent of the First A.'s relevance, it definitely is).
As for the Spending Clause, I don't understand your distinction -- the law was clearly "de jure" as the term is used -- and I'm sure that would still be good law today. The federal gov't could advance many reasons; it would be a very strong case unless you first roll the law back to the 19th century. Alternatively, you'd be arguing that the fed could place no conditions on the expenditure of highway funds -- even to require they be spent on highways. (That's the reduced-to-the-absurd argument, or if you like Latin reductio ad absurdum.) Congress can withhold the money on any rational ground short of actually mandating a constitutional violation.. A speed limit does not violate constitutional rights, unless maybe they dropped it to 5 MPH. No, I don't know the ideal speed limit.
A wrinkle, I see here that President Nixon and Congress wrote the provision in back in the 1973 oil crisis -- why is this always attributed to Carter?
Setting the actual limit is I agree best left to the states; but that debate is political, not constitutional.
I can understand your political frustration, but it's too soon to trade it for kritarchy (there's a useful word). I've worked for a number of appellate federal judges, and trust me they are merely human. (Some not so human
Not my point.
:)
Anyway I pay more for a Coke from a vending machine that I do the store. And my bank charges me to get money from an ATM, but not a teller.
I don't think it's the advertsing that does it at the journals fortunate enough to be fairly well-off financially (NYT, WSJ). In any reputable journal the ad and news depts. do not talk to each other.
The cause of problems IMHO tend to be old-fashioned ones like laziness, pride, and incompetence, not the exotic like corruption.
It helps a lot to have access to multiple sources of news, including int'l, and to take it all with a bit of caution. I love the NYT but have a little list in my head of areas where they are less than perfect. The Wen Ho Lee case may be one of the most tragic, and that was largely driven by one reporter who the editors may have hesitated to challenge.
Now if only more of our journalists had such unforgiving editors.
:)
;-)
Yes, they would kill them all.
I like the old expression that an editor is someone who separates the wheat from the chaff, and prints the chaff. (And I'm someone who has done more editing than writing.)
Glad to hear you have such a constructive relationship. Remind your editor, however, that when you are famous you will crush him/her like a grape. Keeps them on their toes.
Just gotta get the last word in, don't you? ;-)
Some try harder that others, some succeed better than others. Little things like having real editors who look at stories before they go out the door can make a big difference, even if the oversight is light.
/. of course. (grin)
I know I select who to trust by their track record, and then only trust them to the degree warranted. I try, anyway; I get hoodwinked now and then like everyone else.
Who do I trust? Why
Actually, I got modded down for suggesting the squib showed bias. Up came later. The first modder must have been biased. ;-)
The opinion, more than bias, comes through to me clearly, enough so that I started laughing. Mostly in "embracing *some* aspect of the technological revolution!" tranlsates as "Finally the Luddites get a glimmer of a clue!" (Otherwise why emphasize "some" of end with an exclamation point.)
The rest is more subtle, but it's there. I'm curious what "various industry types" means; it suggests some flippancy about the (recording?) industry, and it's the submitter not the industry types who uses the deprecatory term "Big Record Label." Having read it, don't you think you could exactly state the writer personal opinion? This differs from merely setting out the merits and demerits of a new scheme.
I don't have the slightest problem with this because it's right there on the surface (to my ear) and I don't really suspect the writer of concealing or misrepresenting information. (Even stating facts, one can spin a story by not stating other facts -- half-truths -- of exaggerating our certainty in certain facts.) The tone of the story is someone's who's really pleased with this turn of events after much dismal news.
There, how's that for an overwought explanation? What can i say, I enjoy reading between the lines, and I'm just thinking out loud. And I may be totally worng about the submitter's intentions, but I doubt it.
Oh yeah, as for "from the slow-march-of-a-clue dept" I assume that's an editorial enhancement. But now that I look at it -- I routinely ignore these quips -- it certainly sounds like the editor saw the story similarly to me.
Ah, the magic price point. I've been thinking about this.
... I'm pretty sure the a la carte price will have to be higher, partly because the disk is custom-made -- probably little labor, but a whole lot more than a mass-production run of 500,000 -- partly because you're cherry-picking but must help offset all the music that was produced but did not sell, plus overhead (significant), plus promotion (OK, I guess that's overhead), etc. In the beginning there will be start-up costs, plus the higher costs of low volume. Bleeding-edge products usually come at a price premium to early adopters. What I'm saying is that the actual costs of the service may be higher than they appear, though of course there will be significant cost savings, too, which may not be realized immediately.
... the price the market will bear.
:)
Under capitalism, the "optimum" price is what the market will bear, barring unprofitability. There may be multiple such prices -- raising the price will increase margin but decrease volume, and so on. Certain prices get people unusually excited, like 99. The market is more than just you, it's the aggregate of every potential customer.
Anyway
But ultimately, it's
I wonder what that price is? How about a flat rate to fill a disk however you choose? Americans in particular don't like being nickel-and-dimed. How about different prices for different classes of music, like platinum, gold, silver, and, ah, bronze (oldies)? What about a subscription basis - a disk a month, and if you're not sure what you want they can recommend compilations tied thematically?
Interesting puzzle, isn't it? And one I'll bet you, for all this copy-protection and DMCA hooey, the labels are talking about it right now behind closed doors. I think a lot of regular customers would like this, having all the fun of designing an album, then getting it delivered to your door. No computer, no hassles. Sure, maybe an extra $5.
Yep. That's babble, all right. (I'm sure I'm not the first with that comment.) So far these free online translation services have been worth every penny. You should see what they do with idiom.
... they probably have someone who speaks better English than most all of us do Japanese. Actually, they probably have people who speak English better than we do, too. :)
What do I know, perhaps the Japanese actually talk this way? I only studied boring European languages (3 of them if English counts). Perhaps they think English-speakers have weird syntax.
Send them an English inquiry
(1) actually you're wrong, manslaughter also requires intent, if not to hurt someone, then to commit reckless acts; (2) I don't have the time to explain the rest of criminal law to you, take a class (it is clear you have not); (3) there's not a whit of difference between PDF and text for what DMCA is concerned about is circumvention.
I love these opinion-free stories!
:) Interesting contrast to the mainstream press which usually tries to appear impartial.
Not that I disagree with the submitter's bias, and he/she is very up-front about it.
Maybe I was too cryptic, I knew what you meant. ;-)
I keep thinking if I say certain ridiculous things, no one could possibly think I'm that stupid. However, given some people here, perhaps they could.
Do ask the guardians of your gate to the internet whether they are filtering. Companies vary a lot on this.
Not quite an official state channel.
... not someone I would trust him on the facts, there are many alternative sources.
... disco.
I'm rather fond of the internet for this!
Switzerland failed to ask itself hard questions after WWII. So did Japan. So did the US.
I made the point here somewhere that it's not a competition; we could all be bad. We should just own up to it; among other things it lessens the chance of a repeat. I'm not blind to questioning U.S. decisions, but that doesn't immunize Swiss profiteering and rejection of refugees certain to die.
I do think the German example is remarkable -- though we did ram much of it down their throats at the start. Japan is an interesting contrast. Also, having lived there I am skeptical Germany has stamped out the allure of Nazis. It would take quite something to bring it out, but what a prospect.
IMHO, Chomsky is
As for the cuckoo clock, that's more southern Germany in der Schwarzwald (black forest).
Yeah, I know, but that ruins the joke! It's actually from The Third Man.
So what does that leave us with as the signature achievement? Those irritating folding knives? Muesli? DDT?
I think America invented
I'll give you a hint, we are again number one in personal PC sales
:)
Casio?
How much does your company pay? Why didn't this survey ask? You could poll 99 office workers and one IT peon to produce the impression that only 1% of workers have any signicant problem with spam.