They'll still use computers for all the tabulation at census offices. They're just talking about replacing the traditional paper-and-pencil questionnaires used by Non-Response Follow-Up Enumerators with a handheld computer. If the computers aren't ready, they'll go back to the optical scan forms like they used in 2000.
As an aside, I was a NRFU Enumerator for the 2000 census, and suggest it as an excellent part-time job for students, retirees, those with flexible schedules, etc. It's good pay for being outside in the spring, talking with your neighbors, and taking part in a fundamental piece of American democracy.
And how, exactly, does letting Congress and the courts oversee that--in secret, as allowed by FISA and other provisions--risk our national security? Or is it just that it risks the executive branch's ability to do whatever the hell it wants?
And the fallibility of humans is precisely why we are supposed to have checks and balances in our government, and illustrates why the current situation is unacceptable. It's a lot less likely that someone is improperly targeted with a wiretap if the judicial branch has to review the facts and approve it. If the executive branch is acting properly, what does it have to hide from judicial review?
You'd run into the same problem that the ACLU's lawsuit against the telcos ran into: you have to prove you were the subject of an incorrect phone tap before you can take legal action, but you can't prove it without first taking legal action.
Hinduism is still ahead of Christianity in terms of numbers, thus confirming you really don't have an educated opinion. The world is a big place with big ideas scattered all over. Doesn't start and stop with North America. Seriously? Did a whole bunch of people wake up this morning and become Hindus?
It's cool though bro, I'm ignorant too Moral of this story: check your facts before you accuse someone else of being ignorant.
Look, I think CBT is great. I own several of David Burns's books and recommend them to anyone suffering any amount of depression. There's no evidence, though, that all depression can be treated successfully by CBT, let alone by your "just decide not to be depressed" brand of CBT.
I did read the study. I've also read some of Dr. Kirsch's previous studies (including the one about UFO abductions), and I think they present some compelling evidence. What I object to is your characterization that depressed people just don't want to be helped, which may match your own anecdotal experience but sharply disagrees with the vast majority of research.
How dare you equate the violence of rape with depression; you trivialize those that have been raped. And you are trivializing those that suffer from clinical depression (incidentally, 30% of rape victims will suffer depression in their lifetimes).
It sounds from this and other comments like some form of self-administered CBT worked to treat your own depression. That's good, and it would be wonderful if that worked for everyone suffering from depression. However, that doesn't mean that your own results will work for everyone else any more than someone whose cancer went away after drinking special mineral water can claim that other cancer victims are just not taking the initiative to drink some mineral water and get on with their lives.
In the first page of this story I've already seen three of your posts claiming that depression is self-inflicted by focusing on the problem. I was just wondering if you could tell us where you went to medical school, or what medical or psychological studies you've conducted.
There are constructive, non-medicinal, ways to deal with depression such as cognitive behavior therapy, but it's incredibly disingenuous to suggest that depression is self-inflicted by people who would just rather be sad.
That's just it, though. The directive refers to a number of classified or non-publicly available annexes that Congress, let alone the average citizen, haven't been able to see. For all we know, the directive gives control of the country to the CEO of Halliburton or King Abdullah. Probably it's nothing that outlandish, but the whole point is that we don't know.
To put it in familiar terms, this is an act of closed source government, where the directive in question may have catastrophic vulnerabilities that we can't protect ourselves from because we can't see the source of these annexes.
Honestly, what does Best Buy have to lose if they let someone print shirts that look like their shirts?
What they have to lose is their trademark on the "price tag" logo they've been using for years. If a trademark isn't defended, it can become diluted and unenforceable, like "Aspirin." It's the same as Adobe wanting you to say "modified with Adobe Photoshop software" instead of "photoshopped." It's silly, not unlike most of the legal system.
Now, what they have to lose if someone covers the story on their blog is a different question, so we now return you to the main point of this story.
Good for him, I guess, but for those of us who have never even seen anything he posted, let alone actually know who he is, who cares?
d- s+... t-... h-- h!
Slashdot Mirror
And let me guess, it runs NetBSD, right?
According to the story, Cain was a farmer, not a shepherd.
Um, you forgot to tell us who your existing hosting company is.
They'll still use computers for all the tabulation at census offices. They're just talking about replacing the traditional paper-and-pencil questionnaires used by Non-Response Follow-Up Enumerators with a handheld computer. If the computers aren't ready, they'll go back to the optical scan forms like they used in 2000. As an aside, I was a NRFU Enumerator for the 2000 census, and suggest it as an excellent part-time job for students, retirees, those with flexible schedules, etc. It's good pay for being outside in the spring, talking with your neighbors, and taking part in a fundamental piece of American democracy.
I thought that might be the case, but there are enough people out there that believe it that I wasn't sure.
And how, exactly, does letting Congress and the courts oversee that--in secret, as allowed by FISA and other provisions--risk our national security? Or is it just that it risks the executive branch's ability to do whatever the hell it wants?
And the fallibility of humans is precisely why we are supposed to have checks and balances in our government, and illustrates why the current situation is unacceptable. It's a lot less likely that someone is improperly targeted with a wiretap if the judicial branch has to review the facts and approve it. If the executive branch is acting properly, what does it have to hide from judicial review?
You'd run into the same problem that the ACLU's lawsuit against the telcos ran into: you have to prove you were the subject of an incorrect phone tap before you can take legal action, but you can't prove it without first taking legal action.
[Citation Needed]
To annex a revered intellectual who remained a devout Catholic his entire life, you mean?
I agree. Now, with that out of the way, let's get back to the Cardano-Tartaglia debate. That's where the real action is.
Look, I think CBT is great. I own several of David Burns's books and recommend them to anyone suffering any amount of depression. There's no evidence, though, that all depression can be treated successfully by CBT, let alone by your "just decide not to be depressed" brand of CBT.
I did read the study. I've also read some of Dr. Kirsch's previous studies (including the one about UFO abductions), and I think they present some compelling evidence. What I object to is your characterization that depressed people just don't want to be helped, which may match your own anecdotal experience but sharply disagrees with the vast majority of research.
It sounds from this and other comments like some form of self-administered CBT worked to treat your own depression. That's good, and it would be wonderful if that worked for everyone suffering from depression. However, that doesn't mean that your own results will work for everyone else any more than someone whose cancer went away after drinking special mineral water can claim that other cancer victims are just not taking the initiative to drink some mineral water and get on with their lives.
In the first page of this story I've already seen three of your posts claiming that depression is self-inflicted by focusing on the problem. I was just wondering if you could tell us where you went to medical school, or what medical or psychological studies you've conducted. There are constructive, non-medicinal, ways to deal with depression such as cognitive behavior therapy, but it's incredibly disingenuous to suggest that depression is self-inflicted by people who would just rather be sad.
To put it in familiar terms, this is an act of closed source government, where the directive in question may have catastrophic vulnerabilities that we can't protect ourselves from because we can't see the source of these annexes.
I think you mistyped that. In your link, a "yea" is a vote to strike the provisions granting immunity.
That was the best code name they could come up with? Seriously?
What they have to lose is their trademark on the "price tag" logo they've been using for years. If a trademark isn't defended, it can become diluted and unenforceable, like "Aspirin." It's the same as Adobe wanting you to say "modified with Adobe Photoshop software" instead of "photoshopped." It's silly, not unlike most of the legal system.
Now, what they have to lose if someone covers the story on their blog is a different question, so we now return you to the main point of this story.
Introduced and sponsored by them, perhaps, but most assuredly written by lobbyists and their corporate masters.
A quick search of BestBuy.com says otherwise.
You know what playing that way makes your kids, right?
Apparently that should be t---
That's not the drum of revolution, it's the contented monotony of suburban life.