I'm not sure how to respond since you disagree with your post!:)
I'm not familiar with requip, and Google doesn't turn up anything negative on the first couple of pages. As to the sales reps, I'll admit they're aggressive, but I've never met a sales rep that wasn't.
All of that being said, though...every time I go to the doctor's office, I'm made to feel better. When my mother had breast cancer, her treatments cured her. When my stepfather needed a kidney, dialysis helped in the interim. What I do see is a wealth of cures and/or alleviators of symptoms hitting the market due to a steady state of research. Some have negative side effects, sure, that's why a lot of research is now focusing on tailoring drugs/treatments to the individual.
The coldest period in the last half billion years had atmospheric CO2 levels 10 times what we have today. Why wasn't the CO2 driving the change then? It certainly wasn't the temperature.
Maybe if the climate "researchers" would open up their methodologies, source code and data, I might be able to understand it.
Possibly, but I doubt it. There's a wealth of information available to you now (the above article alone cites 5 different studies), yet you continue to focus on "motive" as a reason to disbelieve the science. As was evidenced by the ClimateGate scandal, when the general public is given free access to data, they misinterpret it. In all of the information that was released to the public, not once is there a single e-mail or reference that says "our AWG conspiracy is on track...muwahahah!" Instead, you have statisticians talking about "tricks" as "proof" of AGW fraud. My wife showed me a "trick" this weekend for making better pancakes, the result was still pancakes.
that would seek to replicate and evaluate your results, you're not practicing science.
But, as stated, that's not what happens. What happens is you get deniers nitpicking over irrelevant details (the Himalayan glaciers thing of the last few weeks springs immediately to mind). They don't attempt to replicate the experiments or studies, they simply denigrate them without any empirical evidence to back it up. It turns into...well, the situation we have today...
When I hear someone talking out of both sides of their mouth explaining exception after exception to their mythical model that has all the answers, I assume I am dealing with a charlatan.
Who is explaining exceptions? What I see is false claims being raised and then disproven with actual evidence.
Science is ENTIRELY about being a skeptic. The AGW crowd demean skeptics. Thus, the AGW crowd must not be scientists.
How you choose to view my comment will determine in which camp you reside. If you choose, for example, to peruse the site I've linked to a couple of times and review the cited studies to construct one view of the argument and then find contradictory studies to construct the other side and then build a reasonable stance from that...you're a skeptic. If, however, you choose to continue to worry about things like "hiding methodologies" and "who called whom what"...you're a denier. It really is that simple. The only evidence that counts to a skeptic is evidence. Ad hominems tu quoque (Ad hominem tu quoques? Hmmm...) are not.
If nothing else works though, that hope does help them mentally so is that really that bad?
Yes, it is. A lot of people will turn to flim-flam medicine in place of real, evidenced based medicine and get sicker as a result. You also have a huge industry based on sham medicine costing people billions in wasted money every year. Finally, the deeply flawed arguments used by pushers of these drugs leave a segment of the population distrusting "big pharma" as if the medical industry was out to get them...In other words, the long term effect is a loss of critical thinking skills and people who are poorer and sicker because some fools benefited from the placebo effect.
The flaw in the argument (as much as I can gather from your comment) appears to be an assumption that only those who have no other options left will turn to faith-based medicine. Most people who believe in this crap turn to it FIRST, not last...
"As an amateur astronomer, he has always been an AGW skeptic because of synchronous warming on neighbouring planets. A few years ago, he read Michael Chrichton’s State of Fear, and learning about many AGW issues, began his own investigation. "
ROTFLMAO!!!
Seriously, a little pee came out. I love sites like these that show how stupid these people are. "There's all of this evidence for a conspiracy! See!!!" Um, no, I don't. You've got all of their docs and e-mail, where are the ones that specifically say "our conspiracy's going along nicely, we'll all be rich, rich, RICH!"? "Well, it says here they used a "trick"!" Ohhhhhhhhh, I see...........
Thanks for sharing, that's the funniest thing I've read in weeks. Perhaps he should try a little harder at the astronomy thing 'cause there's no such thing as "synchronous warming on neighbouring planets". Maybe he could read a book that isn't fiction?
So, isn't the fact that they owned a lot of stock in the company, and thus their personal fortunes were tied directly to the company's performance, a good thing
I'm going to do something unheard of on Slashdot and give a reasonable answer to a reasonable question: you mentioned in the first paragraph the subtle flaw in this argument: "They owned lots of stock (due to stock grants and options from the company, most likely)". In other words, they were given this stock (I don't think executives get options very often. That's usually left for the peons and serfs.), they didn't buy it. They didn't invest their own personal fortunes in order to make the company stronger, they were given these and made their fortunes off of the dividends paid. When the stocks were sold, they were simply transferring ownership, the company did not benefit at all from these sales.
In extremely simplistic terms: if I buy stock in a company during their IPO for $5, $5 goes to the company as capital (again, very simplistic explanation). If I sell that stock for $10/share, I make $5 and the company sees no benefit. If I'm an officer and am given stock as a benefit, and then sell that stock, the company sees no benefit.
Why thank you. You provide no facts to back your case, only your own supposition based on "what ifs" and then suggest my own argument fails. Yup, you would know all about fails...
Great history lesson. I did not, however, say "laser printer", I said "laser" which was "invented" in 1959 (it was built on previous technologies and theories, but LASER was introduced to the world in the 1959 paper "The LASER, Light Amplification by Stimulated Emission of Radiation"). I also didn't say private companies won't do research, I said that unless have a practical application, you're not going to get funding. Starkweather's research of the laser printer was a corporate-funded endeavor to produce something they could sell.
Seems reasonable to me. I can quit anytime I want; why can't they fire me anytime they want? I'm selling them my labor. They're free to buy labor from whomever they want, and I'm free to sell to whomever I want.
On the face of it, it seems a reasonable argument and in fact IS the argument used by the 43 states that don't offer any kind of employee protection whatsoever. However, if you activate your critical thinking skills, you'll see that reciprocity (which is what you're trying to define) doesn't exist. If, for example, I decided to just not show up to work anymore my company will go on just fine without me even though I do work in a fairly critical position. It might mean other members of my team will have to work a bit harder for a few weeks to fill the void, but there will be no overwhelming financial impact to the company whatsoever.
On the other hand, if my company decides to fire me because I wore white after Labor Day (a stupid reason, yes, but a legal one nonetheless in all but 7 states), then I am subject to severe financial disruption, not to mention the loss of medical benefits for myself and family. In all but a few states, being fired makes you ineligible for unemployment (you need to be laid off with the potential for recall to be eligible), so you're on your own regardless of there being a valid reason or not. Beyond that, whenever you interview going forward, you have to explain why you were terminated BUT you're not allowed to speak negatively of a former employer in an interview...so keep it positive! Even if you do, the myth of "they're not allowed to say anything negative about you in a reference" is a meme that should've died a long time ago. They can say whatever they want when giving a reference, legally it just has to be true. However, as you're an unemployed schlub with no income...good luck finding a lawyer who will take your case on a contingency if they lie.
We can try and spin it any way we like, the fact is the deck is stacked 100% against you. Is it likely you'll be fired for wearing white after Labor Day? Is it likely, however, that you'll be fired for another equally stupid reason? In this economy, anything's possible.
That makes defense spending necessary unlike education and research spending.
Tell that to companies like Kodak and Motorola who have made trillions on the sale of digital cameras that have their origins with the publicly-funded Hubble program. Governments need to fund research simply because businesses won't unless they see immediate value in it. Hell, the ubiquitous laser was called "a solution looking for a problem" when it was invented 50 years ago and we see how well that turned out. Most scientists who make discoveries are completely unaware of their potential applications, and unless you can come up with a sellable application to your board of directors, you're not going to get funding. That doesn't make the research useless or unnecessary, it just exposes the short-sightedness of most business owners.
When I was a kid I had no problems getting my hands on booze or tobacco and both of those products are legal.
Guess it depends on the area you lived.:) When I was in HS, I smoked pot because it was INFINITELY easier to get. Hell, we had a guy who came around once a week to school to make deliveries!
THAT is your answer? Really? It's not natural that I am talking to you via an electronic device hundreds of miles away on a site that 20 million+ visitors/day from all around the world...you don't have a problem with that. But, that unnaturalness benefits you, so it's ok, right?
This idea of a rigidly defined target of "normal" is not natural.
No one's defining normal. Necessity defines that all members of society, however posess certain levels of knowledge and training in order to be fully productive and happy. Those that don't posess that training are relageted to the lower escelons of that society. By giving kids with ADHD a simple pill each day, we ensure they can learn and acquire the necessary tools to be productive members of society and lead a happy life. Again, this is NO different from giving parapalegic kids a wheelchair with which they can go to school. You skirted that issue, so I assume you have a problem with taking away wheelchairs from kids that need them. So why would you take away a cure from those who have a learning disability? To satisfy your sense of "natural"? How also does that force conformity on those children?
Actually quite the opposite. I wasn't made to feel there was something wrong with me for being different--for not being able to read when all the other little kids could, or learning to swim or ride when all my friend did.
That's great. And, yet you managed to, arguably, acquire the same level of education as your peers, meaning your issues were not so great and therefore not in need of any kind of intervention. Since you didn't have ADHD, you have no idea how hard it is on a child who's made to feel inferior because they learn differently from other students in the class. They're told they're just not trying hard enough, or that their parents aren't, when the fact is they're more likely working harder than all of the other kids in class just because they can't focus on their homework for more than seconds at a time. By giving those kids a simple pill, they can participate in class just like everyone else. Your position means that all kids who aren't as "capable" as all of the others must suffer because that's how nature intended it.
Teaching kids sign language before they can talk (and after, too) is great. I am not a doctor, and even if I was, I couldn't make a diagnosis from a third hand account through a short/. post. But as a big person who used to be a little person, I still do not see what needed to be "corrected" in this case.
Your example isn't the same a being put on medication, but a psychologist and speech therapy? I think you provide anecdotal support for the post you are trying to refute.
No, it's not the same as being put on medication. The OP said that all kids are put on "powerful Autism medication if they don't start talking at just the right time". My point was to refute that claim. You, however, obviously have a problem with any kid being given the opportunity to overcome whatever might be holding them back.
Anything you do after that makes me think "parents are ignorant and don't know how to raise their kids."
And, how many kids do you have?
WTF does that mean? There is no appropriate time to start speaking. OK, maybe if your child doesn't talk by high school, there might be an issue. Or maybe she/he just doesn't have anything to say.
Actually, there is. They should start talking between 10 & 26 months. If, however, a child hasn't started talking by 16-18 months, it's usually indicitive of a problem.
But to have a 20-month old in therapy? Your example doesn't involve medication (yet, I'm sure) but is a data point to support the parent post. Over-diagnosis, over-medication, anything that isn't exactly what we expect is a syndrom.
So dying to hear how many kids you have. I'd also like to know what your credentials are as a doctor? Are you a pediatrician? Child psychologist? Clueless twit with an opinion? Based on your lack of understanding, I'm going to go with the latter. No one said was a syndrome. It IS, however, something that's correctable. These are the formative years, the years in which parents are instructing their children in the basics of how to operate in the world. How exactly are we supposed to do that if the child can't communicate? My daughter's friend has a LOT to say, she just doesn't do it vocally, so you fail.
Because we wouldn't want people to be different. Should we feed lead paint chips to the smart kids to bring them down to average? That way they are given the chance to learn the same as those who do not have the ability.
Is that what happened to you? Because it's obvious you're severely deficient in a lot of areas. Giving every child the same opportunity to learn and advance is not the same as making everyone the same.
What about those weak, scrawny kids? They should get steroids and HGH! Can't leave things like hormones to chance.
Sigh...you really like going into irrelevant areas to make flawed points, don't you? What about the kids in wheelchairs? Should we take them away from them as well? Shouldn't they just appreciate that they'll never be as good as the other kids and should just suck up and live the life of obscurity you so want them too?
We might end up with different kids with different levels of ability that way.
Okay, I'll bite: what's wrong with everyone having the same level of ability?
I was a late-bloomer physically, intellectually, and socially. But I did bloom eventually.
Arguable, especially the last two.
I'm not perfect, but I do like the person I am. It scares me to think about what sort of lab experiment I would have turned in to if my parents had been like your daughter's best friend's.
You might not be so a sad little creature who very obviously DOES NOT like who they are. I don't blame you, though, you don't appear to be a likeable person. You have no idea what you're talking about, yet that doesn't stop you having an opinion on it. You're also very upset at your parents for forcing you to live with whatever was holding you back rather than giving you the opportunity to flourish. I feel sorry for you, I really do, but you're a lost cause. No sense holding others back because you're a failure. That little girl is extremely happy now that she can talk to her mother, she's not a lab experiment. She's been given an opporunity that she wouldn't have had if she had been YOUR kid. I'm so glad you don't have kids.
Fantastic, your stepson had been misdiagnosed by the first doctor and didn't have ADHD. That doesn't mean the disorder doesn't exist and that some children need to be treated medically for it. As someone who has it, I can tell you first hand that all of the "discipline", "sports" and "activities" do nothing to treat kids who really do have ADHD.
I see someone just finished their copy of How To Win Friends and Influence People.
Seriously, kids today have to wear helmets just to ride a bike
Bicycle helmets reduce the severity of head injuries in an accident by 88%, so what's your point?
have some pediatrician putting them on powerful Autism medication if they don't start talking at just the right time
My daughter is 20 months old. Her "best friend" is the same age. My daughter has a huge vocabulary already, her friend doesn't speak at all. The friend was taken to her pediatrician, who FIRST tested to make sure she wasn't deaf. She was then sent to a child psychologist to determine her mental facilities. At that point, she was put into a speech therapy program where she has been taught sign language in order to communicate. That, BTW, is the standard protocol used when a child hasn't started speaking at an appropriate time. Is it true that some pediatricians will resort to medicinal treatments first? Sure, but they are the extreme exception not the norm. Your statement is blatent fear-mongering with no factual basis.
are diagnosed with Asperger's the second they show the least bit of shyness
Pure bullshit.
are taught by teachers who scream "AHDHD--Drug him up!" the first time they act out in class
You must be a farmer, 'cause you're just full of bullshit. First of all, ADHD (you'd think someone who wants to come off as intelligent would have no problem spelling an ACRONYM!) is a very real issue. As someone who has it, my first response to ADHD deniers is to tell you to fuck off. My second is to lambaste you for stupid statements like the above. Teachers have no say in if a child is placed on drugs. Teachers will refer students who are consistently poor performers, not those who simply "act out" once. They're then tested to ensure there are no underlying impediments to learning and if there are, they're treated. I'll break out the important point you're choosing to overlook:
Medicinal treatments for learning disorders are prescribed so that all children, regardless of ability, are given the chance to learn the same as those who do not have the disability.
and come home to parents who think that a child molester is hanging out on ever street corner just waiting to kidnap their kid. *They're* not the ones who are screwed up, it's the adults around them that are screwed up.
On this, we can agree that the chance of a child being kidnapped is less than their chance of being killed in a terrorist attack (which is fairly close to nil itself). That being said, the percentage of parents who spend any real mental effort worrying about such things is even smaller. Yes, as a parent, I've used the resources on the Internet to find out what kinds of sex offenders are close by, but don't check regularly.
JUST LET THEM BE KIDS, for Christ sake! Stop acting like there is something wrong with them because they're not perfect, or act differently than you expect, or make stupid mistakes.
The problem, dear dimwit, is that you have made up a world in which all parents spend all of their time doting on their children and completely missed the point of the article that these same children ARE dealing with significant issues. Your desire to simply ignore the problem in the hopes it will go away is the ignorant position.
BTW, forgot to ask the obvious question: how many kids do you have? I have a feeling it won't be a positive number. People will inane opinions like yours never have kids.
A kid shouldn't be taking medication for anything less than a serious physical problem.
Because of ignorant dimwits like you spreading bullshit like this, the kids in the article are suffering with issues that can easily be treated both by talk therapy and medicine. Your whole point is "parents are ignorant and don't know how to raise their kids", but really it's you who has absolutely no idea what they're talking about.
Oh stop already with the politics. Stop with the infernal 'progressive' talking points and bringing class into everything.
Why? Why should we leave class out of it? Because without discussing class your ideology of a perfect world falls apart?
"Stupid people do stupid things that cause them to die sooner."
So, a person who has no access to a quality education (and don't say that's not the majority of Americans), nor regular access to a doctor to discuss health issues...is stupid. Here's where you're wrong: YOU are stupid, THEY are uneducated. There's a difference: one's cureable.
Not that there aren't stupid people everywhere, but in America we still have the right to be wrong to a much greater extent than the nanny states in Europe.
You betray your Beckness with that statement. Nanny states? How so? Because they provide care for their sick, thus giving them a higher standard of living and a longer life all at lower costs than the US? "Nanny state" is Republican-ease for "we don't care".
And since I'm burning karma anyway lemme toss another sacred cow onto the grill. Enough with this continual blather about the 'disadvantaged/poor/etc.'
"Because only without the poor, does my worldview makes sense!"
the 'poor' aren't living in poverty because of a lack of money.
Um, yeah, that's pretty much the definition of "poor".
They lack money because they have make poor lifestyle decisions that RESULT in a lack of money. Things like failure to get an education (or worse reject the value of knowledge entirely)
What's funny is those who reject the value of knowledge typically are the ones touting arguments such as yours. But, to address the particulars: without access to a good education, how does one learn how to make the right decisions in life? Can we just send them to your house so you can teach them what a fine, upstanding white guy has to offer? Seriously, you should really spend some time with actual poor people. When you spend actual time with them, you learn that a) there are very few people who CHOOSE to live on the sub-sub-poverty level of income one can get from welfare programs, b) most would work like a dog to get out of those situations if given the chance c) few are given chances.
become a single parent
Again, those that espouse the kinds of beliefs as yours have removed sex education from the schools. That's why instances of those immoral teenage parents are higher in the bible belt and very right-wing areas.
waste money on substance abuse or Xbox... but I repeat myself.
Yes, all people who are poor are so because they choose to be. You did mention that before.
WTF? I thought that was what the current argument was about, whether we were going to HAVE a single "US health system" or not.
Again, you betray both your Beckness and ignorance. No, the argument is NOT abot whether we're going to have a single-payer health care system or not. It's if we're going to have an expansion of the Medicare program to help cover those who cannot afford health care or...and this is the important point most of you rich white guys fail to grasp...it's not offered by your employer. In other words, there will be a "government insurance company". If you can afford your own insurance and would prefer to stay with your employer's, you stay with them. If you want, you can purchase insurnace from Medicare, too. If you can't afford it, it's subsidized because, as those "nanny states" realized...a healthy country is a productive one.
The 'aim' of most of the people in the current semi free market system
I give you credit for realizing there is no such thing a a free market, but you lose so many points for failing to grasp the consequences of that.
If you screwed around and didn't get an education, well the world needs fruit picked and ditches dug.
Interesting how in the paragraph prior you decry the quality of the educational system in the US, and then proceed to blame those who failed to get a quality education. You should run for office! You've got the "talking out of both sides of your asshole" down perfectly.
The simple fact that the climate changes naturally and periodically doesn't automatically make the concept of human intervention in climate change a moot point.
Thank you for your post, you saved me a lot of time doing so and wrote a much more elegant answer than I might have.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not sure how to respond since you disagree with your post! :)
I'm not familiar with requip, and Google doesn't turn up anything negative on the first couple of pages. As to the sales reps, I'll admit they're aggressive, but I've never met a sales rep that wasn't.
All of that being said, though...every time I go to the doctor's office, I'm made to feel better. When my mother had breast cancer, her treatments cured her. When my stepfather needed a kidney, dialysis helped in the interim. What I do see is a wealth of cures and/or alleviators of symptoms hitting the market due to a steady state of research. Some have negative side effects, sure, that's why a lot of research is now focusing on tailoring drugs/treatments to the individual.
I just don't see it...
The coldest period in the last half billion years had atmospheric CO2 levels 10 times what we have today. Why wasn't the CO2 driving the change then? It certainly wasn't the temperature.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-higher-in-past.htm
Maybe if the climate "researchers" would open up their methodologies, source code and data, I might be able to understand it.
Possibly, but I doubt it. There's a wealth of information available to you now (the above article alone cites 5 different studies), yet you continue to focus on "motive" as a reason to disbelieve the science. As was evidenced by the ClimateGate scandal, when the general public is given free access to data, they misinterpret it. In all of the information that was released to the public, not once is there a single e-mail or reference that says "our AWG conspiracy is on track...muwahahah!" Instead, you have statisticians talking about "tricks" as "proof" of AGW fraud. My wife showed me a "trick" this weekend for making better pancakes, the result was still pancakes.
that would seek to replicate and evaluate your results, you're not practicing science.
But, as stated, that's not what happens. What happens is you get deniers nitpicking over irrelevant details (the Himalayan glaciers thing of the last few weeks springs immediately to mind). They don't attempt to replicate the experiments or studies, they simply denigrate them without any empirical evidence to back it up. It turns into...well, the situation we have today...
When I hear someone talking out of both sides of their mouth explaining exception after exception to their mythical model that has all the answers, I assume I am dealing with a charlatan.
Who is explaining exceptions? What I see is false claims being raised and then disproven with actual evidence.
Science is ENTIRELY about being a skeptic. The AGW crowd demean skeptics. Thus, the AGW crowd must not be scientists.
Not true, we demean deniers, completely different. Simply playing John Cleese' role in the Argument Sketch does not make one a skeptic. Simply denying everything as true does not make one a skeptic.
How you choose to view my comment will determine in which camp you reside. If you choose, for example, to peruse the site I've linked to a couple of times and review the cited studies to construct one view of the argument and then find contradictory studies to construct the other side and then build a reasonable stance from that...you're a skeptic. If, however, you choose to continue to worry about things like "hiding methodologies" and "who called whom what"...you're a denier. It really is that simple. The only evidence that counts to a skeptic is evidence. Ad hominems tu quoque (Ad hominem tu quoques? Hmmm...) are not.
If nothing else works though, that hope does help them mentally so is that really that bad?
Yes, it is. A lot of people will turn to flim-flam medicine in place of real, evidenced based medicine and get sicker as a result. You also have a huge industry based on sham medicine costing people billions in wasted money every year. Finally, the deeply flawed arguments used by pushers of these drugs leave a segment of the population distrusting "big pharma" as if the medical industry was out to get them...In other words, the long term effect is a loss of critical thinking skills and people who are poorer and sicker because some fools benefited from the placebo effect.
The flaw in the argument (as much as I can gather from your comment) appears to be an assumption that only those who have no other options left will turn to faith-based medicine. Most people who believe in this crap turn to it FIRST, not last...
"As an amateur astronomer, he has always been an AGW skeptic because of synchronous warming on neighbouring planets. A few years ago, he read Michael Chrichton’s State of Fear, and learning about many AGW issues, began his own investigation. "
ROTFLMAO!!!
Seriously, a little pee came out. I love sites like these that show how stupid these people are. "There's all of this evidence for a conspiracy! See!!!" Um, no, I don't. You've got all of their docs and e-mail, where are the ones that specifically say "our conspiracy's going along nicely, we'll all be rich, rich, RICH!"? "Well, it says here they used a "trick"!" Ohhhhhhhhh, I see...........
Thanks for sharing, that's the funniest thing I've read in weeks. Perhaps he should try a little harder at the astronomy thing 'cause there's no such thing as "synchronous warming on neighbouring planets". Maybe he could read a book that isn't fiction?
You're trying to apply logic to a religious war. :)
So, isn't the fact that they owned a lot of stock in the company, and thus their personal fortunes were tied directly to the company's performance, a good thing
I'm going to do something unheard of on Slashdot and give a reasonable answer to a reasonable question: you mentioned in the first paragraph the subtle flaw in this argument: "They owned lots of stock (due to stock grants and options from the company, most likely)". In other words, they were given this stock (I don't think executives get options very often. That's usually left for the peons and serfs.), they didn't buy it. They didn't invest their own personal fortunes in order to make the company stronger, they were given these and made their fortunes off of the dividends paid. When the stocks were sold, they were simply transferring ownership, the company did not benefit at all from these sales.
In extremely simplistic terms: if I buy stock in a company during their IPO for $5, $5 goes to the company as capital (again, very simplistic explanation). If I sell that stock for $10/share, I make $5 and the company sees no benefit. If I'm an officer and am given stock as a benefit, and then sell that stock, the company sees no benefit.
Awww, you're adorable. You still think you have a clue! :)
Nope.
So wrong, I wouldn't even know where to begin! But, thanks for playing!
Why thank you. You provide no facts to back your case, only your own supposition based on "what ifs" and then suggest my own argument fails. Yup, you would know all about fails...
I guess I could do that if you could explain how you think digital cameras have only been in production for one year.
Great history lesson. I did not, however, say "laser printer", I said "laser" which was "invented" in 1959 (it was built on previous technologies and theories, but LASER was introduced to the world in the 1959 paper "The LASER, Light Amplification by Stimulated Emission of Radiation"). I also didn't say private companies won't do research, I said that unless have a practical application, you're not going to get funding. Starkweather's research of the laser printer was a corporate-funded endeavor to produce something they could sell.
Seems reasonable to me. I can quit anytime I want; why can't they fire me anytime they want? I'm selling them my labor. They're free to buy labor from whomever they want, and I'm free to sell to whomever I want.
On the face of it, it seems a reasonable argument and in fact IS the argument used by the 43 states that don't offer any kind of employee protection whatsoever. However, if you activate your critical thinking skills, you'll see that reciprocity (which is what you're trying to define) doesn't exist. If, for example, I decided to just not show up to work anymore my company will go on just fine without me even though I do work in a fairly critical position. It might mean other members of my team will have to work a bit harder for a few weeks to fill the void, but there will be no overwhelming financial impact to the company whatsoever.
On the other hand, if my company decides to fire me because I wore white after Labor Day (a stupid reason, yes, but a legal one nonetheless in all but 7 states), then I am subject to severe financial disruption, not to mention the loss of medical benefits for myself and family. In all but a few states, being fired makes you ineligible for unemployment (you need to be laid off with the potential for recall to be eligible), so you're on your own regardless of there being a valid reason or not. Beyond that, whenever you interview going forward, you have to explain why you were terminated BUT you're not allowed to speak negatively of a former employer in an interview...so keep it positive! Even if you do, the myth of "they're not allowed to say anything negative about you in a reference" is a meme that should've died a long time ago. They can say whatever they want when giving a reference, legally it just has to be true. However, as you're an unemployed schlub with no income...good luck finding a lawyer who will take your case on a contingency if they lie.
We can try and spin it any way we like, the fact is the deck is stacked 100% against you. Is it likely you'll be fired for wearing white after Labor Day? Is it likely, however, that you'll be fired for another equally stupid reason? In this economy, anything's possible.
That makes defense spending necessary unlike education and research spending.
Tell that to companies like Kodak and Motorola who have made trillions on the sale of digital cameras that have their origins with the publicly-funded Hubble program. Governments need to fund research simply because businesses won't unless they see immediate value in it. Hell, the ubiquitous laser was called "a solution looking for a problem" when it was invented 50 years ago and we see how well that turned out. Most scientists who make discoveries are completely unaware of their potential applications, and unless you can come up with a sellable application to your board of directors, you're not going to get funding. That doesn't make the research useless or unnecessary, it just exposes the short-sightedness of most business owners.
When I was a kid I had no problems getting my hands on booze or tobacco and both of those products are legal.
:) When I was in HS, I smoked pot because it was INFINITELY easier to get. Hell, we had a guy who came around once a week to school to make deliveries!
Guess it depends on the area you lived.
Should we be giving you props for a very obscure Verizon jab?
Because it's not natural
/. post. But as a big person who used to be a little person, I still do not see what needed to be "corrected" in this case.
THAT is your answer? Really? It's not natural that I am talking to you via an electronic device hundreds of miles away on a site that 20 million+ visitors/day from all around the world...you don't have a problem with that. But, that unnaturalness benefits you, so it's ok, right?
This idea of a rigidly defined target of "normal" is not natural.
No one's defining normal. Necessity defines that all members of society, however posess certain levels of knowledge and training in order to be fully productive and happy. Those that don't posess that training are relageted to the lower escelons of that society. By giving kids with ADHD a simple pill each day, we ensure they can learn and acquire the necessary tools to be productive members of society and lead a happy life. Again, this is NO different from giving parapalegic kids a wheelchair with which they can go to school. You skirted that issue, so I assume you have a problem with taking away wheelchairs from kids that need them. So why would you take away a cure from those who have a learning disability? To satisfy your sense of "natural"? How also does that force conformity on those children?
Actually quite the opposite. I wasn't made to feel there was something wrong with me for being different--for not being able to read when all the other little kids could, or learning to swim or ride when all my friend did.
That's great. And, yet you managed to, arguably, acquire the same level of education as your peers, meaning your issues were not so great and therefore not in need of any kind of intervention. Since you didn't have ADHD, you have no idea how hard it is on a child who's made to feel inferior because they learn differently from other students in the class. They're told they're just not trying hard enough, or that their parents aren't, when the fact is they're more likely working harder than all of the other kids in class just because they can't focus on their homework for more than seconds at a time. By giving those kids a simple pill, they can participate in class just like everyone else. Your position means that all kids who aren't as "capable" as all of the others must suffer because that's how nature intended it.
Teaching kids sign language before they can talk (and after, too) is great. I am not a doctor, and even if I was, I couldn't make a diagnosis from a third hand account through a short
Then, you're not a big person yet.
Your example isn't the same a being put on medication, but a psychologist and speech therapy? I think you provide anecdotal support for the post you are trying to refute.
No, it's not the same as being put on medication. The OP said that all kids are put on "powerful Autism medication if they don't start talking at just the right time". My point was to refute that claim. You, however, obviously have a problem with any kid being given the opportunity to overcome whatever might be holding them back.
Anything you do after that makes me think "parents are ignorant and don't know how to raise their kids."
And, how many kids do you have?
WTF does that mean? There is no appropriate time to start speaking. OK, maybe if your child doesn't talk by high school, there might be an issue. Or maybe she/he just doesn't have anything to say.
Actually, there is. They should start talking between 10 & 26 months. If, however, a child hasn't started talking by 16-18 months, it's usually indicitive of a problem.
But to have a 20-month old in therapy? Your example doesn't involve medication (yet, I'm sure) but is a data point to support the parent post. Over-diagnosis, over-medication, anything that isn't exactly what we expect is a syndrom.
So dying to hear how many kids you have. I'd also like to know what your credentials are as a doctor? Are you a pediatrician? Child psychologist? Clueless twit with an opinion? Based on your lack of understanding, I'm going to go with the latter. No one said was a syndrome. It IS, however, something that's correctable. These are the formative years, the years in which parents are instructing their children in the basics of how to operate in the world. How exactly are we supposed to do that if the child can't communicate? My daughter's friend has a LOT to say, she just doesn't do it vocally, so you fail.
Because we wouldn't want people to be different. Should we feed lead paint chips to the smart kids to bring them down to average? That way they are given the chance to learn the same as those who do not have the ability.
Is that what happened to you? Because it's obvious you're severely deficient in a lot of areas. Giving every child the same opportunity to learn and advance is not the same as making everyone the same.
What about those weak, scrawny kids? They should get steroids and HGH! Can't leave things like hormones to chance.
Sigh...you really like going into irrelevant areas to make flawed points, don't you? What about the kids in wheelchairs? Should we take them away from them as well? Shouldn't they just appreciate that they'll never be as good as the other kids and should just suck up and live the life of obscurity you so want them too?
We might end up with different kids with different levels of ability that way.
Okay, I'll bite: what's wrong with everyone having the same level of ability?
I was a late-bloomer physically, intellectually, and socially. But I did bloom eventually.
Arguable, especially the last two.
I'm not perfect, but I do like the person I am. It scares me to think about what sort of lab experiment I would have turned in to if my parents had been like your daughter's best friend's.
You might not be so a sad little creature who very obviously DOES NOT like who they are. I don't blame you, though, you don't appear to be a likeable person. You have no idea what you're talking about, yet that doesn't stop you having an opinion on it. You're also very upset at your parents for forcing you to live with whatever was holding you back rather than giving you the opportunity to flourish. I feel sorry for you, I really do, but you're a lost cause. No sense holding others back because you're a failure. That little girl is extremely happy now that she can talk to her mother, she's not a lab experiment. She's been given an opporunity that she wouldn't have had if she had been YOUR kid. I'm so glad you don't have kids.
Fantastic, your stepson had been misdiagnosed by the first doctor and didn't have ADHD. That doesn't mean the disorder doesn't exist and that some children need to be treated medically for it. As someone who has it, I can tell you first hand that all of the "discipline", "sports" and "activities" do nothing to treat kids who really do have ADHD.
Stop being a bunch of wussies!
I see someone just finished their copy of How To Win Friends and Influence People.
Seriously, kids today have to wear helmets just to ride a bike
Bicycle helmets reduce the severity of head injuries in an accident by 88%, so what's your point?
have some pediatrician putting them on powerful Autism medication if they don't start talking at just the right time
My daughter is 20 months old. Her "best friend" is the same age. My daughter has a huge vocabulary already, her friend doesn't speak at all. The friend was taken to her pediatrician, who FIRST tested to make sure she wasn't deaf. She was then sent to a child psychologist to determine her mental facilities. At that point, she was put into a speech therapy program where she has been taught sign language in order to communicate. That, BTW, is the standard protocol used when a child hasn't started speaking at an appropriate time. Is it true that some pediatricians will resort to medicinal treatments first? Sure, but they are the extreme exception not the norm. Your statement is blatent fear-mongering with no factual basis.
are diagnosed with Asperger's the second they show the least bit of shyness
Pure bullshit.
are taught by teachers who scream "AHDHD--Drug him up!" the first time they act out in class
You must be a farmer, 'cause you're just full of bullshit. First of all, ADHD (you'd think someone who wants to come off as intelligent would have no problem spelling an ACRONYM!) is a very real issue. As someone who has it, my first response to ADHD deniers is to tell you to fuck off. My second is to lambaste you for stupid statements like the above. Teachers have no say in if a child is placed on drugs. Teachers will refer students who are consistently poor performers, not those who simply "act out" once. They're then tested to ensure there are no underlying impediments to learning and if there are, they're treated. I'll break out the important point you're choosing to overlook:
Medicinal treatments for learning disorders are prescribed so that all children, regardless of ability, are given the chance to learn the same as those who do not have the disability.
and come home to parents who think that a child molester is hanging out on ever street corner just waiting to kidnap their kid. *They're* not the ones who are screwed up, it's the adults around them that are screwed up.
On this, we can agree that the chance of a child being kidnapped is less than their chance of being killed in a terrorist attack (which is fairly close to nil itself). That being said, the percentage of parents who spend any real mental effort worrying about such things is even smaller. Yes, as a parent, I've used the resources on the Internet to find out what kinds of sex offenders are close by, but don't check regularly.
JUST LET THEM BE KIDS, for Christ sake! Stop acting like there is something wrong with them because they're not perfect, or act differently than you expect, or make stupid mistakes.
The problem, dear dimwit, is that you have made up a world in which all parents spend all of their time doting on their children and completely missed the point of the article that these same children ARE dealing with significant issues. Your desire to simply ignore the problem in the hopes it will go away is the ignorant position.
BTW, forgot to ask the obvious question: how many kids do you have? I have a feeling it won't be a positive number. People will inane opinions like yours never have kids.
A kid shouldn't be taking medication for anything less than a serious physical problem.
Because of ignorant dimwits like you spreading bullshit like this, the kids in the article are suffering with issues that can easily be treated both by talk therapy and medicine. Your whole point is "parents are ignorant and don't know how to raise their kids", but really it's you who has absolutely no idea what they're talking about.
"Some could argue that much of the arts we have today would not exist were there not such a huge monetary draw."
That line is enough to derail the whole argument.
1) Pay shareholders (by the way, this is, by law, their first priority)
And, ironically, it's also the #1 reason why health care shouldn't be a "business".
Oh stop already with the politics. Stop with the infernal 'progressive' talking points and bringing class into everything.
Why? Why should we leave class out of it? Because without discussing class your ideology of a perfect world falls apart?
"Stupid people do stupid things that cause them to die sooner."
So, a person who has no access to a quality education (and don't say that's not the majority of Americans), nor regular access to a doctor to discuss health issues...is stupid. Here's where you're wrong: YOU are stupid, THEY are uneducated. There's a difference: one's cureable.
Not that there aren't stupid people everywhere, but in America we still have the right to be wrong to a much greater extent than the nanny states in Europe.
You betray your Beckness with that statement. Nanny states? How so? Because they provide care for their sick, thus giving them a higher standard of living and a longer life all at lower costs than the US? "Nanny state" is Republican-ease for "we don't care".
And since I'm burning karma anyway lemme toss another sacred cow onto the grill. Enough with this continual blather about the 'disadvantaged/poor/etc.'
"Because only without the poor, does my worldview makes sense!"
the 'poor' aren't living in poverty because of a lack of money.
Um, yeah, that's pretty much the definition of "poor".
They lack money because they have make poor lifestyle decisions that RESULT in a lack of money. Things like failure to get an education (or worse reject the value of knowledge entirely)
What's funny is those who reject the value of knowledge typically are the ones touting arguments such as yours. But, to address the particulars: without access to a good education, how does one learn how to make the right decisions in life? Can we just send them to your house so you can teach them what a fine, upstanding white guy has to offer? Seriously, you should really spend some time with actual poor people. When you spend actual time with them, you learn that a) there are very few people who CHOOSE to live on the sub-sub-poverty level of income one can get from welfare programs, b) most would work like a dog to get out of those situations if given the chance c) few are given chances.
become a single parent
Again, those that espouse the kinds of beliefs as yours have removed sex education from the schools. That's why instances of those immoral teenage parents are higher in the bible belt and very right-wing areas.
waste money on substance abuse or Xbox... but I repeat myself.
Yes, all people who are poor are so because they choose to be. You did mention that before.
WTF? I thought that was what the current argument was about, whether we were going to HAVE a single "US health system" or not.
Again, you betray both your Beckness and ignorance. No, the argument is NOT abot whether we're going to have a single-payer health care system or not. It's if we're going to have an expansion of the Medicare program to help cover those who cannot afford health care or...and this is the important point most of you rich white guys fail to grasp...it's not offered by your employer. In other words, there will be a "government insurance company". If you can afford your own insurance and would prefer to stay with your employer's, you stay with them. If you want, you can purchase insurnace from Medicare, too. If you can't afford it, it's subsidized because, as those "nanny states" realized...a healthy country is a productive one.
The 'aim' of most of the people in the current semi free market system
I give you credit for realizing there is no such thing a a free market, but you lose so many points for failing to grasp the consequences of that.
If you screwed around and didn't get an education, well the world needs fruit picked and ditches dug.
Interesting how in the paragraph prior you decry the quality of the educational system in the US, and then proceed to blame those who failed to get a quality education. You should run for office! You've got the "talking out of both sides of your asshole" down perfectly.
The simple fact that the climate changes naturally and periodically doesn't automatically make the concept of human intervention in climate change a moot point.
Thank you for your post, you saved me a lot of time doing so and wrote a much more elegant answer than I might have.