I wager I can name an idiot Democrat for every idiot Republican you can find
I'll do you one better than that. I can name FIVE idiot Democrats for every one idiot Republican he can come up with. My only stipulation is he has to offer a sane explanation as to why each Republican is an idiot. (I'll do the same for each Democrat I name.)
Requiring uniforms is a ban of freedom of expression, which is part of what is protected in the 1st amendment
The freedoms guaranteed in the Constitution were intended to apply to adults. In fact, it took an ammendment to make them apply to women, instead of exclusively to adult men. I don't know where to draw the line, but I clearly cannot support the notion that a child in second grade is entitled to the same degree of freedom as his adult father.
Plus then your enemies know who to shoot:)
More and more these days, this same argument applies to school uniforms.:)
Seriously tho, thats the point of uniforms in teh army, to make you part of a conforming collective that does not make its own decisions. BTW, this is NOT a bash on the army; it is just stating how the army must be in order to function effectivly.
Perhaps school uniforms should serve a similar purpose. I'm not talking about the degree of control that you see in the military, but I see nothing wrong with getting the point across to school children that they are part of a larger society. I'll grab my gun and fight to defend against complete, Orwellian-style mind control, but at the same time there are some basic ideas that we need our young children to learn before we turn them loose with all of the freedoms we hold so dear.
It's all about balance. Perhaps the reason we are seeing our freedoms erode is due to our failure to equip people with the senses of morality and responsibility necessary to handle those freedoms.
Do you have a definitive reference for that quote? I've seen it attributed to Mr. Franklin and Mr. Jefferson almost equally as often, but have yet to see a source which has made me clear on who should actually get credit?
I've always leaned toward Jefferson, since it was his name attache the first time I saw it. Also, the first time I saw that quote it was worded yet again slightly differently: "Those who would give up freedom in order to gain security shall not have, nor do they deserve, either one."
Anyway, if anyone can point to a factual reference to the original, I'd appreciate the opportunity to clear up my confusion on the origin of this excellent quote.
and I believe it was Thomas Jefferson that said something along the lines of: "Those who choose to sacrifice Freedom in order to gain Security shall not have, nor do they deserve, either one".
I agree with him too, but that doesn't apply here. The sort of freedom he was talking about applies to adults. The issue of school uniforms applies to children. Even I, with my ultra-rebelious history, have come to understand that more often than not a child who does not learn discipline and respect at a young age will misuse and abuse his freedom later on.
(go ahead, quote the statistics... but I just recently graduated a high school with a sizeable gang problem, and I can tell you that 'it doesn't work, period').
No, uniforms won't solve any problems by themselves. But they would be an excellent part of a disciplined and controlled environment where children learned what was expected of them. I support freedom every bit as much, if not more, that just about anyone who posts here. But even I can see that the idea of telling a third-grader "You're free, do whatever you please." is ridiculous.
Freedom is a good thing, but along with freedom comes responsibility. You can be free when you reach adulthood, during childhood you should be learning to be responsible. The public school system (second only to the parents) has a responsibility to teach this. (this doesn't mean I think they are actually doing a good job of it)
Having said that, let me say that mandating school uniforms is useless unless it is done as a much more sweeping reform of our public school system.
Even then, we're not really addressing the problem. Clearly there has been a large shift in morality in this country over the past few decades. (Note: I said "morality", not "religion") The problems people are trying to address with things such as school uniforms can only be solved by regaining fundamental ideals such as respect for life. This is something that people must do on their own, the government can't legislate it.
Once again, let me stress that I believe in complete freedom. But which scenario sounds more pleasant: A society of honest, moral, free people? Or a society of deceitful, immoral, but just as free people? I can guarantee that when Mr. Jefferson made that quote, he had the former in mind.
OK, first of all let me stress the fact that I think the events that took place in Kansas were absolutely ridiculous.
Having said that, let me also point out that if you are going to complain about those events, you should try to be accurate. Kansas did not ban the teaching of evolution, nor did Kansas require the teaching of creationism. What Kansas did do is REMOVE the requirement for teaching evolution and offer the individual school districts the ability to decide which theory would be a part of their cirriculum.
Now, I'm all for freedom and government non-interference, but this really annoys me. Evolution is science, and therefore belongs in the public schools. Creationism is religion, and therefore belongs in the church. I have no intention of belittling anyone's beliefs, but let's be sane here. Keep each theory in the appropriate forum.
No, it's more than that. At least it sounds like it.
Since the x86 compatibility is done in software, it should be possible to also emulate a PowerPC, a Sparc, MIPS, or whatever. That's incredibally cooler than just a "low power x86 chip."
At least that's my understanding so far. I'm at work and getting interrupted a lot, so I haven't caught all of the details.
Does anyone have any thoughts on what a Linux admin would gain by having his/her RHCE (RedHat Certified Engineer)?
Certificates give PHB types warm, fuzzy feelings inside. Back in my Netware days, I worked with many a CNE who the boss touted as our new "NetWare expert" but had never actually touched a NetWare console until I walked them through it. So there I sat with 6 years experience, but the guy who had done nothing but read a book and take a test was the one the boss saw as the expert.
So, in a nutshell, certification won't do a thing about making you a better technician, but it will, in many situations, help get you better jobs.
I used to be opposed to certifications, but the way I look at it now is: I know I'm a good technician, my peers know I'm a good technician, if some little certificate will make my boss acknowledge it as well (and reflect it in my paycheck), so be it.
The idea that relativity breaks down at light speed is nonsensical, because no object can ever reach light speed (in a simple way).
This argument is nonsensical, because you're using relativity to prove that relativity doesn't break down. You also added the "in a simple way" disclaimer. I don't believe I claimed that FTL travel would be simple.
Seriously, though, I'm familiar with everything you said, and am in no way implying that simply concocting a hotter burning rocket fuel could propel us at FTL velocities. That's a ridiculous notion.
However, the existence of luxons would seem to invalidate the assumption that nothing can reach the speed of light. And as far as I know, nobody has yet been able to disprove the existence of tachyons. Assuming that they exist, then there must be a means of attaining FTL velocity, although such means would almost certainly be far more complex than normal acceleration. (Now if I could just figure out how to build a spaceship with imaginary mass, we'd be all set.:)
Basically, all I'm saying is that since we have not made a lot of direct observations of massive objects travelling at or very near c, we can't know exactly what happens under these circumstances. Relativity makes predictions, but relativity is known to be an incomplete theory. Perhaps (probably, even) the predictions relativity makes regarding light speed travel are correct, but perhaps, just perhaps, the fact that relativity describes this as an impossible phenomenon simply implies that this is one of the limits of relativity.
I'm not prepared to argue that FTL travel is definitely, absolutely, and unarguably attainable. I'm also not prepared to completely disregard the idea based on the predictions of a model that is know to be incomplete. Some of the greatest advances in science have come about because of the observation of phenomena that should not have been possible based on the current models of the time.
I don't think physics has decided yet whether we can cheat our way past light speed. I agree that it seems unlikely, but we shouldn't give up hope.
The idea that FTL velocities are impossible relies on the assumption that General Relativity continues to hold true at such velocities.
We've already seen that relativity breaks down at very small scales, giving rise to quantum mechanics. It seems plausible to me that light speed is simply another point where relativity breaks down and new rules take effect.
i guess that is a pretty good point, if I were to put myself in the reporters shoes, would I know what to ask him?
Surely the opportunity for this interview did not arise at the last minute. While I probably couldn't come up with amazing questions off the top of my head, I'm pretty sure I could do the opportunity justice given a week to prepare.
I agree. I'd like to see a basic DVD released alongside the VHS version, then go ahead and do the bells-and-whistles version when all six are ready. Given the time frame for completion of the series, I'm pretty sure I'd have time to save up enough money to repurchase the set when it was finished. Plus, I'd be able to watch it in the meantime.
Of course, as someone stated earlier, TPM is not a movie worth owning on it's own merit, but if the next two are good, it's still nice to have the complete storyline.
The whole "I _LIKE_ being ignorant" mindset is increasingly popular with the advent of computers.
Exactly. I don't think I could count the number of people I know who have gone out and bought a computer, brought it home, called me for help, and had actual PRIDE in their voice when telling me "I don't know a damn thing about these things." After trying to show them the basics, it always becomes apparent that not only do they lack computer knowledge, they actively resist acquiring any.
In my mind, "I don't know" has always been one of the most embarrassing phrases I've ever had to speak. I can't count the number of times I've been up until dawn trying to find the answer to a question that had me stumped. How people can actually take pride in their own ignorance baffles me.
Anyway, I'd have to say that there is already plenty of documentation out there. Sure, it may take a little searching to find it, and you may have to read more than a paragraph to find your answer, but the info is already out there for those who care to look.
Of course the hype surrounding Linux will fade. All hype fades eventually. In this case, though, I think it's a good thing.
Hype fades when one of two things happens. 1.) The product being hyped dies, or 2.) The product being hyped reaches a level of acceptance where it no longer needs hype.
The reason that Linux was hyped in the first place was the surprise people felt when it became apparent that this free operating system REALLY WAS stable and reliable. A whole bunch of people got hit with the clue stick all at once, and the result was an enormous string of media articles about Linux.
But now people know about Linux, and soon the columnists will find something else to write about. In the meantime Linux will continue to improve and gain marketshare. That's what it did before and during the hype-fest, and that's what it'll do when it's over.
No, we don't. We live in a democratic republic. There's a difference, look it up.
you choose the goverment.
Funny, I thought we had elections, where everyone's vote was taken into consideration. I don't recall getting the phone call asking me to be the sole selector of any public official.
So who is to blame then but yourself.
The people who actually cast votes for the morons that are in office right now.
No, you are the real problem
No, you are. And all of the apathetic people like you who claim that just because someone wins an election we give up our right to keep an eye on what they are doing and bitch up a storm if they start acting against our best interests.
And, in regard to the charges of misdiagnosing and overmedicating, remember psychology as a hard science is still in its early development.
I think another factor here is that there really isn't a quick and easy way to test the seratonin levels in the brain. Unfortunately, this means that the only way to really know if meds will help is to give them a try and see what happens. I think this might be a big cause of the overmedication accusations.
It's certainly not the most elegant method of treatment, but in the absence of a superior solution, it still beats leaving these conditions untreated.
I apologize if I came down on you to hard. I couldn't agree with you more about the tendency of our society to blame anything and everything on external problems.
My point was that it's just as dangerous to pretend that none of these external problems exist at all. They do exist, and should be dealt with. They just shouldn't be used as excuses.
I also don't think that clinical depression is a valid scapegoat. Ultimately, each person is responsible for their own actions. If a person has a problem for which treatment is available yet chooses not to get that treatment, then they are responsible for that decision and the resulting consequences. I'm certainly not advocating the use of any of these issues as an excuse for anything. But to say Wouldn't life be great if all we had to do when we got sad was pop a pill that made us happy? trivializes the problem. Anti-depressants don't make you happy, they simply make happiness possible. You can still be quite sad on anti-depressants.
So, I can sympathize with your agravation at the "Not My Fault" complex that's pervading our society. I would just encourage you not to allow that aggravation to swing your opinions too far in the other direction.
Celexa did great things for me, I'm sorry to hear you're having trouble finding an effective treatment.
I've done a lot of research on this subject, and although I know enough to try to straighten out some of the misconceptions being posted here, I am nowhere near qualified to assist somone who is in a suicidal state.
Please find help. The answer you need is out there, please don't stop looking. I don't have the answer, but someone will. If you are truly feeling suicidal, one suggestion might be to find walk into a church and ask for assistance. Even if you aren't religious, it's a good place to find people who are willing to help.
I'm sorry I can't give you the answers you're looking for, but please don't stop looking until you find them.
The percentage to me (22%) sounds a little high though.
If anything, I'd say it sounds a little low. Mental illnesses exist in a variety of degrees. If you're just thinking of the person who hears 37 distinct voices in his head, then, yeah, the percentage is probably too high. Just to use an example that I'm familiar with, though, there are a great many people with mild clinical depression. Most of these people will never seek help and therefore probably don't even realize they have a medical problem.
I had just such a mild depression for about 8 years after high school. Nothing severe, I wasn't suicidal, and I didn't spend days on end curled up in a ball crying my eyes out. My depression took the simple form of an inability to feel happy or excited about anything, no matter how great. I wasn't overly sad, I just couldn't get happy. It was like 8 years of numbness. I still lived a functional life, and most people never had any idea there was anything wrong.
I don't know what finally pushed me to do it, but one day I just said to myself "This ain't normal." and decided to ask my doctor about it. He gave me some free samples of an anti-depressant, and asked me to check back in a few weeks. To make a long story short, I stayed on the meds for about 6 months, they worked wonders, and several years after stopping them, I still have all of the benefits.
Don't assume that the term "mental illness" necessarily refers to a severe condition. Just like physical illness, it comes in varying degrees. And just like physical illness, there's no reason not to correct the problem just because it's not totally debilitating.
I think the problem is that normal sadness/depression is too often mislabeled as a mental disorder, either by the psycs or by the people themselves. Wouldn't life be great if all we had to do when we got sad was pop a pill that made us happy?
No, the problem is when folks like you who have not bothered to educate themselves on the issue continue to propogate inaccurate stereotypes.
Anti-depressants do NOT make you happy. They just make you not depressed. The first glaring sign of your ignorance on the topic is your lumping sadness/depression together as if they were the same thing. It's normal to be sad when bad things happen. Nobody will argue with that.
Clinical depression is a medical condition with physical causes. Taking medication for such a condition is no different than a diabetic taking insulin. In both cases the patient is simply supplementing their supply of a chemical that their body isn't producing enough of. (Well, it's more complicated than that, but that's close enough for this discussion.)
Yes, being sad is part of a normal life and it's good to learn to deal with it in a healthy way. But being sad ALL THE TIME, even when things are great, isn't a normal part of life, and someone who has found themselves unable to feel happy about good things may very well need medical attention.
Feeling sad because your life sucks is normal. Clinical depression is something entirely different. Imagine feeling sad even though everything in your life is great, feeling sad even while engaging in activities you normally enjoy. That's not normal. You don't always have to be cheerful and happy, but when you lose the ability to be cheerful and happy even when you should be, you need help.
The word "depression" when used in a clinical sense doesn't have the meaning as the common usage. It's typically caused by a chemical imbalance in the brain, and medication can be amazingly effective. I've seen several close friends' lives improve dramatically after just a few short weeks on the right medication.
I'm as willing as anyone to admit that our society looks to medication as a solution far, far too often. Yet there are times when it is the simplest and most effective option.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm sorry, but i don't think anyone would dress up like a girl to get into somone's dorm.
I think you may be underestimating the typical college age male's desire to get laid.
:-)
I wager I can name an idiot Democrat for every idiot Republican you can find
I'll do you one better than that. I can name FIVE idiot Democrats for every one idiot Republican he can come up with. My only stipulation is he has to offer a sane explanation as to why each Republican is an idiot. (I'll do the same for each Democrat I name.)
Requiring uniforms is a ban of freedom of expression, which is part of what is protected in the 1st amendment
:)
:)
The freedoms guaranteed in the Constitution were intended to apply to adults. In fact, it took an ammendment to make them apply to women, instead of exclusively to adult men. I don't know where to draw the line, but I clearly cannot support the notion that a child in second grade is entitled to the same degree of freedom as his adult father.
Plus then your enemies know who to shoot
More and more these days, this same argument applies to school uniforms.
Seriously tho, thats the point of uniforms in teh army, to make you part of a conforming collective that does not make its own decisions. BTW, this is NOT a bash on the army; it is just stating how the army must be in order to function effectivly.
Perhaps school uniforms should serve a similar purpose. I'm not talking about the degree of control that you see in the military, but I see nothing wrong with getting the point across to school children that they are part of a larger society. I'll grab my gun and fight to defend against complete, Orwellian-style mind control, but at the same time there are some basic ideas that we need our young children to learn before we turn them loose with all of the freedoms we hold so dear.
It's all about balance. Perhaps the reason we are seeing our freedoms erode is due to our failure to equip people with the senses of morality and responsibility necessary to handle those freedoms.
Do you have a definitive reference for that quote? I've seen it attributed to Mr. Franklin and Mr. Jefferson almost equally as often, but have yet to see a source which has made me clear on who should actually get credit?
I've always leaned toward Jefferson, since it was his name attache the first time I saw it. Also, the first time I saw that quote it was worded yet again slightly differently: "Those who would give up freedom in order to gain security shall not have, nor do they deserve, either one."
Anyway, if anyone can point to a factual reference to the original, I'd appreciate the opportunity to clear up my confusion on the origin of this excellent quote.
and I believe it was Thomas Jefferson that said something along the lines of: "Those who choose to sacrifice Freedom in order to gain Security shall not have, nor do they deserve, either one".
I agree with him too, but that doesn't apply here. The sort of freedom he was talking about applies to adults. The issue of school uniforms applies to children. Even I, with my ultra-rebelious history, have come to understand that more often than not a child who does not learn discipline and respect at a young age will misuse and abuse his freedom later on.
(go ahead, quote the statistics... but I just recently graduated a high school with a sizeable gang problem, and I can tell you that 'it doesn't work, period').
No, uniforms won't solve any problems by themselves. But they would be an excellent part of a disciplined and controlled environment where children learned what was expected of them. I support freedom every bit as much, if not more, that just about anyone who posts here. But even I can see that the idea of telling a third-grader "You're free, do whatever you please." is ridiculous.
Freedom is a good thing, but along with freedom comes responsibility. You can be free when you reach adulthood, during childhood you should be learning to be responsible. The public school system (second only to the parents) has a responsibility to teach this. (this doesn't mean I think they are actually doing a good job of it)
Having said that, let me say that mandating school uniforms is useless unless it is done as a much more sweeping reform of our public school system.
Even then, we're not really addressing the problem. Clearly there has been a large shift in morality in this country over the past few decades. (Note: I said "morality", not "religion") The problems people are trying to address with things such as school uniforms can only be solved by regaining fundamental ideals such as respect for life. This is something that people must do on their own, the government can't legislate it.
Once again, let me stress that I believe in complete freedom. But which scenario sounds more pleasant: A society of honest, moral, free people? Or a society of deceitful, immoral, but just as free people? I can guarantee that when Mr. Jefferson made that quote, he had the former in mind.
OK, first of all let me stress the fact that I think the events that took place in Kansas were absolutely ridiculous.
Having said that, let me also point out that if you are going to complain about those events, you should try to be accurate. Kansas did not ban the teaching of evolution, nor did Kansas require the teaching of creationism. What Kansas did do is REMOVE the requirement for teaching evolution and offer the individual school districts the ability to decide which theory would be a part of their cirriculum.
Now, I'm all for freedom and government non-interference, but this really annoys me. Evolution is science, and therefore belongs in the public schools. Creationism is religion, and therefore belongs in the church. I have no intention of belittling anyone's beliefs, but let's be sane here. Keep each theory in the appropriate forum.
No, it's more than that. At least it sounds like it.
Since the x86 compatibility is done in software, it should be possible to also emulate a PowerPC, a Sparc, MIPS, or whatever. That's incredibally cooler than just a "low power x86 chip."
At least that's my understanding so far. I'm at work and getting interrupted a lot, so I haven't caught all of the details.
Why do you want a keyboard for the N64,
:)
Because a keyboard and mouse is the One True Way to play Quake....
Does anyone have any thoughts on what a Linux admin would gain by having his/her RHCE (RedHat Certified Engineer)?
Certificates give PHB types warm, fuzzy feelings inside. Back in my Netware days, I worked with many a CNE who the boss touted as our new "NetWare expert" but had never actually touched a NetWare console until I walked them through it. So there I sat with 6 years experience, but the guy who had done nothing but read a book and take a test was the one the boss saw as the expert.
So, in a nutshell, certification won't do a thing about making you a better technician, but it will, in many situations, help get you better jobs.
I used to be opposed to certifications, but the way I look at it now is: I know I'm a good technician, my peers know I'm a good technician, if some little certificate will make my boss acknowledge it as well (and reflect it in my paycheck), so be it.
Ahh... Reading through the postings again, I notice that you seem to agree with me.
Or have you changed your mind?
:-)
The idea that relativity breaks down at light speed is nonsensical, because no object can ever reach light speed (in a simple way).
:)
This argument is nonsensical, because you're using relativity to prove that relativity doesn't break down. You also added the "in a simple way" disclaimer. I don't believe I claimed that FTL travel would be simple.
Seriously, though, I'm familiar with everything you said, and am in no way implying that simply concocting a hotter burning rocket fuel could propel us at FTL velocities. That's a ridiculous notion.
However, the existence of luxons would seem to invalidate the assumption that nothing can reach the speed of light. And as far as I know, nobody has yet been able to disprove the existence of tachyons. Assuming that they exist, then there must be a means of attaining FTL velocity, although such means would almost certainly be far more complex than normal acceleration. (Now if I could just figure out how to build a spaceship with imaginary mass, we'd be all set.
Basically, all I'm saying is that since we have not made a lot of direct observations of massive objects travelling at or very near c, we can't know exactly what happens under these circumstances. Relativity makes predictions, but relativity is known to be an incomplete theory. Perhaps (probably, even) the predictions relativity makes regarding light speed travel are correct, but perhaps, just perhaps, the fact that relativity describes this as an impossible phenomenon simply implies that this is one of the limits of relativity.
I'm not prepared to argue that FTL travel is definitely, absolutely, and unarguably attainable. I'm also not prepared to completely disregard the idea based on the predictions of a model that is know to be incomplete. Some of the greatest advances in science have come about because of the observation of phenomena that should not have been possible based on the current models of the time.
I don't think physics has decided yet whether we can cheat our way past light speed. I agree that it seems unlikely, but we shouldn't give up hope.
The idea that FTL velocities are impossible relies on the assumption that General Relativity continues to hold true at such velocities.
We've already seen that relativity breaks down at very small scales, giving rise to quantum mechanics. It seems plausible to me that light speed is simply another point where relativity breaks down and new rules take effect.
i guess that is a pretty good point, if I were to put myself in the reporters shoes, would I know what to ask him?
Surely the opportunity for this interview did not arise at the last minute. While I probably couldn't come up with amazing questions off the top of my head, I'm pretty sure I could do the opportunity justice given a week to prepare.
I agree. I'd like to see a basic DVD released alongside the VHS version, then go ahead and do the bells-and-whistles version when all six are ready. Given the time frame for completion of the series, I'm pretty sure I'd have time to save up enough money to repurchase the set when it was finished. Plus, I'd be able to watch it in the meantime.
Of course, as someone stated earlier, TPM is not a movie worth owning on it's own merit, but if the next two are good, it's still nice to have the complete storyline.
Of course, not many geeks really give a shit about corporate thinking...
:-)
I care a little bit about corporate thinking, but only to the extent that it affects the size of my paycheck.
As for promotions, they sound good in theory, but if you get too many in a row, you could end up being a manager. Scary thought.
Not only is it the only thing stopping them, it doesn't seem to be entirely sufficient.
Maybe once it actually happens, they'll settle down a bit.
The whole "I _LIKE_ being ignorant" mindset is increasingly popular with the advent of computers.
Exactly. I don't think I could count the number of people I know who have gone out and bought a computer, brought it home, called me for help, and had actual PRIDE in their voice when telling me "I don't know a damn thing about these things." After trying to show them the basics, it always becomes apparent that not only do they lack computer knowledge, they actively resist acquiring any.
In my mind, "I don't know" has always been one of the most embarrassing phrases I've ever had to speak. I can't count the number of times I've been up until dawn trying to find the answer to a question that had me stumped. How people can actually take pride in their own ignorance baffles me.
Anyway, I'd have to say that there is already plenty of documentation out there. Sure, it may take a little searching to find it, and you may have to read more than a paragraph to find your answer, but the info is already out there for those who care to look.
Of course the hype surrounding Linux will fade. All hype fades eventually. In this case, though, I think it's a good thing.
Hype fades when one of two things happens. 1.) The product being hyped dies, or 2.) The product being hyped reaches a level of acceptance where it no longer needs hype.
The reason that Linux was hyped in the first place was the surprise people felt when it became apparent that this free operating system REALLY WAS stable and reliable. A whole bunch of people got hit with the clue stick all at once, and the result was an enormous string of media articles about Linux.
But now people know about Linux, and soon the columnists will find something else to write about. In the meantime Linux will continue to improve and gain marketshare. That's what it did before and during the hype-fest, and that's what it'll do when it's over.
Last I checked we live in democracy
No, we don't. We live in a democratic republic. There's a difference, look it up.
you choose the goverment.
Funny, I thought we had elections, where everyone's vote was taken into consideration. I don't recall getting the phone call asking me to be the sole selector of any public official.
So who is to blame then but yourself.
The people who actually cast votes for the morons that are in office right now.
No, you are the real problem
No, you are. And all of the apathetic people like you who claim that just because someone wins an election we give up our right to keep an eye on what they are doing and bitch up a storm if they start acting against our best interests.
Excellent points.
And, in regard to the charges of misdiagnosing and overmedicating, remember psychology as a hard science is still in its early development.
I think another factor here is that there really isn't a quick and easy way to test the seratonin levels in the brain. Unfortunately, this means that the only way to really know if meds will help is to give them a try and see what happens. I think this might be a big cause of the overmedication accusations.
It's certainly not the most elegant method of treatment, but in the absence of a superior solution, it still beats leaving these conditions untreated.
I apologize if I came down on you to hard. I couldn't agree with you more about the tendency of our society to blame anything and everything on external problems.
My point was that it's just as dangerous to pretend that none of these external problems exist at all. They do exist, and should be dealt with. They just shouldn't be used as excuses.
I also don't think that clinical depression is a valid scapegoat. Ultimately, each person is responsible for their own actions. If a person has a problem for which treatment is available yet chooses not to get that treatment, then they are responsible for that decision and the resulting consequences. I'm certainly not advocating the use of any of these issues as an excuse for anything. But to say Wouldn't life be great if all we had to do when we got sad was pop a pill that made us happy? trivializes the problem. Anti-depressants don't make you happy, they simply make happiness possible. You can still be quite sad on anti-depressants.
So, I can sympathize with your agravation at the "Not My Fault" complex that's pervading our society. I would just encourage you not to allow that aggravation to swing your opinions too far in the other direction.
Celexa did great things for me, I'm sorry to hear you're having trouble finding an effective treatment.
I've done a lot of research on this subject, and although I know enough to try to straighten out some of the misconceptions being posted here, I am nowhere near qualified to assist somone who is in a suicidal state.
Please find help. The answer you need is out there, please don't stop looking. I don't have the answer, but someone will. If you are truly feeling suicidal, one suggestion might be to find walk into a church and ask for assistance. Even if you aren't religious, it's a good place to find people who are willing to help.
I'm sorry I can't give you the answers you're looking for, but please don't stop looking until you find them.
The percentage to me (22%) sounds a little high though.
If anything, I'd say it sounds a little low. Mental illnesses exist in a variety of degrees. If you're just thinking of the person who hears 37 distinct voices in his head, then, yeah, the percentage is probably too high. Just to use an example that I'm familiar with, though, there are a great many people with mild clinical depression. Most of these people will never seek help and therefore probably don't even realize they have a medical problem.
I had just such a mild depression for about 8 years after high school. Nothing severe, I wasn't suicidal, and I didn't spend days on end curled up in a ball crying my eyes out. My depression took the simple form of an inability to feel happy or excited about anything, no matter how great. I wasn't overly sad, I just couldn't get happy. It was like 8 years of numbness. I still lived a functional life, and most people never had any idea there was anything wrong.
I don't know what finally pushed me to do it, but one day I just said to myself "This ain't normal." and decided to ask my doctor about it. He gave me some free samples of an anti-depressant, and asked me to check back in a few weeks. To make a long story short, I stayed on the meds for about 6 months, they worked wonders, and several years after stopping them, I still have all of the benefits.
Don't assume that the term "mental illness" necessarily refers to a severe condition. Just like physical illness, it comes in varying degrees. And just like physical illness, there's no reason not to correct the problem just because it's not totally debilitating.
I think the problem is that normal sadness/depression is too often mislabeled as a mental disorder, either by the psycs or by the people themselves. Wouldn't life be great if all we had to do when we got sad was pop a pill that made us happy?
No, the problem is when folks like you who have not bothered to educate themselves on the issue continue to propogate inaccurate stereotypes.
Anti-depressants do NOT make you happy. They just make you not depressed. The first glaring sign of your ignorance on the topic is your lumping sadness/depression together as if they were the same thing. It's normal to be sad when bad things happen. Nobody will argue with that.
Clinical depression is a medical condition with physical causes. Taking medication for such a condition is no different than a diabetic taking insulin. In both cases the patient is simply supplementing their supply of a chemical that their body isn't producing enough of. (Well, it's more complicated than that, but that's close enough for this discussion.)
Yes, being sad is part of a normal life and it's good to learn to deal with it in a healthy way. But being sad ALL THE TIME, even when things are great, isn't a normal part of life, and someone who has found themselves unable to feel happy about good things may very well need medical attention.
Feeling sad because your life sucks is normal. Clinical depression is something entirely different. Imagine feeling sad even though everything in your life is great, feeling sad even while engaging in activities you normally enjoy. That's not normal. You don't always have to be cheerful and happy, but when you lose the ability to be cheerful and happy even when you should be, you need help.
The word "depression" when used in a clinical sense doesn't have the meaning as the common usage. It's typically caused by a chemical imbalance in the brain, and medication can be amazingly effective. I've seen several close friends' lives improve dramatically after just a few short weeks on the right medication.
I'm as willing as anyone to admit that our society looks to medication as a solution far, far too often. Yet there are times when it is the simplest and most effective option.