actually you definitely do. But, your example is a great one:
you have lots of experience listening to music, playing/watching soccer/football, and seeing over multiple instances how your friend's parenting affected his child.
The problem is you have quite a variety of experiences with the first 2, and what sounds like very limited experiences with the latter. So you come to a generalized conclusion that sure, works if you also assume every child has the same make up as your friend's(you forget that your experience is equivalent to the spherical cow), but all you prove is you haven't been exposed to proper variety. I can give an excellent counterexample of a friend in middle school who, at first, seemed like he was being completely spoiled and that his bad behavior was exactly what you implied, a function of the fact his parents bought him gifts when he got into trouble (and also when he did well, but I always thought it was a great way to make him into a selfish person who didn't understand actions and consequences). I also thought it was really weird how they never showed the same style of lavish gift giving to their older son.
Well I find out later that he had some very very severe mental health issues that meant he didn't understand how to take being yelled at/scolded as we are used to. This also filtered into why it was so hard for him to function in a regular school along with a lot of other things. Whereas their elder son suffered from some other issues that made him suicidal at one point. Sure, their actions didn't look good on the surface, but until you know the entire circumstances, it's very hard to pass judgement. What the GGGP was saying was that you can draw a straight line from "child commits suicide" to "parents did a really crap job and I can provide a list of things that they must not have done".
You are right, you don't have to be a parent to get a lot of the experience, but the GGGP certainly shows the arrogance and firmness of belief that only a person without experience could have and the experience has to come with observing and interacting with children on more than one level.
So sure, maybe this parent did commit some gross errors, but maybe they did everything in their power properly and they are pissed off that there is one public forum where verbal abuse is allowed when it may not be allowed in any other parts of Italian society. Fundamentally, you, and I, and those defending and those condemning the parents, do not know.
yes, but having never done something at all, when it is inherently a experiential endeavor that is as unique as individuals are, means you basically have no standing to speak about the actual complexities involved, though possibly by brandishing enough in the way of psychological studies you have done could rectify this.
By the way, I'm not saying I have raised a child through their teens, but I'm absolutely certain until I've done it 3 or 4 times, preferably with kids of different genetic and socio-economic backgrounds, I can't really say I know enough to pass judgement on someone else or offer critiques. I can critique the actions of any one person (so for example, these bullys are asshats, that is pretty straight forward) but who knows what complexities these parents were dealing with.
What we can say though, is that as long as we feel the government has some role in protecting the disadvantaged (and in most countries, this includes the mentally unstable who would commit suicide) it is at least conceivable a country could decide this falls in the realm of government intervention.
I think by the wya, you are assuming a fair fight. In most fights, it's the first person to land a hit that wins, because one hit generally turns into 10, and then it's lights out no matter how good of a fighter you think you are (and I've done a reasonable amount of full contact fighting which taught me to get the first heavy hit in).
It's highly unlikely any training will help you if it's a fight. It will only , and in a limited sense, help you if you have a drunken fool throwing himself on a sober girl. The rest is a crap shoot.
be a bit realistic. they won't know he is working, and most travelers do exactly that, leave after 6 months, go to some place outside the eu for a month, and then come back.
and there are lots of ways to extend your stay. language school is a modestly priced option for people in europe (or many other countries).
you sure you're measuring properly? Most cradle-to-grave countries are significantly higehr than the US.
And in the US, there is no state where you can get to 50% average tax rate. You have to have a very unique situation to get to a 50% marginal tax rate (in fact, I'm not sure it can mathematically occur, the highest marginal federal is 40%, rounded, and at that point, there are no social security contributions but you have 1.5% medicare, state taxes are deductible and at that income level would outweight your standard deduction and so be taken). You won't hit the 41.1% level until nearly 400k (married, joint return).
If you are single and earning 1 mio a year, and assuming your state taxes are deducted, you end up paying about 38%. Now given that deductions scale back from a particular level, I think this would end up going to closer to 41%. France is quite a bit higher, reaching marginal bands in excess of this for much less income.
that's not fair at all. The US, due purely to lifestyle choices (obesity rates), is the most unhealthy country in the developed world. In addition, unlike most other countries, we provide for those at the end unlimited treatment until that person decides to stop (and even if this is uncompensated). This implies that we wastefully use resources (high cost) and have very high demands (poor basic care for ourselves).
Also unlike other countries, we compensate those who provide medical care at a much much higher rate. Our GPs make on average 190k a year, while in the UK I think they make about half that. 50-80k GBP.
You start putting all this together, and you end up with these results, without any reference to whether universally tax funded health care is a more efficient delivery system. In no way does the creation of that system address the above issues directly, though it can via cost and the difficulty of raising taxes, force people to make these decisions.
And back in the 1950s before the creation of our health welfare state, we didn't have people dying in the street. So why do you expect it would occur now?
A whole lot actually, as a conservative here are a few:
You don't pay a little more in taxes. In the UK at least (where I live currently, and I've done the rounds including Japan, a 0 income tax US state, and New York City, so I've got a bit of perspective on lots of systems), you pay a LOT more.
190k USD base. US taxes including SS and Medicare: 35k (remember, state taxes are deductible). Sales tax varies most likely between 6-9%.
UK: 125k pounds (roughly equivalent): UK taxes of ~50k pounds (75k USD, for those counting, double) along with a 20% vat.
So if you are in this upper-middle income bracket, it's brutally higher here in the UK. If I have spending of just 40k USD during the year for my family outside of rent, I will increase the spread by quite a bit. Now for this 45k USD in extra taxes, I get a health plan that is far worse financially for my family than a high deductible health plan in the US. In fact, it short changes me by about 35k USD all in.
Now where would I LIke to see this money go: It could go into helping the truly unfortunate, those with mental health issues, better job and educational training, and providing a leg up to those inbetween jobs (short term extension of benefits, preferably under no circumstances more than a year, but shorter is reasonable outside of extreme economic circumstances).
Instead, it goes into truly wasteful spending like social housing for a family for 40 years that drain people's willingness to provide for themselves. Many other conservatives feel very similarly. Not one conservative calls for the ending of welfare, only the ending of a cradle-to-grave welfare state and rather making welfare what it is supposed to be about: helping the needy; those who cannot for reasons beyond their control help themselves. Everyone else is expected to contribute to society to reap it's benefits (i.e. help during short stints of unemployment, reasonable schooling, roads, defense, etc). It's not a screw the rest of society view, it's a "we shouldn't waste resources on those people not willing to contribute to society themselves". And I'm not implying there are deserving people left out of any system, but that is a shortcoming of any large scale system. I'm not evening implying the US system is optimal, because I think it isn't, but I am implying that a distaste for universal anything is not a screw everyone else view.
I loved Japan because they got it right healthcare-wise for 98% of the country. If you work, you have coverage that is always 80/20. So you have to work, and you are always covered, but you are also always paying something. They then regulate the cost of almost all medical services so that the 20% is never truly excessive. I had surgery on my mouth (no general anesthesia) and it cost me 5000 JPY (surgery took about 20 minutes I think). Not enough to keep me from doing it, but enough such that I was willing to explore other, simpler treatments first before we went down the more risky rabbit hole. If you weren't working, you could buy into the national plan for a very reasonable amount. The best part was because surgery wasn't a bonanza of pay for hte doctor relative to less invasive treatments, doctors actually were more respectful of the commitment complex surgery takes and did their upmost to explore other treatments first.
by the way, when I said cynic, I was talking about those who question the novelty or the revolutionary nature of her work. the race thing I never cared about. went back and read some of the earlier posts and realized what you were referring to. personally I take talk like that, especially on a competition centered in california, pretty damn stupid. as you have to lift mountains to find wasps competing as these levels in that state.
whoa, what's with the race card coming out? I never said anything about race (woudl be weird anyways, as skin color and name would imply I share her background). Nor did I call her a fraud. A lot of great scientists publish papers that involve DOING THE EXACT SAME EXPERIMENT as someone else, validating results and doing minor expansions on them (for example, testing thickness of a substrate when another paper researched surface area, etc).
What I pointed out was that her work does not sound original at all. In fact, a paper published by her advisor and a string of other researchers over a year ago (implying the work was probably done in 2011) showed that either her exact method or a very similar method in action, verifying incredibly similar results involving capacitance.
I'm not invalidating her scientific curiosity, and her work is still completely valid. My only point is the media is reporting this as ground breaking work when it is nothing of the kind. At best, it seems to involve some very minor modifications to an experiment done a few years earlier by her advisor in the lab she worked in. That is still a hell of a lot more than I was doing till I was 21 (and similarly, worked in a lab repeating and verifying results of my predecessor and basically following some work put forward by others) but it right now doesn't sound like it is either revolutionary or even very evolutionary. It's not like I've done either in the scientific fields, so it's not a knock against here. again, it's a knock against poor and sensationalistic reporting.
a reply above pointed out that over a year ago her adviser published a paper on this exact design and its results and she wasn't mentioned, even as a junior junior on the paper. I'm not so sure the cynics aren't right. Though it probably has a lot to do with what goes into winning these things (my classmate was third place, she spent 3 years doing bio research, but it was just recreating something that had already been done before she started and doing a lot of leg work talking to the original professor who did the research). I'm not saying novel research doesn't get done, but generally it's novel in the way most kids who research in a professor's lab for a summer is novel.
yeah, but it's so much cooler to say she invented it than to say she had a connection to get into a lab and copy what someone else had done. It's not liek the other experiments are filled with novel, unique ground breaking research. Most of this stuff is just rehashed work of some researcher who let them sit in the lab and do the same things they had done.
I have calibrated and help set up a laser trap for some biophysics research. doesn't mean I invented the laser trap. But they are always going to talk big about this kind of stuff.
If trades were favored we could turn your comment on its head and it would be equally adept. I can do theoretical physics calculations easily but ask me to draw or cut a straight line and I fail. So I do have an incredible talent at college and my field but none in many of the trades (though I can use a plunger just fine). Don't be so sensitive.
At the end of the day the big advances in society come mainly from those with higher education, whether that be a full college degree or not. So society puts a high value on those skills and commensurately pays for it. Now we are at a point though that we assume college graduation implies you have gained these skills, when in fact college never implied any skills what so ever. A college degree is not required for most work done today, especially not just an undergrad degree. Anything worth doing requires years of specialization and if it to be in an academic pursuit the same applies.
the good app has this feature. And it even allows web browsing the corporate network (which is walled off) through the app on my iphone while my bb can only follow corp policy, including no photo taking, no voice recording, no blog visiting, no "questionable sites" visited. the Good app (iPhone or Android I believe, though I only use it on iOS right now) dominates the bb, and gives me a reliable device, not some overpriced bb POS.
bb is a terrible device. there is no middle ground. it exists because old people who started with it still want it in corporate suites, not because it offers anything of any real use. every reasonable security feature sitting on the bb exists via at least the good app (and probably many more), and the good app let's me use the smartphone as a smartphone because it is walled off. what bb is doing is trying to make sure companies like mine don't completely ditch them, which we are well on our way to doing (monthly allowance for your personal device, app that gives full connectivity, etc), by offering a service that is the same as one we already went through the trouble of rolling out almost 2 years ago.
actually, your point is a pretty gross misstatement of what republicans are saying about the sequester. They are saying that slightly smarter budgeting by agencies could minimize the impact of the budget cuts on end users (in line with their stated goal of more efficient government). Whether or not you believe this will actually happen (though the FAA fix implies at least one counterexample), they do not blame the sequester on democrats, but rather claim the democrats are pushing for sell harming policies to maximize the pain of spending cuts to validate higher spending.
As stated above, the big difference between now and previous generations in the incredible increase in spending on administrators and special needs children. Whether or not you think it is valid for public education to have special medical and education instructors in each school for handicapped children, we may need to rethink this so we don't sacrifice so much for what isn't an incredibly efficient outcome. We could switch to the Japanese model where the government funds a small number of special needs schools where students in a large radius are aggregated so they can get both the education and health needs taken care of with reasonable gains from scale. You are not forced to move to be near such a school when you have a child with special needs, but if you do not, no special dispensation is made in your local public school.
Nothing is easy when we decide to publically fund universal access to anything. It's all very complex. And in most countries, we can show that the beast has to be starved to clean out the rot from time to time (look at US defence spending for a great example, or medicare doctors who only will perform procedures of questionable value simply because medicare reimburses new procedures at a higher hourly rate for it's first several years in existence) to understand why. A forcibly constrained budget makes people address painful questions and at least consider a more reasonable response.
actually, every member of the NRA I know either served, or has an immediate relative who is serving (son, brother, father) and usually that person is also a member.
That obviously isn't data about membership tied to either military or military-like service (national guard, etc) but without the data, your statement is pretty baseless.
so what you are saying is you are less educated than a teen male about giving birth?
Absent medical conditions during birth and assuming a healthy mother going into the birth (i.e. not obese, no pregnancy related diabetes) most women can be up and about the next day and easily doing productive work in a couple days. It's not a physical limitation that demands maternity leave, and when times are tough, women in 3rd world countries regularly have to treck long distances to and from a clinic to give birth, the same day. Generally though, birth is easier on women in the 3rd world if htere aren't complications because they are fitter, healthier, and therefore more capable of coping with the stress of birth on the body.
and it's a valid justification for a certain level of difference. though now adays when numbers and data don't matter, we also say women's healthcare is the same price as men's (patently false) so the insurance cost should be the same.
wow, you are incredibly wrong. Humans, like most mammals, are at their most fertile when they ovulate right after giving birth. In fact, it's almost trivial to get pregnant 3-4 weeks after a healthy pregnancy and birth. I'm not saying the sex is as comfortable, but that is completely irrelevant to whether or not the girl can get pregnant again if she wants. A great example well understood are thoroughbred horses, where 2 weeks after foaling they are taken tot he breeding shed (and yes, your wife's body works the same way, it's how I have 3 cousins that are all 10 months apart in birthdays).
as to how many births:
after you get past the first one, which is statistically the most dangerous, it's pretty easy to have a lot. Very recently in my family history it was 16 and 9 out of the grandmothers. In India, the average fertility rate used to be 7 per woman, adn this included something like a 25% mortality rate on first births by women (meaning the average was really 10 if you made it past 1).
Yes, in modern life with your job, tv shows to watch, dinner dates, etc, it may seem like quite a stretch to have more than 2 or 3 kids (I don't have any plans on in and neither does my wife), but biologically speaking you are not grounded in any type of reality.
having just moved to the UK, my experience so far has been almost all government services aren't worth a damn. Even the NHS is so bad everyone I have met who can afford to goes private 100% of the time. I feel bad for a place where you are taxed so severely only the wealthiest or those at very generous companies can get anything decently. At least in the US, taxes are significantly lower so you can go pay for your own (the effective case for everyone who wants decent healthcare here it seems).
granted if I was an indigent single, pregnant woman in the UK, I may feel different. But then again, I'm not very happy with a system designed for indigents at the expense of everyone but the very rich.
funny aside, while women might gather 80% of the food, it is the hunters bringing in the stable source of protein that allowed our brains to develop enough to have these discussions....
banks regularly jam signals on the trading floor during trading hours. In NYC I used to get perfect signal until 8:15 (or 8:30) and then got none at my seat until 5 PM every day. I could even tell when they changed settings from pure equity trading hours to CME trading hours. But, if I walked to the lobby of the trading floor I had full signal.
That is one bank and I've been told by friends at other banks it's the same there.
tax rates aren't that bad, but the number of loopholes has been reduced so much it's not a very good comparison (for the wealthy). But your rant on the tough situation of hte middle class is off base. In fact, the middle class has never had it better, as they pay less of hte overall taxes burden than their share of income than they have for 40 years and have massively increased the amount of non-declared income (like healthcare benefits), making them winners on both the actual income side and the tax burden side. I don't know why people on slashdot, a website whose readership should pride itself on being informed with hard data, would spread these stories.
if they teach you to pay 35% in your accounting class, you had a bad teacher. Very, very few large scale corporations pay anywhere near that. In fact, getting above 20% is lifting mountains if you have even semi-competent accounting advice. On the other hand, imagine if all that money wasted on finding tax loopholes that are there instead went to something meaningful, even hookers and coke would be a net benefit to society....
really? which model by samsung outsells the iPhone? here is a hint: teh iPhone 4s, an old model, outsold the galaxy s3 in 2012 4Q, when teh 4s had a much more powerful update available and the s3 was the top in class for samsung. In fact, thanks for your snide, completely incorrect reply, it definitely made me go look up how dominant apple still is in the markets it has released phones
Slashdot Mirror
actually you definitely do. But, your example is a great one:
you have lots of experience listening to music, playing/watching soccer/football, and seeing over multiple instances how your friend's parenting affected his child.
The problem is you have quite a variety of experiences with the first 2, and what sounds like very limited experiences with the latter. So you come to a generalized conclusion that sure, works if you also assume every child has the same make up as your friend's(you forget that your experience is equivalent to the spherical cow), but all you prove is you haven't been exposed to proper variety. I can give an excellent counterexample of a friend in middle school who, at first, seemed like he was being completely spoiled and that his bad behavior was exactly what you implied, a function of the fact his parents bought him gifts when he got into trouble (and also when he did well, but I always thought it was a great way to make him into a selfish person who didn't understand actions and consequences). I also thought it was really weird how they never showed the same style of lavish gift giving to their older son.
Well I find out later that he had some very very severe mental health issues that meant he didn't understand how to take being yelled at/scolded as we are used to. This also filtered into why it was so hard for him to function in a regular school along with a lot of other things. Whereas their elder son suffered from some other issues that made him suicidal at one point. Sure, their actions didn't look good on the surface, but until you know the entire circumstances, it's very hard to pass judgement. What the GGGP was saying was that you can draw a straight line from "child commits suicide" to "parents did a really crap job and I can provide a list of things that they must not have done".
You are right, you don't have to be a parent to get a lot of the experience, but the GGGP certainly shows the arrogance and firmness of belief that only a person without experience could have and the experience has to come with observing and interacting with children on more than one level.
So sure, maybe this parent did commit some gross errors, but maybe they did everything in their power properly and they are pissed off that there is one public forum where verbal abuse is allowed when it may not be allowed in any other parts of Italian society. Fundamentally, you, and I, and those defending and those condemning the parents, do not know.
yes, but having never done something at all, when it is inherently a experiential endeavor that is as unique as individuals are, means you basically have no standing to speak about the actual complexities involved, though possibly by brandishing enough in the way of psychological studies you have done could rectify this.
By the way, I'm not saying I have raised a child through their teens, but I'm absolutely certain until I've done it 3 or 4 times, preferably with kids of different genetic and socio-economic backgrounds, I can't really say I know enough to pass judgement on someone else or offer critiques. I can critique the actions of any one person (so for example, these bullys are asshats, that is pretty straight forward) but who knows what complexities these parents were dealing with.
What we can say though, is that as long as we feel the government has some role in protecting the disadvantaged (and in most countries, this includes the mentally unstable who would commit suicide) it is at least conceivable a country could decide this falls in the realm of government intervention.
I think by the wya, you are assuming a fair fight. In most fights, it's the first person to land a hit that wins, because one hit generally turns into 10, and then it's lights out no matter how good of a fighter you think you are (and I've done a reasonable amount of full contact fighting which taught me to get the first heavy hit in).
It's highly unlikely any training will help you if it's a fight. It will only , and in a limited sense, help you if you have a drunken fool throwing himself on a sober girl. The rest is a crap shoot.
be a bit realistic. they won't know he is working, and most travelers do exactly that, leave after 6 months, go to some place outside the eu for a month, and then come back.
and there are lots of ways to extend your stay. language school is a modestly priced option for people in europe (or many other countries).
you sure you're measuring properly? Most cradle-to-grave countries are significantly higehr than the US.
And in the US, there is no state where you can get to 50% average tax rate. You have to have a very unique situation to get to a 50% marginal tax rate (in fact, I'm not sure it can mathematically occur, the highest marginal federal is 40%, rounded, and at that point, there are no social security contributions but you have 1.5% medicare, state taxes are deductible and at that income level would outweight your standard deduction and so be taken). You won't hit the 41.1% level until nearly 400k (married, joint return).
If you are single and earning 1 mio a year, and assuming your state taxes are deducted, you end up paying about 38%. Now given that deductions scale back from a particular level, I think this would end up going to closer to 41%. France is quite a bit higher, reaching marginal bands in excess of this for much less income.
that's not fair at all. The US, due purely to lifestyle choices (obesity rates), is the most unhealthy country in the developed world. In addition, unlike most other countries, we provide for those at the end unlimited treatment until that person decides to stop (and even if this is uncompensated). This implies that we wastefully use resources (high cost) and have very high demands (poor basic care for ourselves).
Also unlike other countries, we compensate those who provide medical care at a much much higher rate. Our GPs make on average 190k a year, while in the UK I think they make about half that. 50-80k GBP.
You start putting all this together, and you end up with these results, without any reference to whether universally tax funded health care is a more efficient delivery system. In no way does the creation of that system address the above issues directly, though it can via cost and the difficulty of raising taxes, force people to make these decisions.
And back in the 1950s before the creation of our health welfare state, we didn't have people dying in the street. So why do you expect it would occur now?
A whole lot actually, as a conservative here are a few:
You don't pay a little more in taxes. In the UK at least (where I live currently, and I've done the rounds including Japan, a 0 income tax US state, and New York City, so I've got a bit of perspective on lots of systems), you pay a LOT more.
190k USD base. US taxes including SS and Medicare: 35k (remember, state taxes are deductible). Sales tax varies most likely between 6-9%.
UK: 125k pounds (roughly equivalent): UK taxes of ~50k pounds (75k USD, for those counting, double) along with a 20% vat.
So if you are in this upper-middle income bracket, it's brutally higher here in the UK. If I have spending of just 40k USD during the year for my family outside of rent, I will increase the spread by quite a bit. Now for this 45k USD in extra taxes, I get a health plan that is far worse financially for my family than a high deductible health plan in the US. In fact, it short changes me by about 35k USD all in.
Now where would I LIke to see this money go:
It could go into helping the truly unfortunate, those with mental health issues, better job and educational training, and providing a leg up to those inbetween jobs (short term extension of benefits, preferably under no circumstances more than a year, but shorter is reasonable outside of extreme economic circumstances).
Instead, it goes into truly wasteful spending like social housing for a family for 40 years that drain people's willingness to provide for themselves. Many other conservatives feel very similarly. Not one conservative calls for the ending of welfare, only the ending of a cradle-to-grave welfare state and rather making welfare what it is supposed to be about: helping the needy; those who cannot for reasons beyond their control help themselves. Everyone else is expected to contribute to society to reap it's benefits (i.e. help during short stints of unemployment, reasonable schooling, roads, defense, etc). It's not a screw the rest of society view, it's a "we shouldn't waste resources on those people not willing to contribute to society themselves". And I'm not implying there are deserving people left out of any system, but that is a shortcoming of any large scale system. I'm not evening implying the US system is optimal, because I think it isn't, but I am implying that a distaste for universal anything is not a screw everyone else view.
I loved Japan because they got it right healthcare-wise for 98% of the country. If you work, you have coverage that is always 80/20. So you have to work, and you are always covered, but you are also always paying something. They then regulate the cost of almost all medical services so that the 20% is never truly excessive. I had surgery on my mouth (no general anesthesia) and it cost me 5000 JPY (surgery took about 20 minutes I think). Not enough to keep me from doing it, but enough such that I was willing to explore other, simpler treatments first before we went down the more risky rabbit hole. If you weren't working, you could buy into the national plan for a very reasonable amount. The best part was because surgery wasn't a bonanza of pay for hte doctor relative to less invasive treatments, doctors actually were more respectful of the commitment complex surgery takes and did their upmost to explore other treatments first.
by the way, when I said cynic, I was talking about those who question the novelty or the revolutionary nature of her work. the race thing I never cared about. went back and read some of the earlier posts and realized what you were referring to. personally I take talk like that, especially on a competition centered in california, pretty damn stupid. as you have to lift mountains to find wasps competing as these levels in that state.
whoa, what's with the race card coming out? I never said anything about race (woudl be weird anyways, as skin color and name would imply I share her background). Nor did I call her a fraud. A lot of great scientists publish papers that involve DOING THE EXACT SAME EXPERIMENT as someone else, validating results and doing minor expansions on them (for example, testing thickness of a substrate when another paper researched surface area, etc).
What I pointed out was that her work does not sound original at all. In fact, a paper published by her advisor and a string of other researchers over a year ago (implying the work was probably done in 2011) showed that either her exact method or a very similar method in action, verifying incredibly similar results involving capacitance.
I'm not invalidating her scientific curiosity, and her work is still completely valid. My only point is the media is reporting this as ground breaking work when it is nothing of the kind. At best, it seems to involve some very minor modifications to an experiment done a few years earlier by her advisor in the lab she worked in. That is still a hell of a lot more than I was doing till I was 21 (and similarly, worked in a lab repeating and verifying results of my predecessor and basically following some work put forward by others) but it right now doesn't sound like it is either revolutionary or even very evolutionary. It's not like I've done either in the scientific fields, so it's not a knock against here. again, it's a knock against poor and sensationalistic reporting.
Here was the link given, I haven't had time to read it and see what novel addition she made but the abstract outlines the basic architecture...
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/nl300173j
a reply above pointed out that over a year ago her adviser published a paper on this exact design and its results and she wasn't mentioned, even as a junior junior on the paper. I'm not so sure the cynics aren't right. Though it probably has a lot to do with what goes into winning these things (my classmate was third place, she spent 3 years doing bio research, but it was just recreating something that had already been done before she started and doing a lot of leg work talking to the original professor who did the research). I'm not saying novel research doesn't get done, but generally it's novel in the way most kids who research in a professor's lab for a summer is novel.
yeah, but it's so much cooler to say she invented it than to say she had a connection to get into a lab and copy what someone else had done. It's not liek the other experiments are filled with novel, unique ground breaking research. Most of this stuff is just rehashed work of some researcher who let them sit in the lab and do the same things they had done.
I have calibrated and help set up a laser trap for some biophysics research. doesn't mean I invented the laser trap. But they are always going to talk big about this kind of stuff.
If trades were favored we could turn your comment on its head and it would be equally adept. I can do theoretical physics calculations easily but ask me to draw or cut a straight line and I fail. So I do have an incredible talent at college and my field but none in many of the trades (though I can use a plunger just fine). Don't be so sensitive.
At the end of the day the big advances in society come mainly from those with higher education, whether that be a full college degree or not. So society puts a high value on those skills and commensurately pays for it. Now we are at a point though that we assume college graduation implies you have gained these skills, when in fact college never implied any skills what so ever. A college degree is not required for most work done today, especially not just an undergrad degree. Anything worth doing requires years of specialization and if it to be in an academic pursuit the same applies.
the good app has this feature. And it even allows web browsing the corporate network (which is walled off) through the app on my iphone while my bb can only follow corp policy, including no photo taking, no voice recording, no blog visiting, no "questionable sites" visited. the Good app (iPhone or Android I believe, though I only use it on iOS right now) dominates the bb, and gives me a reliable device, not some overpriced bb POS.
bb is a terrible device. there is no middle ground. it exists because old people who started with it still want it in corporate suites, not because it offers anything of any real use. every reasonable security feature sitting on the bb exists via at least the good app (and probably many more), and the good app let's me use the smartphone as a smartphone because it is walled off. what bb is doing is trying to make sure companies like mine don't completely ditch them, which we are well on our way to doing (monthly allowance for your personal device, app that gives full connectivity, etc), by offering a service that is the same as one we already went through the trouble of rolling out almost 2 years ago.
actually, your point is a pretty gross misstatement of what republicans are saying about the sequester. They are saying that slightly smarter budgeting by agencies could minimize the impact of the budget cuts on end users (in line with their stated goal of more efficient government). Whether or not you believe this will actually happen (though the FAA fix implies at least one counterexample), they do not blame the sequester on democrats, but rather claim the democrats are pushing for sell harming policies to maximize the pain of spending cuts to validate higher spending.
As stated above, the big difference between now and previous generations in the incredible increase in spending on administrators and special needs children. Whether or not you think it is valid for public education to have special medical and education instructors in each school for handicapped children, we may need to rethink this so we don't sacrifice so much for what isn't an incredibly efficient outcome. We could switch to the Japanese model where the government funds a small number of special needs schools where students in a large radius are aggregated so they can get both the education and health needs taken care of with reasonable gains from scale. You are not forced to move to be near such a school when you have a child with special needs, but if you do not, no special dispensation is made in your local public school.
Nothing is easy when we decide to publically fund universal access to anything. It's all very complex. And in most countries, we can show that the beast has to be starved to clean out the rot from time to time (look at US defence spending for a great example, or medicare doctors who only will perform procedures of questionable value simply because medicare reimburses new procedures at a higher hourly rate for it's first several years in existence) to understand why. A forcibly constrained budget makes people address painful questions and at least consider a more reasonable response.
actually, every member of the NRA I know either served, or has an immediate relative who is serving (son, brother, father) and usually that person is also a member.
That obviously isn't data about membership tied to either military or military-like service (national guard, etc) but without the data, your statement is pretty baseless.
so what you are saying is you are less educated than a teen male about giving birth?
Absent medical conditions during birth and assuming a healthy mother going into the birth (i.e. not obese, no pregnancy related diabetes) most women can be up and about the next day and easily doing productive work in a couple days. It's not a physical limitation that demands maternity leave, and when times are tough, women in 3rd world countries regularly have to treck long distances to and from a clinic to give birth, the same day. Generally though, birth is easier on women in the 3rd world if htere aren't complications because they are fitter, healthier, and therefore more capable of coping with the stress of birth on the body.
and it's a valid justification for a certain level of difference. though now adays when numbers and data don't matter, we also say women's healthcare is the same price as men's (patently false) so the insurance cost should be the same.
wow, you are incredibly wrong. Humans, like most mammals, are at their most fertile when they ovulate right after giving birth. In fact, it's almost trivial to get pregnant 3-4 weeks after a healthy pregnancy and birth. I'm not saying the sex is as comfortable, but that is completely irrelevant to whether or not the girl can get pregnant again if she wants. A great example well understood are thoroughbred horses, where 2 weeks after foaling they are taken tot he breeding shed (and yes, your wife's body works the same way, it's how I have 3 cousins that are all 10 months apart in birthdays).
as to how many births:
after you get past the first one, which is statistically the most dangerous, it's pretty easy to have a lot. Very recently in my family history it was 16 and 9 out of the grandmothers. In India, the average fertility rate used to be 7 per woman, adn this included something like a 25% mortality rate on first births by women (meaning the average was really 10 if you made it past 1).
Yes, in modern life with your job, tv shows to watch, dinner dates, etc, it may seem like quite a stretch to have more than 2 or 3 kids (I don't have any plans on in and neither does my wife), but biologically speaking you are not grounded in any type of reality.
having just moved to the UK, my experience so far has been almost all government services aren't worth a damn. Even the NHS is so bad everyone I have met who can afford to goes private 100% of the time. I feel bad for a place where you are taxed so severely only the wealthiest or those at very generous companies can get anything decently. At least in the US, taxes are significantly lower so you can go pay for your own (the effective case for everyone who wants decent healthcare here it seems).
granted if I was an indigent single, pregnant woman in the UK, I may feel different. But then again, I'm not very happy with a system designed for indigents at the expense of everyone but the very rich.
funny aside, while women might gather 80% of the food, it is the hunters bringing in the stable source of protein that allowed our brains to develop enough to have these discussions....
banks regularly jam signals on the trading floor during trading hours. In NYC I used to get perfect signal until 8:15 (or 8:30) and then got none at my seat until 5 PM every day. I could even tell when they changed settings from pure equity trading hours to CME trading hours. But, if I walked to the lobby of the trading floor I had full signal.
That is one bank and I've been told by friends at other banks it's the same there.
tax rates aren't that bad, but the number of loopholes has been reduced so much it's not a very good comparison (for the wealthy). But your rant on the tough situation of hte middle class is off base. In fact, the middle class has never had it better, as they pay less of hte overall taxes burden than their share of income than they have for 40 years and have massively increased the amount of non-declared income (like healthcare benefits), making them winners on both the actual income side and the tax burden side. I don't know why people on slashdot, a website whose readership should pride itself on being informed with hard data, would spread these stories.
if they teach you to pay 35% in your accounting class, you had a bad teacher. Very, very few large scale corporations pay anywhere near that. In fact, getting above 20% is lifting mountains if you have even semi-competent accounting advice. On the other hand, imagine if all that money wasted on finding tax loopholes that are there instead went to something meaningful, even hookers and coke would be a net benefit to society....
really? which model by samsung outsells the iPhone? here is a hint:
teh iPhone 4s, an old model, outsold the galaxy s3 in 2012 4Q, when teh 4s had a much more powerful update available and the s3 was the top in class for samsung. In fact, thanks for your snide, completely incorrect reply, it definitely made me go look up how dominant apple still is in the markets it has released phones