I think apologizing only after you've been found out and pressured to resign isn't really the sign of a sincere apology, and if Foley hadn't been caught, I have no reason to believe he would have had this miraculous change of heart.
Does that make Larry Craig a limousine liberal? Or Mark Foley? Or all the other social conservatives with mistresses, hookers, or a penchant for anonymous gay sex?
Naw. The findings don't really contradict common sense, and they are consistent with other expectations. Further research should be on mechanisms: just how do attentional mechanisms get trained by stimuli in childhood? What are the differences in the attentional demands between television and other stimuli? Is there a relationship between, for example, motor activity and attention? What about affect?
Repeating such a basic and obvious research project just to quell the perennial doubters is a waste of time and money, although I'm sure that someone, somewhere, will still being willing to take a check to do so.
I can't even begin to understand what kind of expectations the grant awarders had when they supported "Boys like blue, Girls like pink" research.
There are a couple interested parties:
1. Those who for various religious and political reasons look for essential gender differences, to justify very stable, often traditional gender roles.
2. Businesses who produce goods that are marketed to gender-based expectation, and who dislike it when their markets diverge too far from the behavior that is expected of them.
What I see in your attitude is something of a reflexive deference to authority: the presumption that the fault must lay in the arrestee unless given substantial evidence to the contrary.
It's an assumption that many people carry with them until their first seriously negative encounter with an authority figure, whether it's a power-tripping cop, a misguided and overzealous prosecutor only interested in their conviction rate, a spiteful administrator, or what have you. You haven't crossed that threshold yet: you're still living in the warm, soft afterglow of your childhood's image of "Officer Friendly."
I don't think anything's been tenable in the long-term. Even the US was torn apart by a Civil War, and its own populace seems to be comfortable pushing an imperial agenda and the surrender of civil liberties in the name of security. The longest tenure of a political system that I can think of still goes to feudalism.
The record is pretty much the same across the board.
It's not Godwinizing to observe that Hitler's rise to power was by democratic and constitutional means, is it? And are Iraq's and Iran's democracies really freer and more pleasant than Oman's Sultanate?
Overhead. Each new hire has a significant overhead that has nothing to do with their hourly wage: benefits, payroll taxes, management costs, etc.
Also, if they were really to be paid a living wage, their hourly wages would have to rise: most hourly workers could ill afford an effect 20% loss of income.
That won't scale, though. It might work for a systems architect, possibly not for your help desk or customer service(where you are paying for availability), definitely not for food or retail service.
I'd like to see the work week shortened, as a benefit of the much vaunted increase in productivity that technology has afforded us, but we'd have to accept some changes that might prove unpopular, including higher prices for services from businesses that would need to hire additional help.
Religion ends and philosophy begins, just as alchemy ends and chemistry begins and astrology ends, and astronomy begins
Sorry to comment on a.sig, but this is historically incorrect, at least for the purposes of your series of analogies. Philosophy in the west dates back to Plato and Aristotle, long before Europe even had its most religious epochs, and centuries before Christianity. Western philosophy does not even have roots in religion: rather, it has roots in civic and political life, and in rhetoric.
I stopped lugging my "desktop replacement" notebook and bought a 6-year old ThinkPad X20 last year as my "constant companion" laptop. It, too, is like a rock - unlike my fiance's 3 year old MacBook. We replaced her MacBook with an iBook, and it seems pretty nice, but I wouldn't want to drag it through the kind of rigors that my ThinkPad goes through.
IBM may have a lot to answer for, but they (and Lenovo) deserve solid kudos for the ThinkPad line.
He observed that he is glad that notasmisfit, with his essentially anarchocapitalist and objectivist stance, is not in charge of his national health care system. Not that he wouldn't receive urgent care in the US.
I encourage the use of malapropisms such as "should of," and the use of the word "less" when "fewer" is correct.
It's a class marker, like the distinction in American speakers between "drapes" (déclassé) and "curtains". When people use these expressions, they reveal themselves. It isn't a judgmental thing: our world needs working class and lower-middle class people. But it helps sort out who gets invited to which events.
Trying to get everyone on the same page for language usage reveals a delusional faith in egalitarianism.
Your term, "real gamers," is probably about identity: people you identify as being hardcore, committed gamers involved and reflecting gamer culture.
It is not the gaming market, which includes men in their forties who play complicated simulation games, children playing educational games, "casual" gamers, etc. Avoid myopia.
You're reading from the objectivist catechism, I see.
Humans are not rational creatures. The bonds that you have with certain people are not rational.
Read the narratives of the kamikaze pilots: they usually chose what they did, or at least embraced their fate/destiny. If happiness is one's standard, knowing that one is dying for cause in a society which embraces you as a member may make you happier than surviving in fear. But I find such utilitarian analysis to be pure hindsight, trying to explain away decisions that are existential choices, not happiness-optimization algorithms.
You cannot fit your own inability to imagine life without your brood into your rationality (you can explain it based on evolutionary motivations, but you aren't your genes.) Doesn't that make you something other than a "rational and free man?" At the very least, you are constrained/determined by your imagination.
I don't agree, but that's orthogonal to the point: that an after-life is not what motivates self-sacrifice. I don't like nationalism, but I don't have respect for people who have nothing that they would be willing to risk their lives for.
Are families evil because parents would be willing to sacrifice themselves for the well-being of the children?
There have been "secular" (or at least non-theist) martyrs in the past. Ancient Rome didn't really have a doctrine of the after-life, and honor-suicides were a part of the culture. The kamikaze pilots of Japan weren't particularly motivated by promises of virgins in the next life, but rather by a sense of duty and obligation in this one.
Slashdot Mirror
I think apologizing only after you've been found out and pressured to resign isn't really the sign of a sincere apology, and if Foley hadn't been caught, I have no reason to believe he would have had this miraculous change of heart.
Does that make Larry Craig a limousine liberal? Or Mark Foley? Or all the other social conservatives with mistresses, hookers, or a penchant for anonymous gay sex?
This is the "market will bare" guy.
I thought that was Larry Flynt.
(You don't mean "bear," do you?)
Naw. The findings don't really contradict common sense, and they are consistent with other expectations. Further research should be on mechanisms: just how do attentional mechanisms get trained by stimuli in childhood? What are the differences in the attentional demands between television and other stimuli? Is there a relationship between, for example, motor activity and attention? What about affect?
Repeating such a basic and obvious research project just to quell the perennial doubters is a waste of time and money, although I'm sure that someone, somewhere, will still being willing to take a check to do so.
I can't even begin to understand what kind of expectations the grant awarders had when they supported "Boys like blue, Girls like pink" research.
There are a couple interested parties:
1. Those who for various religious and political reasons look for essential gender differences, to justify very stable, often traditional gender roles.
2. Businesses who produce goods that are marketed to gender-based expectation, and who dislike it when their markets diverge too far from the behavior that is expected of them.
See, you're arguing that if people were just deferential enough, they wouldn't have problems with authority figures.
This is the very presumption I am criticizing.
What I see in your attitude is something of a reflexive deference to authority: the presumption that the fault must lay in the arrestee unless given substantial evidence to the contrary.
It's an assumption that many people carry with them until their first seriously negative encounter with an authority figure, whether it's a power-tripping cop, a misguided and overzealous prosecutor only interested in their conviction rate, a spiteful administrator, or what have you. You haven't crossed that threshold yet: you're still living in the warm, soft afterglow of your childhood's image of "Officer Friendly."
One contradicts the geeky sense of terminal uniqueness at one's own risk.
I don't think anything's been tenable in the long-term. Even the US was torn apart by a Civil War, and its own populace seems to be comfortable pushing an imperial agenda and the surrender of civil liberties in the name of security. The longest tenure of a political system that I can think of still goes to feudalism.
The record is pretty much the same across the board.
Oh really? History is full of benevolent dictatorships - and malicious democracies.
It's not Godwinizing to observe that Hitler's rise to power was by democratic and constitutional means, is it? And are Iraq's and Iran's democracies really freer and more pleasant than Oman's Sultanate?
Overhead. Each new hire has a significant overhead that has nothing to do with their hourly wage: benefits, payroll taxes, management costs, etc.
Also, if they were really to be paid a living wage, their hourly wages would have to rise: most hourly workers could ill afford an effect 20% loss of income.
That won't scale, though. It might work for a systems architect, possibly not for your help desk or customer service(where you are paying for availability), definitely not for food or retail service.
I'd like to see the work week shortened, as a benefit of the much vaunted increase in productivity that technology has afforded us, but we'd have to accept some changes that might prove unpopular, including higher prices for services from businesses that would need to hire additional help.
It's not more "correct," linguistically. It's simply upper-class. What gets taught indicates aspirations, and generally people aspire upwards.
Religion ends and philosophy begins, just as alchemy ends and chemistry begins and astrology ends, and astronomy begins
.sig, but this is historically incorrect, at least for the purposes of your series of analogies. Philosophy in the west dates back to Plato and Aristotle, long before Europe even had its most religious epochs, and centuries before Christianity. Western philosophy does not even have roots in religion: rather, it has roots in civic and political life, and in rhetoric.
Sorry to comment on a
Correction to the above: reverse iBook and MacBook. You get the idea.
I stopped lugging my "desktop replacement" notebook and bought a 6-year old ThinkPad X20 last year as my "constant companion" laptop. It, too, is like a rock - unlike my fiance's 3 year old MacBook. We replaced her MacBook with an iBook, and it seems pretty nice, but I wouldn't want to drag it through the kind of rigors that my ThinkPad goes through.
IBM may have a lot to answer for, but they (and Lenovo) deserve solid kudos for the ThinkPad line.
I encourage it in the way that I encourage rivals for a job post to dress like clowns and smell of wee.
Your reading comprehension is poor.
He observed that he is glad that notasmisfit, with his essentially anarchocapitalist and objectivist stance, is not in charge of his national health care system. Not that he wouldn't receive urgent care in the US.
But it was a nice try. Really.
I encourage the use of malapropisms such as "should of," and the use of the word "less" when "fewer" is correct.
It's a class marker, like the distinction in American speakers between "drapes" (déclassé) and "curtains". When people use these expressions, they reveal themselves. It isn't a judgmental thing: our world needs working class and lower-middle class people. But it helps sort out who gets invited to which events.
Trying to get everyone on the same page for language usage reveals a delusional faith in egalitarianism.
Your term, "real gamers," is probably about identity: people you identify as being hardcore, committed gamers involved and reflecting gamer culture.
It is not the gaming market, which includes men in their forties who play complicated simulation games, children playing educational games, "casual" gamers, etc. Avoid myopia.
Were the Columbine shooters motivated by religion when they did, essentially, the same thing?
I'm an atheist, by the way. I just find this argument against religion facile and specious.
You're reading from the objectivist catechism, I see.
Humans are not rational creatures. The bonds that you have with certain people are not rational.
Read the narratives of the kamikaze pilots: they usually chose what they did, or at least embraced their fate/destiny. If happiness is one's standard, knowing that one is dying for cause in a society which embraces you as a member may make you happier than surviving in fear. But I find such utilitarian analysis to be pure hindsight, trying to explain away decisions that are existential choices, not happiness-optimization algorithms.
You cannot fit your own inability to imagine life without your brood into your rationality (you can explain it based on evolutionary motivations, but you aren't your genes.) Doesn't that make you something other than a "rational and free man?" At the very least, you are constrained/determined by your imagination.
I don't agree, but that's orthogonal to the point: that an after-life is not what motivates self-sacrifice. I don't like nationalism, but I don't have respect for people who have nothing that they would be willing to risk their lives for.
Are families evil because parents would be willing to sacrifice themselves for the well-being of the children?
There have been "secular" (or at least non-theist) martyrs in the past. Ancient Rome didn't really have a doctrine of the after-life, and honor-suicides were a part of the culture. The kamikaze pilots of Japan weren't particularly motivated by promises of virgins in the next life, but rather by a sense of duty and obligation in this one.
Correct, and I miswrote, but the point is that the WTO has awarded this in the past.