I think the counter points made on this topic, is that there is a lot of room to question this particular "disorder", as opposed to epilespy. When someone has a seisure, it's fairly clear to all of us that there is a problem. Add in the complexity of the brain (any truthful psychologist or doctor studying the brain will tell you we really know virtually nothing about that particular organ), and things like ADHD, which used to be very successfully cured with discipline, are probably made up.
Further, the tendency for people to WANT to believe that thier childs bad behavior can't really be the fault of said child, seems to add further discredit to the "disorder".
Finally, it's not unusual for people in any profession (psychology included) to want to make their job seem more important/complicated. The tech industry is a perfect example of this. I know tons of programmers that really like making their job seem harder than it is. Along similar lines, is there a tendency for psychologists to turn things into a "disorder", when it's really just bad decision making? In this particular example, it's a questionable issue at best. Further, as I think the parent to your post was trying to get at, things like those medical journals, are just ways for psychologists to validate themselves. They can't really be used as an external validation, as was attempted in the last couple of posts. Someone questions the validity of the psychologists' decision making, and someone else retorts using the psychologists' own decisions as validation of those decisions....it's a little absurd. Essentially, saying "I'm right, because I say I am".
Slander is VERY difficult to prove in court. You not only have to prove that the statement is false (that's the easy part) you have to prove INTENT to damge one's character, a virtually impossible task.
IANAL, that was told to me by a prosecuting attourney...so take it as you will.
You have to be into long character and plot/multiplot development to enjoy his books. There are certainly times where it gets slow, but it's worth reading in the end. I got some of the same feeling from the first part of the LotR series (but then, I was in the 8th grade...). It was slow in the beggining, and a chore to read, but it picked up and was worth it.
For people who want a quick 2-hour story (ala a movie), this is NOT a series to read.
Supply and demand determine prices. The cost of production doesn't directly affect the supply curve, therefore doesn't drive down prices.
However, before someone starts talking about competition and all that...lower production costs can allow for prices to be downward driven, but that has to be pushed by some other factor.
To discuss it another way, a thing may cost you 'X' to make (or provide a service, or whatever). However, when determining your prices, you don't just say (or at least it's not too smart to just say) "Hmm, total cost of production is X, so I'll charge....X+3" (or some other modification of X). Instead, what you should do is, try to understand the value the "thing" provides to your customers, and set a price that will maximize profits. Cost shouldn't be a consideration of pricing, except as a last step of comparing your price to make sure your costs are covered (plus some profit).
I think the point is that the burden of deciding wether a person/company intended for a network to be open shouldn't be placed on the individual, but rather, on the person who set up the network.
The USPS DOES GET SUBSIDIES, in the form of actual cash. Look at my first sentence. Look it up if you don't believe me (doesn't take much googling). I'm talking about actual transfer of cash. By any definition, that is a subsidy.
Secondly, I realize that the definition of the word "subsidy" specifically has to do with cash transfer. However, for practical purposes, the other "benefits" as you call them which the USPS receives, are, for practical purposes, subsidies.
As an example, if I gave you $500 a month to spend on a car, we both agree that is a subsidy. However, if I just paid for the car directly, and let you use it all you want (and even own it), you would say that is not a subsidy. While you are technically correct (according to Merriam-Webster), for practical purposes, the difference is immaterial. I couldn't care less about arguing semantics, I'm just pointing out that the USPS receives things (whatever label you want to put on those things) that benefit it at the cost of the US tax payer.
You should be more educated about how the US government takes away your wealth (wether in the form of taxation, or things like emminent domain). It's your money, not theirs.
First, there are direct subsidies made to the USPS. A recent example, has to do with the government subsidizing efforts to "clean the mail" (mainly, for buying new equipment). This is in relation to the anthrax incedences a year or so ago.
Second, there are other things that effectively subsidize the USPS. Emminent domain for starters. That means that they can force someone to give up land for a "reasonable" (decided by the USPS and government) price. Forcing the owner to potentially sacrifice short and long term benefits that land may provide.
It is also exempt from antitrust laws, and further more, it is illegal for any private company to be competitive with the USPS in the market for First Class mail (I bet MS would love that).
All those things are subsidies, in that they benefit the organization at the cost of taxpayers.
But when you show preferential treatment to only one person, that is certainly a subsidy. The USPS doesn't pay taxes, yet they still benefit from the taxes that are collected. Someone else pays the taxes they *would* have paid.
I wasn't trying to defend the phone companies. I was merely pointing out that noone seems to think the FCC bears any of the blame for setting up a bad environment to begin with.
Could someone explain to me how denying poor people everything from healthcare to education has anything to do with freedom ?
Sure, right after you explain to me how forcing financially responsible people to pay for the financially irresponsible has anything to do with freedom. Noone denies poor people anything, for the most part, they are responsible for denying themselves.
But I guess it's just that "be responsible for your own actions" part of me that makes me think that way...
Tax dollars are "appropriated" to cover "revenue shorfalls". Tax dollars also subsidize pensions.
It's also a government enforced monopoly. If another (private) company was able to send a piece of paper from one person, to another, for, let's say, 5 cents, that would be illegal.
Think about that last point for a minute. It is against the law for someone to come up with a better way to send mail.
The USPS is subsidized with tax dollars. I would prefer that only people who use a thing, pay for that thing, and to the degree by which it is used.
Perhaps instead of sending a letter, I'll use email, or get direct withdrawals instead of mailing bills, etc.
As it stands, I pay a certain amount (through taxes) for the USPS wether I use it or not...
The government essentially established regulations for phone companies to use in determining thier prices. Phone companies abuse the system (to get more money), and people scream about how evil the phone companies are.
The government establishes regulations on how much money welfare recipients should get. The recipients abuse the system (we've all seen stories about this at some point, somewhere)....and people scream about "the system".
Perhaps the ideas of super-humans (e.g. in X^2) should be left to Hollywood and not to The Village Idiots Voice.
Why do I think that if we were having this discussion 200 years ago, but about flying instead (or better yet, transatlanctic flight), that you would be saying the same thing about the idea of flight? I'm not a bilogist (or anything similar), so I'll take your technical roadblocks as true. However, they are only that, technical roadblocks, they can be gotten around. It's worth discussing and considering things before they actually come up.
For that matter, remember that (at least in the US), we the citizen own these lines...
A little bit of a tangent, but that is why there can never be true competition among industries like cable, electric, phone, etc. The government owns the lines. That makes it more of a socialist economy.
Just something to remember for those who complain about how the "free market" doesn't work (and points to something like electricity in California as an example). Deregulation very seldom ever actually is.
How about we don't hold people (or companies) responsible for things they can't control? People lie. Kids lie. It is impossible for Amazon to prevent children from posting reviews (or doing anything else).
Each parent should be responsible for their own kids' behavior. Not Amazon, McDonalds, Microsoft, Michael Jordan, or anyone else.
My wife and I play AC2 together, and I can tell you she usually leads any groups we are a part of. She always plays femaale characters. Nothing special about her character (as in your cleric example).
But she's also a Paramedic IRL. So, she is used to taking a lead, even in a highly stressful situation.
And the government pays for this why? I tell you what, I'll be responsible for my own medical coverage, if you start paying half my tax bill. I doubt you'll jump at that opportunity...
A fucking education (schools, free libraries)
The only thing you have to pay on for your entire lifetime. What a deal!! Thanks:)
I like how you convieniently leave out the myriad of other things our tax dollars are waisted on..red tape, "social programs", etc.
ever gave you the notion that you are born into this world with possesions and that you have inaliable rights? Maybe you do under the Constitution, but...
Yeah, that silly constitution thing...what were those people smoking back then? Oh, yeah, I forgot, they didn't have all this taxation to influence peoples' behavior...so there's no telling what they were smoking.
What gives the government the right to be on your land? Simple: they can be and they will be.
Somehow, I think if I were in your house, and had you at gun point, "because I can", you would be singing a different tune. It's strage that people have no problems letting "the governement" (as if it's some sort of unidentifiable entity) do things that those same people would not be at all happy about if someone else were doing it.... Sheep.
"it's not like the wealth woulnd't be created if they didn't get it, it'd be just be redistributed."
No, it's exactly like that. Person X is good at creating wealth. He hits a certain arbitrary mark that you selected, and now can't "play" anymore. Now, the wealth he would have created in future years, will *not* be created...because you won't let him play.
It's a little like taking your best point-scorer out of the ball game.
Or at the very worst, he isn't necessarily hurting anyone else just by making more money, so why not let him keep playing? (And the fact that he makes money does not imply some criminal/immoral act like theft, deception, etc...that's a different conversation)
Then let's assume I use my MasterCard (I don't know where they are based, but for the sake of argument, let's assume they are based in a state where gambling is illegal) at a casino in Vegas, to get cash to gamble with.
Should MasterCard be held criminally liable for what I did in Las Vegas?
Slashdot Mirror
I think the counter points made on this topic, is that there is a lot of room to question this particular "disorder", as opposed to epilespy. When someone has a seisure, it's fairly clear to all of us that there is a problem. Add in the complexity of the brain (any truthful psychologist or doctor studying the brain will tell you we really know virtually nothing about that particular organ), and things like ADHD, which used to be very successfully cured with discipline, are probably made up. Further, the tendency for people to WANT to believe that thier childs bad behavior can't really be the fault of said child, seems to add further discredit to the "disorder". Finally, it's not unusual for people in any profession (psychology included) to want to make their job seem more important/complicated. The tech industry is a perfect example of this. I know tons of programmers that really like making their job seem harder than it is. Along similar lines, is there a tendency for psychologists to turn things into a "disorder", when it's really just bad decision making? In this particular example, it's a questionable issue at best. Further, as I think the parent to your post was trying to get at, things like those medical journals, are just ways for psychologists to validate themselves. They can't really be used as an external validation, as was attempted in the last couple of posts. Someone questions the validity of the psychologists' decision making, and someone else retorts using the psychologists' own decisions as validation of those decisions....it's a little absurd. Essentially, saying "I'm right, because I say I am".
Slander is VERY difficult to prove in court. You not only have to prove that the statement is false (that's the easy part) you have to prove INTENT to damge one's character, a virtually impossible task. IANAL, that was told to me by a prosecuting attourney...so take it as you will.
Signs are litter then. So are man-made monuments (e.g. washington monument). Buildings. Care to rethink your definition of litter yet?
You have to be into long character and plot/multiplot development to enjoy his books. There are certainly times where it gets slow, but it's worth reading in the end. I got some of the same feeling from the first part of the LotR series (but then, I was in the 8th grade...). It was slow in the beggining, and a chore to read, but it picked up and was worth it.
For people who want a quick 2-hour story (ala a movie), this is NOT a series to read.
Am I the only one picturing a lawn gnome with a wire coming out of his butt?
Not anymore.
Oops..I was wrong on the supply curve shift...
Supply and demand determine prices. The cost of production doesn't directly affect the supply curve, therefore doesn't drive down prices.
However, before someone starts talking about competition and all that...lower production costs can allow for prices to be downward driven, but that has to be pushed by some other factor.
To discuss it another way, a thing may cost you 'X' to make (or provide a service, or whatever). However, when determining your prices, you don't just say (or at least it's not too smart to just say) "Hmm, total cost of production is X, so I'll charge....X+3" (or some other modification of X). Instead, what you should do is, try to understand the value the "thing" provides to your customers, and set a price that will maximize profits. Cost shouldn't be a consideration of pricing, except as a last step of comparing your price to make sure your costs are covered (plus some profit).
I think the point is that the burden of deciding wether a person/company intended for a network to be open shouldn't be placed on the individual, but rather, on the person who set up the network.
The USPS DOES GET SUBSIDIES, in the form of actual cash. Look at my first sentence. Look it up if you don't believe me (doesn't take much googling). I'm talking about actual transfer of cash. By any definition, that is a subsidy.
Secondly, I realize that the definition of the word "subsidy" specifically has to do with cash transfer. However, for practical purposes, the other "benefits" as you call them which the USPS receives, are, for practical purposes, subsidies.
As an example, if I gave you $500 a month to spend on a car, we both agree that is a subsidy. However, if I just paid for the car directly, and let you use it all you want (and even own it), you would say that is not a subsidy. While you are technically correct (according to Merriam-Webster), for practical purposes, the difference is immaterial. I couldn't care less about arguing semantics, I'm just pointing out that the USPS receives things (whatever label you want to put on those things) that benefit it at the cost of the US tax payer.
You should be more educated about how the US government takes away your wealth (wether in the form of taxation, or things like emminent domain). It's your money, not theirs.
First, there are direct subsidies made to the USPS. A recent example, has to do with the government subsidizing efforts to "clean the mail" (mainly, for buying new equipment). This is in relation to the anthrax incedences a year or so ago.
Second, there are other things that effectively subsidize the USPS. Emminent domain for starters. That means that they can force someone to give up land for a "reasonable" (decided by the USPS and government) price. Forcing the owner to potentially sacrifice short and long term benefits that land may provide.
It is also exempt from antitrust laws, and further more, it is illegal for any private company to be competitive with the USPS in the market for First Class mail (I bet MS would love that).
All those things are subsidies, in that they benefit the organization at the cost of taxpayers.
But when you show preferential treatment to only one person, that is certainly a subsidy. The USPS doesn't pay taxes, yet they still benefit from the taxes that are collected. Someone else pays the taxes they *would* have paid.
Subsidies can occur in many forms.
I wasn't trying to defend the phone companies. I was merely pointing out that noone seems to think the FCC bears any of the blame for setting up a bad environment to begin with.
Could someone explain to me how denying poor people everything from healthcare to education has anything to do with freedom ?
Sure, right after you explain to me how forcing financially responsible people to pay for the financially irresponsible has anything to do with freedom. Noone denies poor people anything, for the most part, they are responsible for denying themselves.
But I guess it's just that "be responsible for your own actions" part of me that makes me think that way...
Tax dollars are "appropriated" to cover "revenue shorfalls". Tax dollars also subsidize pensions.
It's also a government enforced monopoly. If another (private) company was able to send a piece of paper from one person, to another, for, let's say, 5 cents, that would be illegal.
Think about that last point for a minute. It is against the law for someone to come up with a better way to send mail.
Tell me again, why is this such a good idea...?
The USPS is subsidized with tax dollars. I would prefer that only people who use a thing, pay for that thing, and to the degree by which it is used. Perhaps instead of sending a letter, I'll use email, or get direct withdrawals instead of mailing bills, etc. As it stands, I pay a certain amount (through taxes) for the USPS wether I use it or not...
Does that count?
Not if it could have been sent for 20 cents...
The government essentially established regulations for phone companies to use in determining thier prices. Phone companies abuse the system (to get more money), and people scream about how evil the phone companies are.
The government establishes regulations on how much money welfare recipients should get. The recipients abuse the system (we've all seen stories about this at some point, somewhere)....and people scream about "the system".
Perhaps the ideas of super-humans (e.g. in X^2) should be left to Hollywood and not to The Village Idiots Voice.
Why do I think that if we were having this discussion 200 years ago, but about flying instead (or better yet, transatlanctic flight), that you would be saying the same thing about the idea of flight? I'm not a bilogist (or anything similar), so I'll take your technical roadblocks as true. However, they are only that, technical roadblocks, they can be gotten around. It's worth discussing and considering things before they actually come up.
For that matter, remember that (at least in the US), we the citizen own these lines...
A little bit of a tangent, but that is why there can never be true competition among industries like cable, electric, phone, etc. The government owns the lines. That makes it more of a socialist economy.
Just something to remember for those who complain about how the "free market" doesn't work (and points to something like electricity in California as an example). Deregulation very seldom ever actually is.
How about we don't hold people (or companies) responsible for things they can't control? People lie. Kids lie. It is impossible for Amazon to prevent children from posting reviews (or doing anything else). Each parent should be responsible for their own kids' behavior. Not Amazon, McDonalds, Microsoft, Michael Jordan, or anyone else.
My wife and I play AC2 together, and I can tell you she usually leads any groups we are a part of. She always plays femaale characters. Nothing special about her character (as in your cleric example). But she's also a Paramedic IRL. So, she is used to taking a lead, even in a highly stressful situation.
Kevin Mitnik, former hacker extraordinaire has opens his own network security firm. Oh..wait...he really did do that.
Assistance in certain situations (hospitals)
:)
And the government pays for this why? I tell you what, I'll be responsible for my own medical coverage, if you start paying half my tax bill. I doubt you'll jump at that opportunity...
A fucking education (schools, free libraries)
The only thing you have to pay on for your entire lifetime. What a deal!! Thanks
I like how you convieniently leave out the myriad of other things our tax dollars are waisted on..red tape, "social programs", etc.
ever gave you the notion that you are born into this world with possesions and that you have inaliable rights? Maybe you do under the Constitution, but...
Yeah, that silly constitution thing...what were those people smoking back then? Oh, yeah, I forgot, they didn't have all this taxation to influence peoples' behavior...so there's no telling what they were smoking.
What gives the government the right to be on your land? Simple: they can be and they will be.
Somehow, I think if I were in your house, and had you at gun point, "because I can", you would be singing a different tune. It's strage that people have no problems letting "the governement" (as if it's some sort of unidentifiable entity) do things that those same people would not be at all happy about if someone else were doing it.... Sheep.
"it's not like the wealth woulnd't be created if they didn't get it, it'd be just be redistributed." No, it's exactly like that. Person X is good at creating wealth. He hits a certain arbitrary mark that you selected, and now can't "play" anymore. Now, the wealth he would have created in future years, will *not* be created...because you won't let him play. It's a little like taking your best point-scorer out of the ball game. Or at the very worst, he isn't necessarily hurting anyone else just by making more money, so why not let him keep playing? (And the fact that he makes money does not imply some criminal/immoral act like theft, deception, etc...that's a different conversation)
Then let's assume I use my MasterCard (I don't know where they are based, but for the sake of argument, let's assume they are based in a state where gambling is illegal) at a casino in Vegas, to get cash to gamble with. Should MasterCard be held criminally liable for what I did in Las Vegas?
Holy crap is this post misguided... By the way, I *wish* a Taiwanese company would sell Nike-equivalent (same quality, etc.) sneakers for 2.99.