Ah, but what products are those? Don't be so sure the mandarins of government are right or incorruptible. I lost nearly 25% of my body weight when I quit eating carbohydrates in any more than trivial quantities (under 30 g/day). Obviously, I ate a lot of meat. Is a hypertensive, near-diabetic, 42-inch-waist guy "healthier" than a normotensive, normoglycemic, 35-inch-waist guy who eats more meat?
And, unfortunately, that entire quoted section is either weasel words or confuses correlation and causation. Educated people commit fewer crimes: I'll buy that. It's the education that makes them so: Not so much.
I always love this one. Psychiatrists are among the lowest-paid physicians. You'd make more money over the course of your life by being a retail pharmacist.
OK, when did you have the car in when it didn't need some parts.
That's not exactly stunning proof, unless you used the guy for oil changes and it always needed more than just the filter and oil. I generally don't take my car to the mechanic when it's working just fine.
Depression? Depression is real, but it's a drop in the psychiatric bucket. Depressed people kill themselves. Psychotic people kill everyone else and then themselves. This is a bunch of psychologists who want to come up with some more reasons why they ought to be treating depression with counseling, and are willing to throw the seriously mentally ill under the bus in order to do so.
Indeed. Psychiatry and the DSM-IV (and soon-to-be DSM V) have issues, but people who insist that schizophrenia is not a disease are, not to put too fine a point on it, absolutely fucking insane. Is it a perfectly defined disease? No, because brains are such complex things that they often go wrong on a continuum (e.g., the high incidence of schizophrenia among artistic types may explain why they are artistic: people whose internal/external boundary is weak may be able to see the world differently, but they're also at risk of losing their grounding in reality). But that doesn't mean that psychosis doesn't exist, or that it isn't amenable to pharmacotherapy. That pharmacotherapy is necessarily blunt, because drugs can't choose to suppress receptors in one part of the brain and not the others, and it's necessarily broad-spectrum, because neurotransmitters affect a lot of things. But antipsychotics do work.
I'm not a psychiatrist, but I do work at a mental hospital part-time. You should visit one some time and get to see a real schizophrenic in florid psychosis.
Assuming that anyone who wrote the original DOS driver is still around... and can write Win 8 drivers. I imagine that staff turnover would be a real killer in these situations... software was a lot closer to the metal those days.
It's a black thing, usually among people who are heavily blinged out - it's a subcultural thing. You'll also find black Americans put the phone on speaker and then hold it up in front of their face but parallel with the ground. Makes some sense when it's a group talking to someone but otherwise I don't get it.
First, you're assuming that I was paying attention to them instead of reading whatever I wanted to.
If you're going to study comparative religion, studying Christianity first is probably not a bad idea. A solid grounding in the Bible really is essential if you want to understand English-language literature, and learning how to do the Jesus dance is a very important skill in the South.
child abuse
Don't be ridiculous. Evolution as a means of the genesis of life is as relevant to most people's lives as calculus is. The fact that my mother-in-law is a young-Earth creationist doesn't make her a bad mother or grandmother. All it means is that she has two evolutionist kids who just don't bring the subject up with her.
No. But that's just my opinion. I have been forced to take unscheduled call because other people have had children, and if I had a child I would expect to get nothing more than the day of birth off. I chose that situation voluntarily. It's not my partners' problem that my wife gets pregnant, after all.
Evolution isn't really all that important in the day-to-day lives of average people. It's nice if they know the truth, but it's really not all that important. That's why we keep having this argument. If it were important, evolution would have won long ago. It's not. Let it go. The smart kids are going to ignore it anyway.
Yes, I went to an elementary school that was explicitly Christian and anti-evolution. Didn't slow me down at all; I knew they were wrong and moved on. It was, however, a very good elementary education.
I'm not xenophobic, and this has nothing to do with xenophobia. I live, by choice, in a city that is 80% black, as a white man. I am certain that I have more ethnic variation in my daily life than you do. If you would like to find a city in Sweden that is 80% non-white and poor, and move there, then you can begin to consider lecturing me about xenophobia, but as far as I can tell you're going to have to build that city out of thin air.
Your ethnic balance (86% Swedish, 5% other European, 9% other, per Wiki) has nothing to do with your prosperity; that's hard work and determination. But it does strongly constrain what policies can be implemented. You can use social pressure to influence peoples' actions and prevent them from abusing the system, which is something completely impossible in the US. The US is both large and federalist, and both of these make decisive action difficult.
But high ethnic homogeneity in a small population means that you can effectively implement solutions that are impossible in larger, more diverse groups, because you can (e.g.) rely on social pressures to prevent abuse of the system.
Sweden is also a country of ten million people with extraordinary ethnic homogeneity. Some things work in that environment that don't work in countries of over three hundred million people.
This is in no small part because the South is the only part of the country that really has black people everywhere. Look at this or this (for the second one, you'll need to select View More Maps and choose Black Population). Outside the South, black people live in cities. In the South, they live in small towns, in rural areas, and yes, in cities, but there's just a lot more interaction between whites and blacks, and they are inhabiting distinct cultures (if you don't believe me, compare the Real Housewives of Atlanta to those of anywhere else - maybe Orange County.
Humans are wired to be racist the same way we're wired to be tribal - it takes a sustained, conscious effort to overcome. The Czechs and the Slovaks decided to part ways, and they are so ethnically similar that they speak mutually intelligible languages. The fact that we have taken an incredibly toxic environment of mutual distrust and hatred and turned it into a mere dozen instances of "nigger" in the span of fifty years is an incredible accomplishment. Racism is a lot less common in the North, but so are the actual black people with whom a white person might have a negative interaction that would serve to justify (in their mind) a racist belief.
The Magna Carta is a set of limitations on the power of the crown, agreed to by the crown. It is absolutely one of the inspirations of the US Constitution. But it is not the US Constitution, which quite clearly specifies what the powers of the government are, not just what they are not. As it turns out, society has agreed to let legislators just ignore inconvenient portions of the constitution, but that's not the authors' fault.
The crown is that uppity all the time. The monarch, not so much.
The basis of UK law is divine right monarchism with limitations thrown on. The basis of US law is a written constitution that carefully circumscribes the powers of government. Even though both countries have common law systems, their fundamental structures are radically different.
The power is being exercised through Parliament, but it is still the crown's power even if the possessor of the crown no longer controls all of it. The UK is a divine right monarchy that has had various limitations placed on the monarch, some of which have essentially divested the monarch of more than a ceremonial role, but the government still has those powers unless it has signed them away. The US government is fundamentally limited by what the Constitution says it can do. And in an awful lot of circumstances, it can't tell states what to do.
It's not just their devotion - it's their numbers. There are hardcore, dedicated activists for just about any position you can think of.
What makes gun owners different is that there are millions of them who consider the Second Amendment to be the basis of all other freedoms and who will accordingly campaign, donate, and vote against anyone, regardless of their party and regardless of anything else they do, who appears to threaten gun rights. That's why the NRA is powerful. It doesn't hurt their cause that long experience has shown that regardless of what gun-control advocates say, what they want is to ban essentially all guns in private hands - it means that calls for "common-sense reforms" are interpreted as the beginning of a slippery slope.
One other, rather major, difference: the UK is governed by the crown, full stop. The crown might choose to limit some of its powers (e.g., the Magna Carta), or delegate them to Parliament, but as a legal entity it can more or less do whatever the hell it wants, and when it makes a rule, it will apply to every level of government below it. The federal government of the US is powerful, but it can't actually force state governments to do a lot of things if they don't want to. (They can, of course, make that resistance very painful.)
Slashdot Mirror
Ah, but what products are those? Don't be so sure the mandarins of government are right or incorruptible. I lost nearly 25% of my body weight when I quit eating carbohydrates in any more than trivial quantities (under 30 g/day). Obviously, I ate a lot of meat. Is a hypertensive, near-diabetic, 42-inch-waist guy "healthier" than a normotensive, normoglycemic, 35-inch-waist guy who eats more meat?
Portions of every one of those things are on your toothbrush, too. Welcome to life on Earth.
And, unfortunately, that entire quoted section is either weasel words or confuses correlation and causation. Educated people commit fewer crimes: I'll buy that. It's the education that makes them so: Not so much.
I always love this one. Psychiatrists are among the lowest-paid physicians. You'd make more money over the course of your life by being a retail pharmacist.
OK, when did you have the car in when it didn't need some parts.
That's not exactly stunning proof, unless you used the guy for oil changes and it always needed more than just the filter and oil. I generally don't take my car to the mechanic when it's working just fine.
Depression? Depression is real, but it's a drop in the psychiatric bucket. Depressed people kill themselves. Psychotic people kill everyone else and then themselves. This is a bunch of psychologists who want to come up with some more reasons why they ought to be treating depression with counseling, and are willing to throw the seriously mentally ill under the bus in order to do so.
ECT works. Not for everyone, and not a first-line treatment. But it works.
Indeed. Psychiatry and the DSM-IV (and soon-to-be DSM V) have issues, but people who insist that schizophrenia is not a disease are, not to put too fine a point on it, absolutely fucking insane. Is it a perfectly defined disease? No, because brains are such complex things that they often go wrong on a continuum (e.g., the high incidence of schizophrenia among artistic types may explain why they are artistic: people whose internal/external boundary is weak may be able to see the world differently, but they're also at risk of losing their grounding in reality). But that doesn't mean that psychosis doesn't exist, or that it isn't amenable to pharmacotherapy. That pharmacotherapy is necessarily blunt, because drugs can't choose to suppress receptors in one part of the brain and not the others, and it's necessarily broad-spectrum, because neurotransmitters affect a lot of things. But antipsychotics do work.
I'm not a psychiatrist, but I do work at a mental hospital part-time. You should visit one some time and get to see a real schizophrenic in florid psychosis.
Assuming that anyone who wrote the original DOS driver is still around... and can write Win 8 drivers. I imagine that staff turnover would be a real killer in these situations... software was a lot closer to the metal those days.
I would imagine that the real problem you run into is the driver...
Like I said, it's subcultural - guess white neckbeards really do wish they were gangstas. Life imitates Office Space.
It's a black thing, usually among people who are heavily blinged out - it's a subcultural thing. You'll also find black Americans put the phone on speaker and then hold it up in front of their face but parallel with the ground. Makes some sense when it's a group talking to someone but otherwise I don't get it.
If you're going to study comparative religion, studying Christianity first is probably not a bad idea. A solid grounding in the Bible really is essential if you want to understand English-language literature, and learning how to do the Jesus dance is a very important skill in the South.
child abuse
Don't be ridiculous. Evolution as a means of the genesis of life is as relevant to most people's lives as calculus is. The fact that my mother-in-law is a young-Earth creationist doesn't make her a bad mother or grandmother. All it means is that she has two evolutionist kids who just don't bring the subject up with her.
No. But that's just my opinion. I have been forced to take unscheduled call because other people have had children, and if I had a child I would expect to get nothing more than the day of birth off. I chose that situation voluntarily. It's not my partners' problem that my wife gets pregnant, after all.
Evolution isn't really all that important in the day-to-day lives of average people. It's nice if they know the truth, but it's really not all that important. That's why we keep having this argument. If it were important, evolution would have won long ago. It's not. Let it go. The smart kids are going to ignore it anyway.
Yes, I went to an elementary school that was explicitly Christian and anti-evolution. Didn't slow me down at all; I knew they were wrong and moved on. It was, however, a very good elementary education.
I'm not xenophobic, and this has nothing to do with xenophobia. I live, by choice, in a city that is 80% black, as a white man. I am certain that I have more ethnic variation in my daily life than you do. If you would like to find a city in Sweden that is 80% non-white and poor, and move there, then you can begin to consider lecturing me about xenophobia, but as far as I can tell you're going to have to build that city out of thin air.
Your ethnic balance (86% Swedish, 5% other European, 9% other, per Wiki) has nothing to do with your prosperity; that's hard work and determination. But it does strongly constrain what policies can be implemented. You can use social pressure to influence peoples' actions and prevent them from abusing the system, which is something completely impossible in the US. The US is both large and federalist, and both of these make decisive action difficult.
Missouri is less white than Sweden is Swedish. Try again.
But high ethnic homogeneity in a small population means that you can effectively implement solutions that are impossible in larger, more diverse groups, because you can (e.g.) rely on social pressures to prevent abuse of the system.
Sweden is also a country of ten million people with extraordinary ethnic homogeneity. Some things work in that environment that don't work in countries of over three hundred million people.
This is in no small part because the South is the only part of the country that really has black people everywhere. Look at this or this (for the second one, you'll need to select View More Maps and choose Black Population). Outside the South, black people live in cities. In the South, they live in small towns, in rural areas, and yes, in cities, but there's just a lot more interaction between whites and blacks, and they are inhabiting distinct cultures (if you don't believe me, compare the Real Housewives of Atlanta to those of anywhere else - maybe Orange County.
Humans are wired to be racist the same way we're wired to be tribal - it takes a sustained, conscious effort to overcome. The Czechs and the Slovaks decided to part ways, and they are so ethnically similar that they speak mutually intelligible languages. The fact that we have taken an incredibly toxic environment of mutual distrust and hatred and turned it into a mere dozen instances of "nigger" in the span of fifty years is an incredible accomplishment. Racism is a lot less common in the North, but so are the actual black people with whom a white person might have a negative interaction that would serve to justify (in their mind) a racist belief.
The Magna Carta is a set of limitations on the power of the crown, agreed to by the crown. It is absolutely one of the inspirations of the US Constitution. But it is not the US Constitution, which quite clearly specifies what the powers of the government are, not just what they are not. As it turns out, society has agreed to let legislators just ignore inconvenient portions of the constitution, but that's not the authors' fault.
The crown is that uppity all the time. The monarch, not so much.
The basis of UK law is divine right monarchism with limitations thrown on. The basis of US law is a written constitution that carefully circumscribes the powers of government. Even though both countries have common law systems, their fundamental structures are radically different.
The power is being exercised through Parliament, but it is still the crown's power even if the possessor of the crown no longer controls all of it. The UK is a divine right monarchy that has had various limitations placed on the monarch, some of which have essentially divested the monarch of more than a ceremonial role, but the government still has those powers unless it has signed them away. The US government is fundamentally limited by what the Constitution says it can do. And in an awful lot of circumstances, it can't tell states what to do.
It's not just their devotion - it's their numbers. There are hardcore, dedicated activists for just about any position you can think of.
What makes gun owners different is that there are millions of them who consider the Second Amendment to be the basis of all other freedoms and who will accordingly campaign, donate, and vote against anyone, regardless of their party and regardless of anything else they do, who appears to threaten gun rights. That's why the NRA is powerful. It doesn't hurt their cause that long experience has shown that regardless of what gun-control advocates say, what they want is to ban essentially all guns in private hands - it means that calls for "common-sense reforms" are interpreted as the beginning of a slippery slope.
One other, rather major, difference: the UK is governed by the crown, full stop. The crown might choose to limit some of its powers (e.g., the Magna Carta), or delegate them to Parliament, but as a legal entity it can more or less do whatever the hell it wants, and when it makes a rule, it will apply to every level of government below it. The federal government of the US is powerful, but it can't actually force state governments to do a lot of things if they don't want to. (They can, of course, make that resistance very painful.)