I see a problem here. Not for you, but for the advertisers. You're willing to pay not to see the ads. That's almost a good thing for those positioning themselves in the middle, such as Google, as they can essentially extort money from you: "pay up or be blasted by ads." But it's really bad for the actual people selling products because the people with disposable income and the willingness to use it are the ones who've just spent a few quid to avoid all the ads. They're even, as demonstrated by their willingness to pay, the ones who notice ads or are concerned they may be affected by them.
It's one of those stupid situations. Like Slashdot that I have actually previously been a subscriber to (stopped because they only accept PayPal now), which has their inducement to subscribe be eliminating the ads - on one of the few sites where I'm actually occasionally interested by the ads.
Now if it were the case that you had to tap away all of that power, then perhaps it can't be done. But presumably, you only have to tap it away as fast as it is accumulating. We don't mind if it is only 100 Somethings away from blowing, if its only accumulating at 0.5 Somethings per day and we can let off that energy at 0.6 Somethings per day.
Disclaimer: I have no idea what the 'Something's are.
Are people really not catching on here? Your ISP throttles your connection, but if you go to a known site for testing your speed, they drop the throttling and prioritise the traffic. That way, though you suspect or deduce that you're not getting what you've been promised, the moment you check or are asked "to check" by your ISP, you find there's nothing wrong.
A lot of odd things in your post that I don't see as quite connecting with what I said.
'middle class' != 'rich'.
Nor does middle class == poor. Okay, if it makes my point clearer to you, then poor people tend to have worse diets than non-poor people. I'm not quite sure if you're trying to make a criticism with the above.
(Since you have the free time to hang on/. and internet access to do it, plus a computing device that enables you, I'm willing to bet you're middle class, but not willing to bet that you're rich)
Again, I'm not sure what my personal circumstances have to do with this at all. But for what its worth, plenty of unemployed people have a lot more time than employed people, young people tend to have more time than adults, etc. and Internet access is everywhere. You make very unsafe bets.;)
1- I'd wager that 'poor' (whatever that really means btw) persons are more likely to take the recommendation of a single medical professional. This is largely because it would cost extra resources (time/money/travel/whatever) to get a second opinion.
In my direct personal experience from working in the NHS, it doesn't really make a difference. Although in the USA, it's probably a factor. It doesn't make a difference to my point however, which is that children of poor families are actually likely to have more problems than the non-poor due to inadequate diets. If you're more likely to have a problem that is severe enough to benefit from medication, then you're more likely to be prescribed that medication all other things being equal. Btw, poor means lacking money or wealth.
2- Upper and Middle class parents may be scared of the stigma of having their children on drugs of that nature. (I have a friend that teaches in a private school that has to argue with parents about the development of their child, often they refuse what the person that actually spends time with their kid tells them)
Again, I'm failing to see how this relates to what I said, but it's worth noting that this article is about anti-psychotics here. If a child has schizophrenia, there aren't many parents that would choose the visible symptoms over the "stigma" of the drug.
4- Upper/Middle class parents might be able to instead take their child to a head-shrink. (also, see #1 above)
And I'll refer you to point 2. We're talking anti-psychotics, here. I think perhaps you haven't grasped what these are for. If someone is being given fluphenazine, it's not for any problem that can be solved by lying on a couch and talking about their mother. You prescribe anti-psychotic drugs for problems that have a neurological basis, not psychological.
5- Medical Professionals that service the 'poor' might be more willing to just script for meds since it'll likely fix the symptoms and it's known that it's covered under Medicare. ('Quickest fix to get to the next patient')
What you're alleging is that these clinicians are being medically negligent. I don't think you can at all make statements like the above. You could as easily say that the doctors treating affluent patients who pay substantially more are more likely to accede to their paymasters and prescribe potentially harmful "fixes" because their patients are wealthier, more able to go elsewhere and more legal-savvy. Which of these is true? I sincerely hope neither - they're both just unsupported statements that imply a lack of duty of care. I make mine just to illustrate that an equally baseless generalisation can be made in the other direction.
Again, I get the sense from your response that you are arguing with me, but I'm not seeing what you're actually saying in relation to my post.
Don't neglect nutrition. A metnal hospital once found that supplementing their inmates diet with extra vitamins and minerals reduced psychotic episodes. What's the betting that poor children have worse diets than rich children?
But those projects are funded by the taxes of the consituents, so it's not in the interests of the constituency to spend the money just for the sake of employment. That's like borrowing money on a credit card to pay off your mortgage. Besides which it doesn't even work as a means of wealth redistribution. People pay their taxes which the government ploughs into weaponry in return for which you also get some jobs for workers, but a large amount of that money gets skimmed off and into the pockets of rich people. The "jobs" argument is flawed in in even more ways than just the "broken window fallacy" model suggests.
I said it is a rare case that the lone unarmed man is the agressor, not entirely unknown. But that said, your first example is not a lone person attacking multiple armed people, but someone fighting not to be strapped to a gurney by three firefighters. The second case we don't know much about, just that there was an altercation when police tried to take him into custody.
Turning it down would have gone over very well with many of us (assuming that were known - I think they make discreet enquiries first). But I do agree that he doesn't deserve criticism for being offered it. That's a fair point and I'll retract any criticism I directed toward him.
I realise that. But I can tell the difference between an angry person and a man mad enough to charge armed police officers with his bare hands. I think cops that deal with these situations should certainly be able to do so.
Besides, its not for the police officers to initiate violence on the grounds that the other person might.
I believe the point people are making is that if US troops are still mired in the mess that is Afghanistan and if the Middle East is still seething with anti-American hatred because of their occupation of Iraq, why exactly is this guy getting a Nobel prize for peace? It looks, and is, a political gift, not a recognition of achievement.
Misunderstanding the office of the president as being some supreme determinator of US policy is a mistake anyway. The President is the most visible of a group of people that determine what path the US takes politically, but not some sort of one-man policy machine.
Now the US is trying its best to hold back Israel from kicking off a war with Iran, and for that they get my respect (even if it is just sanity on their part). But I fail to see what Obama has done to earn a Nobel peace prize.
You're the first person to ever take me up on trying to prove a difference in search result quality rather than just saying how rubbish Bing is. So kudos for that.:)
However, there's something very wrong here. Your Bing results don't match up with what I get at all. Here. As you can see, the first couple of links in Bing are offers to buy a Wii on Amazon, but that's just the different location of ads in Bing v. Goodle and easily distinguishable. In the links proper, I see the wiibrew.org Main page that you said was the best result, immediately followed by the Wikipedia page which you said was the second result. I see no sign of the Spanish and German "scam" sites.
So we have a few possibilities. One is that you are getting different search results, perhaps due to personal settings or being located in a different country. Another is that you are making things up and relying on Slashdot's tendency to believe anything it reads. For politeness sake, and because you sound rational, I'd prefer not to suggest this possibility. Thirdly, MS Bing admins are watching the story on Slashdot and updating things super fast.
I suppose the last is possible, do you want to try refreshing? Failing that, what country are you in and do you have any particular preferences set for Bing? There has to be a reason why we get different search results.
You weren't a troll. The whole thread, about five posts in a row was troll modded. There have been a few cases of that. Somebody said that some bunch of idiots (or maybe just one) are trying to mod whole sequences of posts troll. Seem to have been modded up again now. I had a few posts the other day modded as Overrated when they hadn't even been modded up in the first place.
Leaving aside issues of whether it is good to propagate stereotypes of cultures at all, Jar-Jar was a character designed to be laughed at, to be stupid, to get his tongue stuck to racing cars and to be saved by the Jedi. Now if one character in a set of racial-cultural analogues is an idiot, well every race under the Sun has its share or idiots and geniuses: being unprejudiced is about judging people for who they are, not some stereotype. But when all representatives of that racial-cultural analogue are bumbling fuckers that you wish had never been scripted, then that suggests racism. You don't see any people talking with an educated American accent falling over in surprise or running like a puppet that just stood on a spider.
His accent sounds Jamaican. He is a figure of fun (admittedly not a very fun one, but that's what he was obviously intended to be). His accent is one of the things you're supposed to laugh at. Given that it sounds like a real accent, that makes it racist, imo. Now Black does not equal Jamaican, but Jamaican mostly means black, hence the issue.
Yes, but it doesn't really matter to spies because just being a spy is a war crime. Spies that get caught get executed anyway, so what's a little more?
Very true. But sadly it does a lot of harm to the reputations of organisations like the Red Cross that would wish to help people regardless of nationality.
By all rights they should be in jail for rigging the election.
Hate to break this to you, but Ahmadinejad really did win the election. Even US agencies' research backs that up. Mousavi is mainly supported by an affluent and urban section of society. Ahmadinejad has a broad base of support across most of the country. He actually has helped a lot of rural poor in Iran. All the media reporting that there "may" have been fraud was just wishful thinking on the part of the West. So long as the country is threatened by the US and Israel, pro-Western candidates are unlikely to find the majority they need to be elected.
I don't think you have to worry about an American->Iranian war anytime soon. I'd worry more about what the Israeli's will do if they feel that the world is allowing Iran to obtain a nuclear bomb. They have much less to lose from a preemptive strike and very good motivation to ensure that Iran doesn't become a nuclear power.
That's the issue. The OP is right that the last time we saw this much propaganda (what is this, the third day running we've seen an Evil Iran post and this one links to a fucking Twitter post) was during the preliminaries for the Iraq war. However, it's not because the USA wants a war with Iran. If they did, they wouldn't have been bending over backwards these past few months trying to get other countries to support sanctions approach to Iran. No, the USA is preparing the public for war with Iran but it's because they're afraid they'll get dragged into a war. Israel has been making noises of agression to Iran for the past few months. We don't know if they're bluffing - Game Theory says it's in Israel's interests to be thought willing to attack even if they're not - but it's clear from this propaganda war that the US government thinks war is possible.
It's a matter of public record that G.W.Bush gave the CIA leave in 2007 to pursue operations in Iran. So far as we know, that permission hasn't been withdrawn. Further, it's a matter of public record that the US Congress has allocated millions to support opposition groups within Iran.
Slashdot Mirror
I see a problem here. Not for you, but for the advertisers. You're willing to pay not to see the ads. That's almost a good thing for those positioning themselves in the middle, such as Google, as they can essentially extort money from you: "pay up or be blasted by ads." But it's really bad for the actual people selling products because the people with disposable income and the willingness to use it are the ones who've just spent a few quid to avoid all the ads. They're even, as demonstrated by their willingness to pay, the ones who notice ads or are concerned they may be affected by them.
It's one of those stupid situations. Like Slashdot that I have actually previously been a subscriber to (stopped because they only accept PayPal now), which has their inducement to subscribe be eliminating the ads - on one of the few sites where I'm actually occasionally interested by the ads.
I am sick of everything trying to sell me things all the fucking time. STOP!
Now if it were the case that you had to tap away all of that power, then perhaps it can't be done. But presumably, you only have to tap it away as fast as it is accumulating. We don't mind if it is only 100 Somethings away from blowing, if its only accumulating at 0.5 Somethings per day and we can let off that energy at 0.6 Somethings per day.
Disclaimer: I have no idea what the 'Something's are.
Okay, what???
Are people really not catching on here? Your ISP throttles your connection, but if you go to a known site for testing your speed, they drop the throttling and prioritise the traffic. That way, though you suspect or deduce that you're not getting what you've been promised, the moment you check or are asked "to check" by your ISP, you find there's nothing wrong.
Nor does middle class == poor. Okay, if it makes my point clearer to you, then poor people tend to have worse diets than non-poor people. I'm not quite sure if you're trying to make a criticism with the above.
Again, I'm not sure what my personal circumstances have to do with this at all. But for what its worth, plenty of unemployed people have a lot more time than employed people, young people tend to have more time than adults, etc. and Internet access is everywhere. You make very unsafe bets. ;)
In my direct personal experience from working in the NHS, it doesn't really make a difference. Although in the USA, it's probably a factor. It doesn't make a difference to my point however, which is that children of poor families are actually likely to have more problems than the non-poor due to inadequate diets. If you're more likely to have a problem that is severe enough to benefit from medication, then you're more likely to be prescribed that medication all other things being equal. Btw, poor means lacking money or wealth.
Again, I'm failing to see how this relates to what I said, but it's worth noting that this article is about anti-psychotics here. If a child has schizophrenia, there aren't many parents that would choose the visible symptoms over the "stigma" of the drug.
And I'll refer you to point 2. We're talking anti-psychotics, here. I think perhaps you haven't grasped what these are for. If someone is being given fluphenazine, it's not for any problem that can be solved by lying on a couch and talking about their mother. You prescribe anti-psychotic drugs for problems that have a neurological basis, not psychological.
What you're alleging is that these clinicians are being medically negligent. I don't think you can at all make statements like the above. You could as easily say that the doctors treating affluent patients who pay substantially more are more likely to accede to their paymasters and prescribe potentially harmful "fixes" because their patients are wealthier, more able to go elsewhere and more legal-savvy. Which of these is true? I sincerely hope neither - they're both just unsupported statements that imply a lack of duty of care. I make mine just to illustrate that an equally baseless generalisation can be made in the other direction.
Again, I get the sense from your response that you are arguing with me, but I'm not seeing what you're actually saying in relation to my post.
Don't neglect nutrition. A metnal hospital once found that supplementing their inmates diet with extra vitamins and minerals reduced psychotic episodes. What's the betting that poor children have worse diets than rich children?
But those projects are funded by the taxes of the consituents, so it's not in the interests of the constituency to spend the money just for the sake of employment. That's like borrowing money on a credit card to pay off your mortgage. Besides which it doesn't even work as a means of wealth redistribution. People pay their taxes which the government ploughs into weaponry in return for which you also get some jobs for workers, but a large amount of that money gets skimmed off and into the pockets of rich people. The "jobs" argument is flawed in in even more ways than just the "broken window fallacy" model suggests.
I said it is a rare case that the lone unarmed man is the agressor, not entirely unknown. But that said, your first example is not a lone person attacking multiple armed people, but someone fighting not to be strapped to a gurney by three firefighters. The second case we don't know much about, just that there was an altercation when police tried to take him into custody.
I've known a few. I don't see them as particularly inclined to initiate an assault on multiple police officers unarmared either, actually.
Turning it down would have gone over very well with many of us (assuming that were known - I think they make discreet enquiries first). But I do agree that he doesn't deserve criticism for being offered it. That's a fair point and I'll retract any criticism I directed toward him.
I realise that. But I can tell the difference between an angry person and a man mad enough to charge armed police officers with his bare hands. I think cops that deal with these situations should certainly be able to do so.
Besides, its not for the police officers to initiate violence on the grounds that the other person might.
When an unarmed man alone gets into a fight with multiple armed people, it's a rare case where the unarmed man is the aggressor.
I believe the point people are making is that if US troops are still mired in the mess that is Afghanistan and if the Middle East is still seething with anti-American hatred because of their occupation of Iraq, why exactly is this guy getting a Nobel prize for peace? It looks, and is, a political gift, not a recognition of achievement.
Misunderstanding the office of the president as being some supreme determinator of US policy is a mistake anyway. The President is the most visible of a group of people that determine what path the US takes politically, but not some sort of one-man policy machine.
Now the US is trying its best to hold back Israel from kicking off a war with Iran, and for that they get my respect (even if it is just sanity on their part). But I fail to see what Obama has done to earn a Nobel peace prize.
You're the first person to ever take me up on trying to prove a difference in search result quality rather than just saying how rubbish Bing is. So kudos for that.
However, there's something very wrong here. Your Bing results don't match up with what I get at all. Here . As you can see, the first couple of links in Bing are offers to buy a Wii on Amazon, but that's just the different location of ads in Bing v. Goodle and easily distinguishable. In the links proper, I see the wiibrew.org Main page that you said was the best result, immediately followed by the Wikipedia page which you said was the second result. I see no sign of the Spanish and German "scam" sites.
So we have a few possibilities. One is that you are getting different search results, perhaps due to personal settings or being located in a different country. Another is that you are making things up and relying on Slashdot's tendency to believe anything it reads. For politeness sake, and because you sound rational, I'd prefer not to suggest this possibility. Thirdly, MS Bing admins are watching the story on Slashdot and updating things super fast.
I suppose the last is possible, do you want to try refreshing? Failing that, what country are you in and do you have any particular preferences set for Bing? There has to be a reason why we get different search results.
What search terms are you using that give markedly different results in Bing than Google?
You weren't a troll. The whole thread, about five posts in a row was troll modded. There have been a few cases of that. Somebody said that some bunch of idiots (or maybe just one) are trying to mod whole sequences of posts troll. Seem to have been modded up again now. I had a few posts the other day modded as Overrated when they hadn't even been modded up in the first place.
Leaving aside issues of whether it is good to propagate stereotypes of cultures at all, Jar-Jar was a character designed to be laughed at, to be stupid, to get his tongue stuck to racing cars and to be saved by the Jedi. Now if one character in a set of racial-cultural analogues is an idiot, well every race under the Sun has its share or idiots and geniuses: being unprejudiced is about judging people for who they are, not some stereotype. But when all representatives of that racial-cultural analogue are bumbling fuckers that you wish had never been scripted, then that suggests racism. You don't see any people talking with an educated American accent falling over in surprise or running like a puppet that just stood on a spider.
His accent sounds Jamaican. He is a figure of fun (admittedly not a very fun one, but that's what he was obviously intended to be). His accent is one of the things you're supposed to laugh at. Given that it sounds like a real accent, that makes it racist, imo. Now Black does not equal Jamaican, but Jamaican mostly means black, hence the issue.
Very true. But sadly it does a lot of harm to the reputations of organisations like the Red Cross that would wish to help people regardless of nationality.
Hate to break this to you, but Ahmadinejad really did win the election. Even US agencies' research backs that up. Mousavi is mainly supported by an affluent and urban section of society. Ahmadinejad has a broad base of support across most of the country. He actually has helped a lot of rural poor in Iran. All the media reporting that there "may" have been fraud was just wishful thinking on the part of the West. So long as the country is threatened by the US and Israel, pro-Western candidates are unlikely to find the majority they need to be elected.
And I've learned that one of you keeps ranting in capitals and not getting the others point, and the other has far more patience than I do.
That's the issue. The OP is right that the last time we saw this much propaganda (what is this, the third day running we've seen an Evil Iran post and this one links to a fucking Twitter post) was during the preliminaries for the Iraq war. However, it's not because the USA wants a war with Iran. If they did, they wouldn't have been bending over backwards these past few months trying to get other countries to support sanctions approach to Iran. No, the USA is preparing the public for war with Iran but it's because they're afraid they'll get dragged into a war. Israel has been making noises of agression to Iran for the past few months. We don't know if they're bluffing - Game Theory says it's in Israel's interests to be thought willing to attack even if they're not - but it's clear from this propaganda war that the US government thinks war is possible.
It's a matter of public record that G.W.Bush gave the CIA leave in 2007 to pursue operations in Iran. So far as we know, that permission hasn't been withdrawn. Further, it's a matter of public record that the US Congress has allocated millions to support opposition groups within Iran.
So Iraq shot first?