Since you have an undergrad in psych, let me ask this:
In how many states can a PhD psychologist prescribe psychotropic (or any other) medicines?
Answer? One. That is Arizona. In ALL other states you must be a psychiatrist OR MD. FWIW a psychiatrist is an MD with a few classes in psychology.
This is one of the downfalls of Clinical Psychology in general; they are the MOST qualified to diagnose and treat any mental disorder (as a group), but they are also unable, generally, to prescribe some of the medicines that might help the most in need (schizophrenics etc).
As for an MD who prescribes psychotropics or anti-depressants without first referring to a psychologist? Unethical, immoral and stupid. Probably greedy too.
My degree? As of December I will have my MS in Applied Psychology (I-O). I am still working for my PhD. In my Personality class we covered DSM stuff (again) today, but I also worked for a year in a Residential Treatment Facility (mostly schizoid types).
I do agree with you on one point, though. The DSM-IV-TR is NOT for general use by non-professionals. I would be extremely hesitant to make a firm diagnosis on anyone for any Axis I or Axis II disorders. The ONLY axis on which I feel fully qualified to make a firm diagnosis is Axis V, which is the Global Assessment of Functioning.
To the person who originally quoted the DSM--please stop. I agree that Jack Thompson is a complete jerk (this is my opinion). I will further give my opinion that he is a moron, media-whoring twat with no useful contributions for society. That said, however, it HIGHLY irresponsible to go around labeling ANYONE with mental disorders from the DSM. I propose a new acronym to help prevent this: IANAP. If you can't figure this out, please get help.
Oh, and for the record, the following are required for a diagnosis as well: The problems MUST BE: -syndrome or pattern -within an individual -not culturally sactioned responses -not primarily a conflict between person & culture OR person & authorities
-MUST cause 1 of 3 possible problems:
-distress to person
-impairment in work, school, or social functioning
-increased risk of death disability or impairment or important loss of freedom [such as being more likely to end up in jail]
MOST of the disorders have very specific onset ages listed, minimum time periods for affliction and very specific comments about typical behaviors that might be involved.
Please, be more responsible folks.
FWIW, IANA Clinical Psychologist. But I am well-enough trained to know that I don't want to be one, and I shouldn't play at being one.
Actually I was a bit disappointed that the Otherland series didn't even get mentioned (Tad Williams). I haven't read the Neuromancer or Illuminatus (I know--here's my card; can I have it back when I've read them?), but to me Otherland is about as geeky as it gets.
Tad Williams is also a geek himself--from what I know he does a bit of programming, dabbles in any number of things, and is an interesting guy.
I don't _think_ you and I see eye to eye as to what makes Libertarianism what it is, or whether or not it is valuable, but I will certainly agree that there seem to be FAR more liberals here than Libertarians. I only wish it were otherwise...
Perhaps, but personally I find that SVG, when properly implemented is the best of all. Transparency (full), layers, animation, scripting, and good color support. What isn't to like?
I used to be in love with PNG as a format--it offered the one thing that jpeg lacked (transparency), while maintaining many of the good qualities. Then I started using Inkscape and svg. I love it. It is a smaller file size, zips extremely well, and offers everything that png does.
Is it good for raster art? NO, not all, but for almost everything but photo, vector is a wonderful way to go.
For photos, however, jpeg is the best--hands down. I don't prefer png for that--it just isn't there.
One of two things should happen--either a free format that is equal to (or better, superior to) jpeg needs to be developed OR jpeg needs to become patent free. Personally I don't like patents as a general principle (I would be happy with either five or ten year patents, however), but at the same time I think it is hardly fair to a company to force it to give up patents on a technology without treating other companies the same way. Personally, I think this wouldn't be an issue if the patent system were set up correctly. Automatically expiring patents seems like the best thing to me. This would give companies a chance to profit from their labor for five or ten years before they no longer had control over the technology. It would maintain a large incentive to invent, but would prevent the current patent-crazy system that we do.
Okay, seriously, that comic (call it what it is) is rarely, if ever, updated. Beyond that, it isn't the best of the online comics. I won't say what the best comic out there is (I read about 10 on a daily basis), because someone will certainly disagree with me--and I don't have my asbestos suit with me today.
Instead, let me critique Van Von Hunter on what I know of the comic, having read all the past strips up to some point in the middle of this summer. The story is interesting enough, but rather, politely put, scattered in its approach. Frequent tangents and odd, rather sudden, inclusions from what started out to be a fairly cohesive storyline all combine for a feeling that the author doesn't care that much about the story or characters. Instead, it feels very much like a part time hobby that he does because he can.
In the US many universities have similar stances--BYU, for example, is a private institution funded by a not-for-profit church (and one that works hard to make sure that they stay that way), and can therefore get away with a lot of practices in their code of conduct that other universities simply cannot (they can and do expel students for drinking alcohol--not all students, but if someone gets reported they can get expelled).
Clemson University, where I am attending, is a different matter. As a state institution they must adhere to all federal and state guidelines regarding freedom of speech, etc. I think that the SCOTUS would probably allow restrictions of speech at BYU and disallow them at any state or state-funded school. This means that BYU can kick you out for bad-mouthing the president of the university, but Clemson probably couldn't.
At many universities the ombudsman is available for students to consult when greivances arise. Whether or not this person is someone who actually has power is a tricky thing. They have power if they are allowed to. I think that here at Clemson they do a decent job, but I've never run into any problems. I know some students who have (mostly undergraduate students), but many of them were reluctant to go to the omsbudsman (I'm uncertain of the correct spelling), and in the end I don't know what the outcomes were.
Are some professors prickly? Do some universities essentially ignore the rights of students when planning and executing disciplinary procedures? Certainly, but I think that in the US, at least, state run schools are likely to have a clean record. Private schools, such as BYU {disclaimer: I am am "Mormon", but did not, by choice, attend BYU--the cost is too high for anyone in my position (less than perfect high-school GPA, but reasonably high ACT scores [and now GRE])}, should also be fine, with the caveat that you NEED to know what the code of conduct is BEFORE you go to the school. The small, private, liberal arts school where I did my undergrad had some odd, archaic, and unusual items in the code of conduct, but nothing that I had a problem with or couldn't deal with for four years.
FWIW, the standard disclaimer applies: I am not a lawyer, this is not legal advice, I don't even look like a lawyer, and anyone asking me for legal advice needs a little more help than I am qualified to give in the mental health area. I DO have some basic knowledge of legal practices regarding employment issues, but that hardly qualifies me to dispense legal advice. If anything above is contradictory, stupid or rambling, I apologize for being human, tired, and worn out--I am in graduate school after all.
NPR had a story about this, and did a reasonable job of it. If they would cover it a few more times as things progress, maybe Sony will get the picture.
Currently I own 2 Sony products--a Clie and a Cybershot. If this kind of thing continues, however, I will make these my last Sony purchases of any kind.
There is a good reason that this matters, not just to us, but to everyone: Sony has obviously lied about their actions, and should be held responsible. If we as consumers don't stand up and say "stop", then this will get worse. Currently computers are very powerful, but with more and more of this crap, we will all soon need Cray's to run even the simplest game smoothly because of the myriad background services that are hogging resources. I've already decided that as soon as I can I will ditch Windows (all that I need is money to buy SPSS/SAS for linux, or the ability to run SPSS in wine, and I'm good)--for the same reasons.
If I get rid of windows, then sony can't pull this crap.
Finally, is there a non-Sony-provided version of an uninstaller for this crap? I don't trust them!
It isn't really a matter of skill, its a matter of knowledge. I haven't seen any literature regarding the ability to go without sex in space astronauts. Speaking as someone who is working on a degree in psychology, I have to say that what NASA is doing is wise (study the problem, see what problems it might cause), but probably futile.
People are funny creatures. Over the short run, what most of us call personality isn't that great at predicting behavior in any specific situation--no matter what you read in some pop-psych book or mag. Ultimately, they will be much better off finding people that are known to handle stress well and are able to be professional even when it means dealing with that backstabbing jerk who slept with both female crew-members on the same day! Do I want that job? Sure--ultimately its a matter of personnel selection, so I'm interested.
A man can be both pro presonal responsibility (eg, parent blamers), and anti-track your movements (if I understand what everyone above is saying correctly) without any inherent contradictions. As a parent, I strongly feel that it is my responsibility to society to make sure that I raise my children to be well-adjusted, generally law-abiding, and otherwise good people. At the same time, I feel that some of the tools that might make this easier (gps cell phones is the example above, but not the best) are not necessarily a good idea, since they can--although they don't have to--have the effect of encouraging parents to be lazy--I call it the "congress will fix it" syndrome.
That said, I am probably not as anti-tech as some people seem to be. A technology that helps a concerned parent do their job can be a good thing. But it can also be a bad thing for parents who are already shirking their responsibilities.
I do agree that many folks would be upset about parents searching their kids' rooms. I suspect that most of those who do are either kids or are young enough to remember what that was really like as a kid. I never had marijuana in my room (that I know of), but I had some other things that my parents didn't really appreciate (my mom, bless her heart, is one of the "Dungeons & Dragons is an evil evil game, and will corrupt your soul" types--I am an avid gamer; we still have discussions focused on that disagreement), so I know what it was like. I still plan to make sure I know what my kids have in their rooms. Why? Because that's part of knowing what your kids are doing. Do I plan to make a big deal of it? No. I will let my kids know that a certain level of privacy will be afforded, but that at the same time I need to know what they are doing in my house.
Will I get them GPS-enabled cell-phones? Probably not. In fact, I am unlikely to buy them anything so grandiose as a cell-phone. If they want one when they are older, then they can pay for it. That way when they talk for 3000 minutes on a 700 minute a month plan, they can foot the bill, not me. That will teach them responsibility much more quickly than having a gps-enabled phone. The goal is not to track their every movement--that just teaches them to lie, cheat (including leaving the phone somewhere they are not), and otherwise get around your pathetic attempts to know exactly where they are at any given moment. I would much rather teach my children that actions have consequences, and that life is not likely to hand them a free ride.
You may not agree with what I know about different topics, but I will say this:
the burnout theories are hardly unique to me or original to myself. I am simply applying what I have learned from reading research. I have neither time nor inclination to provide citations (which--to give you some more fuel--begs the question of why I bother reading or posting on/., but we all have our failures--yours seems to be posting odd responses to my comments, and finding out more information about me than is really necessary).
Anti-union propaganda, however, is news to me. I am not anti-union in the broadest sense, I just think that the current structure is rather messed up and has a tendency to promote employee laziness. That said, I also happen to strongly feel that there is a time and place for unions (such as when the railroads were heavily exploiting their workers, or to use a more modern example, I would think it highly appropriate for workers at EA to unionize and work to change the industry that they work in--it would also help reduce burnout).
I can't recall traffic tips I may have given, but I'll guess they were either related to cell phone usage or speeding. Oh well. If it was cell phone usage, then I place that in the same category as burnout: I have good reasons for my opinions, but I have neither time nor inclination to cite all the relevant research. If you have access to a decent human factors scientific journal, you can find out for yourself.
As for "creationist fairy tales", my personal beliefs about the beginnings of this world are presented as that, and are hardly up for debate. You might consider that foolish, and you are welcome to that opinion. I don't agree with you, and likely never will (I won't say that I NEVER will, because I don't know the future, but I am reasonably certain of it).
I don't know why you insist on reading my posts and replying to them, but I hope you are having fun. It doesn't seem like that much fun to me (after all, I am hardly the world's most interesting guy), but whatever floats your boat.
PS. If you want to "stamp out ignorance", go do some research about current research on burnout. Then we'll talk.
I don't know what your deal is, but you need to get a life.
FWIW, I like the Dark Crystal quote, though.
Re:Maslows Hierarchy of Needs
on
Pay vs. Happiness
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
As the sibling post points out, Maslow's Hierarchy of needs is a motivation theory. As someone (psychologist in training--only 2 years to PhD), who studies motivation as their primary area of expertise, allow me to be the one who says that as a theory of motivation, it is woefully inadequate and outdated. There are valid points to it, yes, but generally speaking, it stinks.
From a graduate paper I wrote about burnout, I will state that what I remember indicates that burnout is a result of feelings of inefficacy, and inability to change the current situation. Thus, from an organizational behavior point of view, its simply the state where motivation to work approaches (but never reaches) zero. Note that motivation is a directed behavior, not an attitude. Certainly there is a set of emotions and feelings associated very strongly with that behavior, but motivation is most accurately described as a behavior (specifically the allocation of time and energy toward a specific task).
Burnout is awful. It is real. Employers can, and should*, do things to prevent it. Those who suffer from burnout should be given access to resources and activities that will relieve that burnout.
*This is what most employers get wrong. Leaving aside such fuzziness as "good corporate citizenship" and similar ideas, burned out employees cost money. They are inefficient, and the chances are that their replacements will burn out as well as costing money and time to train properly. Hiring new employees is often as expensive or more expensive as reviving and helping your current ones. I won't make an ethical argument here, although one exists, and shouldn't be ignored, because I know that the managers want a financial/business related reason to do things. This is utility analysis (something I am becoming more interested in).
You almost had me convinced that you knew what you were talking about until the last sentence.
Christians, almost to the person, believe that because of Christ's sacrifice, most of the ritualistic observances detailed in the Old Testament were subsumed into the new law, and thus the need for adherence to those rituals is gone. Certain parts of the law were left intact, but most were upgraded. Think of it as Commandments v2.0, where in order to do the upgrade, an all new operating system is required.
There are some holdovers, such as not killing, but the most parts the new laws that Christ put into place were not easier than the old laws. Before, no one cared what you thought about, but with Christ's law, he equates lust with adultery (remember the old law where you got killed for that?). Christ is essentially saying that our thoughts make us just as culpable as our actions. He also took away the harsher immediate penalties (stoning), and replaced them with the concept of mercy and atonement. Not that punishment was removed from the system, but they are now deferred.
Some may disagree on details, but the gist is correct.
Do I follow all of the commandments? No, but I try. In the OT, this means you failed, and would sacrifice something of value (goats), whereas now it means I pray for forgiveness and try my best to do better.
I personally feel like the man is right--and I would even take it a step further. A perfect religion would accept ALL true principles as rightly being a part of their beliefs. This means that God knows everything there is to know about physics, chemistry, biology etc. IF you are willing to accept that, why do you think it is such a big leap to think that he could a) build the earth or b) reveal a new idea about SCIENCE to someone?
In science fiction the concept of hooking someone up to a computer of sometime and instantly imparting knowledge via some interface with the brain is old hat. L. Ron Hubbard used it in Battlefield Earth, and he wasn't the first. Why then could a being who knows everything there is to know about science not do this through some means we have yet to discover (after all brain science is in its infancy).
How God created the earth is speculation. The age of the earth is, as far as I am concerned, irrelevant. Carbon dating seems to be problematic, but I really haven't seen enough evidence for it from a reliable source to make a firm decision. If someone wants to believe in evolution as a method of creation, I am willing to let them, but I personally don't think so.
Do I need to invoke deity to explain simple concepts? No, but I am certainly willing to learn what scripture says about something, and compare it to what science is learning. I also firmly believe that many people are guided by deity to make certain discoveries. Some might ask why, but I think that any discovery that makes this world a better place would be a good example of why God would lead someone down a certain path of inquiry--maybe without them even knowing it.
Last time I edited the registry out of need? LAST WEEK! Last time I did this on my home computer? Never.
At work (in IT) we have a situation which requires that we edit the registry of EVERY machine that we purchase for our retail locations (it involves terminal server [RDP] and printers). I will do that to a new machine tommorrow if the other guy here doesn't beat me to it.
Do our end users have to do this? No. ANd they shouldn't EVER touch the registry on a work computer, but I can imagine a number of situations that require a registry hack. If I had to do this on a home machine, I would, but I dread it. By comparison, it is EASY to make a backup of a.conf and if it TOTALLY borks your system, use a recovery utility to restore it (knoppix rules). Bork your registry, and you might be able to restore it--but the "system restore" utility may not be good enough.
I do agree with one thing: a home user should NEVER be FORCED to edit either the registry or a.conf. Once the system is set up, then they don't, either. This is equally true in linux.
FWIW, my 70 year old mom (sorry, grandmother's are all dead), uses Ubuntu, and has zero problems. I would DREAM of letting her have a windows machine. She is so clueless (self-admittedly) about computers that she would end up with a virus pretty quickly. WIth a nice secured install of linux, however, I have very little to worry about.
no, it was bigger. WinME was the biggest steaming pile of horsecrap to ever be foisted on the computer users of the world--especially considering what WAS available at the time.
This is one of those debates where I have truly mixed feelings.
As what most would term a conservative Christian, I certainly agree with many policies that Republicans consider important--abortion included.
Stem cell research, however, seems a little different to me. Yes, that was a potential life, but I see no problem with using it for research if was slated to be discarded/disposed of in any case. The sticky point comes in later, as some have noted.
Overall, however, I think that the possibilities are worth any risks and ethical risks. Should the government fund it? I think so, since this would allow us to determine if there really.
I don't speak French... well, not much. I took two years in high school, but that hardly counts--it's been 12 years (or so), and I really don't remember much. I can read it (sorta) when I need to, but only in certain areas, and I have a really tough time. I certainly can't speak French worth speaking of.
On the other hand, I DO speak Portuguese. I am fluent enough to read pretty much anything I choose to, and I speak well enough to carry a casual conversation. I don't write it very well (that's tougher), but that would come with practice.
Overall, though, I am jealous that we Americans can't get the same level of access to broadband. I personally blame it on the FCC's asinine decisions regarding phone and cable lines combined with the rather low population density in many areas.
34 euros a month for 2MB connection? I'd love that (and I am in the US). I might just move back to Portugal for that (I was only there two years, but I loved it there). My wife might disagree that good broadband is a sufficient reason to move to Portugal, but that's probably because she doesn't speak the language.
Maybe you got here late like me, but the article explicitly states that there are ways to install it natively to the hard drive and run it from boot. This is obviously not the the same as running the ppc version in vmware.
Even if it is a genetic component and the employer is not "responsible", there is still the matter of the ADA. This would then fall into the category of a disability and you couldn't make any hiring or firing decisions based solely on this. Reasonable accomodation would also become mandatory.
Slashdot Mirror
Since you have an undergrad in psych, let me ask this:
In how many states can a PhD psychologist prescribe psychotropic (or any other) medicines?
Answer? One. That is Arizona. In ALL other states you must be a psychiatrist OR MD. FWIW a psychiatrist is an MD with a few classes in psychology.
This is one of the downfalls of Clinical Psychology in general; they are the MOST qualified to diagnose and treat any mental disorder (as a group), but they are also unable, generally, to prescribe some of the medicines that might help the most in need (schizophrenics etc).
As for an MD who prescribes psychotropics or anti-depressants without first referring to a psychologist? Unethical, immoral and stupid. Probably greedy too.
My degree? As of December I will have my MS in Applied Psychology (I-O). I am still working for my PhD. In my Personality class we covered DSM stuff (again) today, but I also worked for a year in a Residential Treatment Facility (mostly schizoid types).
I do agree with you on one point, though. The DSM-IV-TR is NOT for general use by non-professionals. I would be extremely hesitant to make a firm diagnosis on anyone for any Axis I or Axis II disorders. The ONLY axis on which I feel fully qualified to make a firm diagnosis is Axis V, which is the Global Assessment of Functioning.
To the person who originally quoted the DSM--please stop. I agree that Jack Thompson is a complete jerk (this is my opinion). I will further give my opinion that he is a moron, media-whoring twat with no useful contributions for society. That said, however, it HIGHLY irresponsible to go around labeling ANYONE with mental disorders from the DSM. I propose a new acronym to help prevent this: IANAP. If you can't figure this out, please get help.
Oh, and for the record, the following are required for a diagnosis as well:
The problems MUST BE:
-syndrome or pattern
-within an individual
-not culturally sactioned responses
-not primarily a conflict between person & culture OR person & authorities
-MUST cause 1 of 3 possible problems:
-distress to person
-impairment in work, school, or social functioning
-increased risk of death disability or impairment or important loss of freedom [such as being more likely to end up in jail]
MOST of the disorders have very specific onset ages listed, minimum time periods for affliction and very specific comments about typical behaviors that might be involved.
Please, be more responsible folks.
FWIW, IANA Clinical Psychologist. But I am well-enough trained to know that I don't want to be one, and I shouldn't play at being one.
Actually I was a bit disappointed that the Otherland series didn't even get mentioned (Tad Williams). I haven't read the Neuromancer or Illuminatus (I know--here's my card; can I have it back when I've read them?), but to me Otherland is about as geeky as it gets.
Tad Williams is also a geek himself--from what I know he does a bit of programming, dabbles in any number of things, and is an interesting guy.
I don't _think_ you and I see eye to eye as to what makes Libertarianism what it is, or whether or not it is valuable, but I will certainly agree that there seem to be FAR more liberals here than Libertarians. I only wish it were otherwise...
Perhaps, but personally I find that SVG, when properly implemented is the best of all. Transparency (full), layers, animation, scripting, and good color support. What isn't to like?
I used to be in love with PNG as a format--it offered the one thing that jpeg lacked (transparency), while maintaining many of the good qualities. Then I started using Inkscape and svg. I love it. It is a smaller file size, zips extremely well, and offers everything that png does.
Is it good for raster art? NO, not all, but for almost everything but photo, vector is a wonderful way to go.
For photos, however, jpeg is the best--hands down. I don't prefer png for that--it just isn't there.
One of two things should happen--either a free format that is equal to (or better, superior to) jpeg needs to be developed OR jpeg needs to become patent free. Personally I don't like patents as a general principle (I would be happy with either five or ten year patents, however), but at the same time I think it is hardly fair to a company to force it to give up patents on a technology without treating other companies the same way. Personally, I think this wouldn't be an issue if the patent system were set up correctly. Automatically expiring patents seems like the best thing to me. This would give companies a chance to profit from their labor for five or ten years before they no longer had control over the technology. It would maintain a large incentive to invent, but would prevent the current patent-crazy system that we do.
Okay, seriously, that comic (call it what it is) is rarely, if ever, updated. Beyond that, it isn't the best of the online comics. I won't say what the best comic out there is (I read about 10 on a daily basis), because someone will certainly disagree with me--and I don't have my asbestos suit with me today.
Instead, let me critique Van Von Hunter on what I know of the comic, having read all the past strips up to some point in the middle of this summer. The story is interesting enough, but rather, politely put, scattered in its approach. Frequent tangents and odd, rather sudden, inclusions from what started out to be a fairly cohesive storyline all combine for a feeling that the author doesn't care that much about the story or characters. Instead, it feels very much like a part time hobby that he does because he can.
In the US many universities have similar stances--BYU, for example, is a private institution funded by a not-for-profit church (and one that works hard to make sure that they stay that way), and can therefore get away with a lot of practices in their code of conduct that other universities simply cannot (they can and do expel students for drinking alcohol--not all students, but if someone gets reported they can get expelled).
Clemson University, where I am attending, is a different matter. As a state institution they must adhere to all federal and state guidelines regarding freedom of speech, etc. I think that the SCOTUS would probably allow restrictions of speech at BYU and disallow them at any state or state-funded school. This means that BYU can kick you out for bad-mouthing the president of the university, but Clemson probably couldn't.
At many universities the ombudsman is available for students to consult when greivances arise. Whether or not this person is someone who actually has power is a tricky thing. They have power if they are allowed to. I think that here at Clemson they do a decent job, but I've never run into any problems. I know some students who have (mostly undergraduate students), but many of them were reluctant to go to the omsbudsman (I'm uncertain of the correct spelling), and in the end I don't know what the outcomes were.
Are some professors prickly? Do some universities essentially ignore the rights of students when planning and executing disciplinary procedures? Certainly, but I think that in the US, at least, state run schools are likely to have a clean record. Private schools, such as BYU {disclaimer: I am am "Mormon", but did not, by choice, attend BYU--the cost is too high for anyone in my position (less than perfect high-school GPA, but reasonably high ACT scores [and now GRE])}, should also be fine, with the caveat that you NEED to know what the code of conduct is BEFORE you go to the school. The small, private, liberal arts school where I did my undergrad had some odd, archaic, and unusual items in the code of conduct, but nothing that I had a problem with or couldn't deal with for four years.
FWIW, the standard disclaimer applies: I am not a lawyer, this is not legal advice, I don't even look like a lawyer, and anyone asking me for legal advice needs a little more help than I am qualified to give in the mental health area. I DO have some basic knowledge of legal practices regarding employment issues, but that hardly qualifies me to dispense legal advice. If anything above is contradictory, stupid or rambling, I apologize for being human, tired, and worn out--I am in graduate school after all.
NPR had a story about this, and did a reasonable job of it. If they would cover it a few more times as things progress, maybe Sony will get the picture.
Currently I own 2 Sony products--a Clie and a Cybershot. If this kind of thing continues, however, I will make these my last Sony purchases of any kind.
There is a good reason that this matters, not just to us, but to everyone: Sony has obviously lied about their actions, and should be held responsible. If we as consumers don't stand up and say "stop", then this will get worse. Currently computers are very powerful, but with more and more of this crap, we will all soon need Cray's to run even the simplest game smoothly because of the myriad background services that are hogging resources. I've already decided that as soon as I can I will ditch Windows (all that I need is money to buy SPSS/SAS for linux, or the ability to run SPSS in wine, and I'm good)--for the same reasons.
If I get rid of windows, then sony can't pull this crap.
Finally, is there a non-Sony-provided version of an uninstaller for this crap? I don't trust them!
Skilled enough psychologists? Doubtful.
It isn't really a matter of skill, its a matter of knowledge. I haven't seen any literature regarding the ability to go without sex in space astronauts. Speaking as someone who is working on a degree in psychology, I have to say that what NASA is doing is wise (study the problem, see what problems it might cause), but probably futile.
People are funny creatures. Over the short run, what most of us call personality isn't that great at predicting behavior in any specific situation--no matter what you read in some pop-psych book or mag. Ultimately, they will be much better off finding people that are known to handle stress well and are able to be professional even when it means dealing with that backstabbing jerk who slept with both female crew-members on the same day! Do I want that job? Sure--ultimately its a matter of personnel selection, so I'm interested.
Interesting comments, and completely off-base.
A man can be both pro presonal responsibility (eg, parent blamers), and anti-track your movements (if I understand what everyone above is saying correctly) without any inherent contradictions. As a parent, I strongly feel that it is my responsibility to society to make sure that I raise my children to be well-adjusted, generally law-abiding, and otherwise good people. At the same time, I feel that some of the tools that might make this easier (gps cell phones is the example above, but not the best) are not necessarily a good idea, since they can--although they don't have to--have the effect of encouraging parents to be lazy--I call it the "congress will fix it" syndrome.
That said, I am probably not as anti-tech as some people seem to be. A technology that helps a concerned parent do their job can be a good thing. But it can also be a bad thing for parents who are already shirking their responsibilities.
I do agree that many folks would be upset about parents searching their kids' rooms. I suspect that most of those who do are either kids or are young enough to remember what that was really like as a kid. I never had marijuana in my room (that I know of), but I had some other things that my parents didn't really appreciate (my mom, bless her heart, is one of the "Dungeons & Dragons is an evil evil game, and will corrupt your soul" types--I am an avid gamer; we still have discussions focused on that disagreement), so I know what it was like. I still plan to make sure I know what my kids have in their rooms. Why? Because that's part of knowing what your kids are doing. Do I plan to make a big deal of it? No. I will let my kids know that a certain level of privacy will be afforded, but that at the same time I need to know what they are doing in my house.
Will I get them GPS-enabled cell-phones? Probably not. In fact, I am unlikely to buy them anything so grandiose as a cell-phone. If they want one when they are older, then they can pay for it. That way when they talk for 3000 minutes on a 700 minute a month plan, they can foot the bill, not me. That will teach them responsibility much more quickly than having a gps-enabled phone. The goal is not to track their every movement--that just teaches them to lie, cheat (including leaving the phone somewhere they are not), and otherwise get around your pathetic attempts to know exactly where they are at any given moment. I would much rather teach my children that actions have consequences, and that life is not likely to hand them a free ride.
Normally I have mod points--and I would mod you up. Today I don't, so, here's this much:
That's the funniest grammar nazi post I have EVER read.
Keep it up!
You may not agree with what I know about different topics, but I will say this:
/., but we all have our failures--yours seems to be posting odd responses to my comments, and finding out more information about me than is really necessary).
the burnout theories are hardly unique to me or original to myself. I am simply applying what I have learned from reading research. I have neither time nor inclination to provide citations (which--to give you some more fuel--begs the question of why I bother reading or posting on
Anti-union propaganda, however, is news to me. I am not anti-union in the broadest sense, I just think that the current structure is rather messed up and has a tendency to promote employee laziness. That said, I also happen to strongly feel that there is a time and place for unions (such as when the railroads were heavily exploiting their workers, or to use a more modern example, I would think it highly appropriate for workers at EA to unionize and work to change the industry that they work in--it would also help reduce burnout).
I can't recall traffic tips I may have given, but I'll guess they were either related to cell phone usage or speeding. Oh well. If it was cell phone usage, then I place that in the same category as burnout: I have good reasons for my opinions, but I have neither time nor inclination to cite all the relevant research. If you have access to a decent human factors scientific journal, you can find out for yourself.
As for "creationist fairy tales", my personal beliefs about the beginnings of this world are presented as that, and are hardly up for debate. You might consider that foolish, and you are welcome to that opinion. I don't agree with you, and likely never will (I won't say that I NEVER will, because I don't know the future, but I am reasonably certain of it).
I don't know why you insist on reading my posts and replying to them, but I hope you are having fun. It doesn't seem like that much fun to me (after all, I am hardly the world's most interesting guy), but whatever floats your boat.
PS. If you want to "stamp out ignorance", go do some research about current research on burnout. Then we'll talk.
I don't know what your deal is, but you need to get a life.
FWIW, I like the Dark Crystal quote, though.
As the sibling post points out, Maslow's Hierarchy of needs is a motivation theory. As someone (psychologist in training--only 2 years to PhD), who studies motivation as their primary area of expertise, allow me to be the one who says that as a theory of motivation, it is woefully inadequate and outdated. There are valid points to it, yes, but generally speaking, it stinks.
From a graduate paper I wrote about burnout, I will state that what I remember indicates that burnout is a result of feelings of inefficacy, and inability to change the current situation. Thus, from an organizational behavior point of view, its simply the state where motivation to work approaches (but never reaches) zero. Note that motivation is a directed behavior, not an attitude. Certainly there is a set of emotions and feelings associated very strongly with that behavior, but motivation is most accurately described as a behavior (specifically the allocation of time and energy toward a specific task).
Burnout is awful. It is real. Employers can, and should*, do things to prevent it. Those who suffer from burnout should be given access to resources and activities that will relieve that burnout.
*This is what most employers get wrong. Leaving aside such fuzziness as "good corporate citizenship" and similar ideas, burned out employees cost money. They are inefficient, and the chances are that their replacements will burn out as well as costing money and time to train properly. Hiring new employees is often as expensive or more expensive as reviving and helping your current ones. I won't make an ethical argument here, although one exists, and shouldn't be ignored, because I know that the managers want a financial/business related reason to do things. This is utility analysis (something I am becoming more interested in).
You almost had me convinced that you knew what you were talking about until the last sentence.
Christians, almost to the person, believe that because of Christ's sacrifice, most of the ritualistic observances detailed in the Old Testament were subsumed into the new law, and thus the need for adherence to those rituals is gone. Certain parts of the law were left intact, but most were upgraded. Think of it as Commandments v2.0, where in order to do the upgrade, an all new operating system is required.
There are some holdovers, such as not killing, but the most parts the new laws that Christ put into place were not easier than the old laws. Before, no one cared what you thought about, but with Christ's law, he equates lust with adultery (remember the old law where you got killed for that?). Christ is essentially saying that our thoughts make us just as culpable as our actions. He also took away the harsher immediate penalties (stoning), and replaced them with the concept of mercy and atonement. Not that punishment was removed from the system, but they are now deferred.
Some may disagree on details, but the gist is correct.
Do I follow all of the commandments? No, but I try. In the OT, this means you failed, and would sacrifice something of value (goats), whereas now it means I pray for forgiveness and try my best to do better.
I personally feel like the man is right--and I would even take it a step further. A perfect religion would accept ALL true principles as rightly being a part of their beliefs. This means that God knows everything there is to know about physics, chemistry, biology etc. IF you are willing to accept that, why do you think it is such a big leap to think that he could a) build the earth or b) reveal a new idea about SCIENCE to someone?
In science fiction the concept of hooking someone up to a computer of sometime and instantly imparting knowledge via some interface with the brain is old hat. L. Ron Hubbard used it in Battlefield Earth, and he wasn't the first. Why then could a being who knows everything there is to know about science not do this through some means we have yet to discover (after all brain science is in its infancy).
How God created the earth is speculation. The age of the earth is, as far as I am concerned, irrelevant. Carbon dating seems to be problematic, but I really haven't seen enough evidence for it from a reliable source to make a firm decision. If someone wants to believe in evolution as a method of creation, I am willing to let them, but I personally don't think so.
Do I need to invoke deity to explain simple concepts? No, but I am certainly willing to learn what scripture says about something, and compare it to what science is learning. I also firmly believe that many people are guided by deity to make certain discoveries. Some might ask why, but I think that any discovery that makes this world a better place would be a good example of why God would lead someone down a certain path of inquiry--maybe without them even knowing it.
Be open minded.
I don't blame her--it's a dirty trick.
I can't say I wouldn't do something like that, but it is a dirty trick.
Last time I edited the registry out of need? LAST WEEK! Last time I did this on my home computer? Never.
.conf and if it TOTALLY borks your system, use a recovery utility to restore it (knoppix rules). Bork your registry, and you might be able to restore it--but the "system restore" utility may not be good enough.
.conf. Once the system is set up, then they don't, either. This is equally true in linux.
At work (in IT) we have a situation which requires that we edit the registry of EVERY machine that we purchase for our retail locations (it involves terminal server [RDP] and printers). I will do that to a new machine tommorrow if the other guy here doesn't beat me to it.
Do our end users have to do this? No. ANd they shouldn't EVER touch the registry on a work computer, but I can imagine a number of situations that require a registry hack. If I had to do this on a home machine, I would, but I dread it. By comparison, it is EASY to make a backup of a
I do agree with one thing: a home user should NEVER be FORCED to edit either the registry or a
FWIW, my 70 year old mom (sorry, grandmother's are all dead), uses Ubuntu, and has zero problems. I would DREAM of letting her have a windows machine. She is so clueless (self-admittedly) about computers that she would end up with a virus pretty quickly. WIth a nice secured install of linux, however, I have very little to worry about.
Good day, sir.
There are Chevette Fans? I never knew...
no, it was bigger. WinME was the biggest steaming pile of horsecrap to ever be foisted on the computer users of the world--especially considering what WAS available at the time.
It was an awful mess.
This is one of those debates where I have truly mixed feelings.
As what most would term a conservative Christian, I certainly agree with many policies that Republicans consider important--abortion included.
Stem cell research, however, seems a little different to me. Yes, that was a potential life, but I see no problem with using it for research if was slated to be discarded/disposed of in any case. The sticky point comes in later, as some have noted.
Overall, however, I think that the possibilities are worth any risks and ethical risks. Should the government fund it? I think so, since this would allow us to determine if there really.
I don't speak French...
well, not much. I took two years in high school, but that hardly counts--it's been 12 years (or so), and I really don't remember much. I can read it (sorta) when I need to, but only in certain areas, and I have a really tough time. I certainly can't speak French worth speaking of.
On the other hand, I DO speak Portuguese. I am fluent enough to read pretty much anything I choose to, and I speak well enough to carry a casual conversation. I don't write it very well (that's tougher), but that would come with practice.
Overall, though, I am jealous that we Americans can't get the same level of access to broadband. I personally blame it on the FCC's asinine decisions regarding phone and cable lines combined with the rather low population density in many areas.
34 euros a month for 2MB connection? I'd love that (and I am in the US). I might just move back to Portugal for that (I was only there two years, but I loved it there). My wife might disagree that good broadband is a sufficient reason to move to Portugal, but that's probably because she doesn't speak the language.
Maybe you got here late like me, but the article explicitly states that there are ways to install it natively to the hard drive and run it from boot. This is obviously not the the same as running the ppc version in vmware.
Even if it is a genetic component and the employer is not "responsible", there is still the matter of the ADA. This would then fall into the category of a disability and you couldn't make any hiring or firing decisions based solely on this. Reasonable accomodation would also become mandatory.
turn off autodrive (f5) and steer really far off the road. THen turn it on and watch. It's a fairly smart autodrive.
I prefer pipe bombs myself, but hey... to each their own.
When my friends start talking about fishing, I tell them that my fishing pole has a fuse on one end. The smart ones understand what I mean.